Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 22, 2004

Strategic Campaign Extended

Fri Oct 22, 2004 06:21 AM ET

Washington DC (RBN)

The US government has extended its strategic communication campaign to remind "Old"-Europeans of the danger of terrorism. The advertising and influence campaign, which has be running for one year, recently launched into a new phase.

"We need to get more determination to actively fight the war on terror into the European mind" a senior administration official said. "There is no way we will ever have German or French troops in Iraq or Iran if we can not stir up the popular fervour," he added.

The campaign with the slogan "There is no future in terrorism" began in November 2003 with full page advertisements in leading newspapers in ten Western European countries. Additional newspaper ads were launched in March 2004 and in October. New committed funds now allow for 30 seconds TV spots with powerful scenes of nuclear, biological and explosive attacks to be broadcasted.

The advertisement campaign is supervised by VALE International LTD, a group of international professional advertising and public relation consultants under the leadership of Norman Vale, a long time professional in international marketing.

VALE International has established a European entity under the label of "European Security Advocacy Group". The website promises "sustained effort to change people's attitudes and behaviour" and to "raise people's concern about the disastrous threat terrorism poses to world peace".

The strategic communication effort is estimated to have cost $20 million. "We intend this to get us at least one division of European troops into Iraq. That could save us a billion a month," one official said. "It is the cheapest imaginable way to free our troops for other commitments."

Related links:
European Security Advocacy Group
Bjørn Stærk has the TV ads and more information

Posted by b on October 22, 2004 at 11:40 UTC | Permalink


This initiative arrives none too soon!! Apparently European modes
of liberal theological thought are infecting such bastions of American moral rectitude as
Scarborough Country .
God only knows where it will all end, but a judicious application of American psywar know-how may yet allow the heavenly-inspired hosts to prevail in Iraq, and everywhere that terrorists dare to confront the armies of the Lord.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 22 2004 11:56 utc | 1

I predict the Europeans are [again]laughing at the 'ee-jits' in the white house.

If the White House REALLY wants to influence European public opinion, all they have to do is 1. buy up European news outlets. Get Viacom and Disney and GE and Murdoch to grab everything.
2. Pull back troops out of Europe and send Baptist missionaries instead. When the Europeans have to cut social programs to fund their own defense, compassionate conservatives will be poised for the kill.

If it works here, it will work there too.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 22 2004 13:30 utc | 2

"'There is no future in terr'ism'? Yeah, that'll convince them furriners... Euros... whatever they are! Just like the War on Drugs stopped people from gettin' high..."

Seriously, the Bush administration answer to everything seems to be an advertising/marketing campaign (translation: psy-ops). The truly sad part is that it seems to actually work on many people.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 22 2004 13:53 utc | 3

Your point 1 is already well under way: Murdoch controls Sky-TV the largest satelite TV company in Europe (I believe) and a good bit of the British press;
Berlusconi, another Bush ally
has a quasi-monopoly on Italian
mass media; and after bankruptcy Leo Kirch's German TV empire is now controlled by
Haim Saban, a self-confessed one-issue guy. (Israel)

Of course only Tin-hat conspiracy theorists see anything disquieting here.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 22 2004 14:00 utc | 4

I keep a 3-4 tin-foil hats on rotation, just so I'm always prepared.

I'm old enough to remember the news of military takeovers in foreign lands (Africa stands out in my mind) and the point my history teacher made -- they always take over the radio stations, TV stations, newspapers FIRST.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 22 2004 14:06 utc | 5

I don't want to descend into full paranoid mode: as Harry Truman used to say there's nothing wrong with lobbying, and just as industrial lobbying could be countered by labor lobbying (at least back in the good old days) so too media concentration, while disquieting, is potentially counterbalanced by the possibilities offered by the internet. That is a delicious paradox when one considers the military origins of the net. It's possible to be better informed than ever before, but, I fear, most people have neither the disposition, time, nor the energy to exploit these
new possibilities. This forum is one place that gives rise to some hope.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 22 2004 14:14 utc | 6

most technologies have some military origins. subsidized by the public, of course.

Want to know the hardware behind Echelon?

Posted by: b real | Oct 22 2004 14:27 utc | 7

@ b real
Nice link. Recent (dis?)information would have it that Echelon is outmoded, and that "they" are having difficulty
in coping with the enormous flux of new signals. But then, that's what "they" would want us to believe isn't it. I am a bit fanatical about the importance of COMSEC, (communications security) in
international affairs, but I suspect the Yanks are really losing that battle by now, despite undocumented software and hardware "features" supplied by complacent national
companies. There was an interesting thread ("Thuraya Phones in Iraq") in this regard on George Maschke's

Intelligence forum
at the Topica website. (Registration required, I think, but no big hassle, you can even be anonymous if you desire).

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 22 2004 14:40 utc | 8

Is this a fake news site or something? ESAG is not funded by the US government. There is, from what I'm aware, not a shred of evidence indicating otherwise - and the matter of fact way this article claims that there is is highly suspicious, as is the quote at the end.

I've got nothing against fake news sites, as long as they're fairly obvious fakes. That is not the case here, which makes me wonder about the author's motives.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk | Oct 22 2004 15:10 utc | 9

Someone seems to be ESAG-erating.

Posted by: Hannah K. O'Luthon | Oct 22 2004 15:16 utc | 10

@ Bjørn Stærk
Yes, it is fake, Bernhard does this to us and is probably peeing his pants laughing.

What messes you up is that it could be.

Posted by: Dan of Steele | Oct 22 2004 18:56 utc | 11

Unfortunately,1280,-4569875,00.html>this is apparently not fake.

Science magazine suggests Brazil has capacity to produce nuclear weapons.

Oh boy, let's invade Brazil! I wonder what they've got that we want? Is Science a known element of the Mighty Wurlitzer, btw?

Posted by: DeAnander | Oct 24 2004 1:38 utc | 12

The posting is only one quarter fake. ESAG is existing. I did see the TV spots several times myself. That`s why I started researching.

- the TV spots are runnning as are the newspaper adds.
- ESAG has a website but does not name any money source
- VALE International is running the campaign
- Mr. Vale will not say who pays or this multi million $ campaign.
These are facts!

- The "officials" and their cites are made up by me.

Now who is paying multimillion $ to scare Europeans on terror?

Posted by: b | Oct 24 2004 10:01 utc | 13

b: The posting is only one quarter fake. ESAG is existing.

Yes. But I don't see the relevance. You're making up facts in a way that, to accidental readers with little knowledge of the subject, appear factual. Why? I don't detect an attempt to be humorous here. So why did you make up these facts? Why didn't you mark this entry in a way so that a random intelligent reader searching for, say, ESAG + US government, can tell that it is fake?

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk | Oct 24 2004 15:45 utc | 14


Because it is
1. most likely the US government is paying this campaign and I am not aware of any other organisation that
1a. had officially annonced a program of strategic disinformation
1b. could have any interest in spending millions on such a thing

2. Because it is a message from RBN - reality based news and this is a Reality-based blog - (sometimes in the Bush sense).
3. The readership of this blog knows it´s half truth because they did read the last two RBN messages here too
4. Because it is my blog run in the tradition of Billmons Whiskey Bar and the first amendment is relevant here

Posted by: b | Oct 24 2004 16:48 utc | 15


the event are so, so sad - that i like others here need your humour tho i've been tricked more than once

still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 24 2004 16:52 utc | 16

b: Because it is
1. most likely the US government is paying this campaign and I am not aware of any other organisation that

Irrelevant. You may argue that this is likely all you like. That's not what you did here.

The readership of this blog knows it´s half truth because they did read the last two RBN messages here too

I'm sure they do. Random visitors, possibly researching who ESAG's sponsors are, do not. Did you follow the Google link? Your site is number 9 on the search ESAG + "US government". All I'm saying is that this gives you a moral responsibility to mark your fake entries as fake. Otherwise you mislead people.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk | Oct 24 2004 20:54 utc | 17


All I'm saying is that this gives you a moral responsibility to mark your fake entries as fake. Otherwise you mislead people.

Say as you like - I deny any "moral" responsibility to mark what I write to your satisfaction.

If people are mislead by this it's fine with me. Maybe they will ask their government who pays for these aids. That should be helpful to find out who has the moral responsibility for the disinformation terror campaign.

Posted by: b | Oct 24 2004 21:10 utc | 18

b: If people are mislead by this it's fine with me. Maybe they will ask their government who pays for these aids.

Then you're a liar, who use false information to further your political cause, and no better than the kind of group you believe ESAG is. Very well, I won't bother you any more.

Posted by: Bjørn Stærk | Oct 25 2004 5:34 utc | 19

Well, anything that can convince people the current US admin at large is a bunch of traitorous scheming scumbags bent on world domination is fine with me. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it helps to bring them down by any means necessary.
Beside, this whole stuff is stupid. If the US wants to convince Europe that they too have to fight terrorism, they only need to do some covert ops terror attacks, like blowing up Spanish trains. Not that I'm suggesting any link here, mind you. Just keep in mind that Instapundit once said that since "EU was using Palestinians killing Israelis as a proxy war against the US, the US would be legitimate to fund Muslim terrorists to kill Europeans, this way showing them they're not safe and should support Bush instead of fighting him".

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Oct 25 2004 13:13 utc | 20

I went down to the Pentagon for the annual Army 10 Miler race on Sunday. My husband couldn't run in it this year because registration closed before his return from overseas, so the two of us worked as volunteers. We arrived before dawn and it was cold and wet and coffee was maddeningly hard to come by, but it was not an unenjoyable morning. With about 20,000 participants, the 10 Miler is open to civilians but thousands of active-duty, National Guard, and Reserve soldiers take part, many competing in teams that come from posts abroad. It is not often anymore that I find myself moving about in a sea of soldiers, especially the very young men and women who comprise the majority of the Armed Forces - Privates and Lieutenants and Specialists and Sergeants and Captains. Observing and listening all morning, I kept in mind rgiap's words:

"for me they are no different from the german armies who marched through western & eastern europe - there is no difference to me at all"

What to make of that?

Rgiap is obviously quite sincere, and is to be given credit for stating unequivocally what logically follows from the not uncommon belief that Bush is appropriately likened to Hitler and OIF (or the War on Terror generally) to Germany's war under the Reich. Referring to US soldiers as murderers became unfashionable and rather frowned upon after Vietnam and it is currently the habit of most American war protesters to steer clear of such broad indictments. They support the soldiers but condemn the war, they say - or support the soldiers BY condemning the war. But terrorists and murderers, as rgiap specifically identifies American soldiers in one of his Saturday posts, deserve no such support. What terrorists and murderers deserve is death and defeat - the complete removal of their threat to the civilized world. Those who defend or consciously refrain from condemning the guilty commit treason against the innocent. And, truth be told, the Nazi army had a greater claim to innocence, on the whole, than our own, being in large measure conscripted.

Just as the Third Reich's campaign of extermination and enslavement could not have been improved upon under different leadership, so our own war cannot, if the comparison is accurate, benefit morally from a change in fuehrer. If its execution becomes more competent, more efficatious, under a new civilian leader, then it is all the more dangerous and regrettable. Furthermore, any man who would desire to lead, to carry on with, such a brutal criminal enterprise is a psychopath of the first rank, in common with the present leader - a man from which civilized human beings can only recoil in horror, and one for which there can be no redeeming feature.

Rgiap means what he says and what he says has logical implications. Because he is highly respected here by many, his words merit serious attention, and none perhaps more than the grave opinion expressed above. He is certainly not the only person on earth, or even at MOA, to be of that opinion and this is another reason to carefully consider where it leads.

Think about it.

Posted by: Pat | Oct 25 2004 16:40 utc | 21


i do mean what i say - & i thank you for recognising that fact & the implications of what is being said

i know you say it as a complete condemnation of my position but as always your post have the merit of being honest - of not pulling back - & i appreciate that

as in the instance i gave in the case of the vietnam war - i understood exactly what were the implications of my actions & i took & still take responsibility of those actions - knowing absolutely that their end product perhaps comprimised my humanity. but that war needed to end as i feel this war needs to end - & i knew one had to go further than talking, or writing or a whole range of other activities - that in & of themselves do not lead to a soldiers death - soldiers of either side - but i knew that my action was directly connected with that possibility & i had to reconcile myself to that fact though i shared that responsibility with others

& you're also correct pat - that i see this army as an army of barbarians - as a mass - they are - i do not withdraw that statement - knowing that the men & women who constitute that army are men & women like you & i & they contain disproportionately - the people with whom i feel a natural affinity - the poor, the marginalised, foreigners who fight to have the green card. but as a mass, a force, a power - they indeed constitute an enemy of humanity & for me not so different in fact or reality from the unspeakable reality of the organisation(s) which are constituted either by the salafist, or by o b l - for them as for all absolutists - the people do not even constitute anything other than a contingent reality(ies)

& i do believe as you have suggested - that for me silence constitutes consent & consent equals without doubt - in any fundamental sense - accord

i am too melancholy a marxist to believe we are capable of qualitative change in a moment - or even over a long period of time - but i do think we are capable of qualitative shifts - even if those shifts are made for the sake of nothing other than survival. in that sense kerry could constitute a quantitative change - but also as you've pointed out - i accept that if he is just a more efficient means to carry out this war - then yes - he becomes a palpably more dangerous instrument than the dregs of the three or four administrations who are in effect the circle of bush. & they carry with them all the bent & perverse follies of those administrations. so if kerry was to continue this war by other means - then yes he is undoubtedly the more dangerous

i want to go back to your actions in germany & mine in vietnam - we accept responsibility & acted out our world views & that is in effect simply what i ask other people to do & it is a large part of my work in this country is to demand for people to take responsibility for their lives, the lives of their community, the lives of their country & the world they live in - this responsibilisation for me is the most basic fact of my life - it means as i have said to alabama - that the giving can be done without wanting the other to share my opinion, for example & would see as a logical consequence of my work that people differ violently from me, & they do

you demand as i do - that people really reflect on what is being said - that is is not fetishistic or elaboration - but in some sense - a coming to terms. i am reminded here of what the filmmaker rainer fassbinder once sd 'that if you are incapable of telling the truth the least you can do is to try not to lie"

& in that sense, i respect what you have said, & waht you say - while acknowledging we are diametrically opposed - but that our duty here - & i take these post very seriouslly indeed, requires the truth to be said despite the offence it may cause

i remember defending you pat against the texts of galiel because i thought he was being personally offensive to you - & for me that was unacceptable - i suppose you will find that strange, tragic maybe even comic - that the person who implicity calls for military end to your country's occupâtion is the same person who wants manners to be considered seriouslly. & it seems to be the highest manners here is to listen. to really listen. & that i have tried

& i have found it disrespectful - when you & others have spoken of a choir - i simply do not see that - at all. everyone here is so singular in their intent, in their manner, in their writing - in their way of communicating with one another - i cannot possibly see it in any forms as a choir. if we write & we think well - then hopefully there is a resonance with the other who is reading & sometimes responding. & when i write to you i think i see a pat not just any public whatever. certainly i must make presumptions but we exist within a forum where those presumptions can be hit on the head, quickly

i am also thankfull for the interventions of alabam & deanander - who demand a cooler response - less heated - & they are right to ask for that - there is sufficient noise in our world - but as you have clearly understood - when i am speaking here i speak with my voice & perhaps the traged of that voice is that i was born with a yeatsian 'fanatic heart'

this to say you are an essential voice here - you are not a bully & a thief like a roy cohn or a karl rove - your voice's humanity is clear to me - thoug i would never wish to be on the other side of your interrogators table

speaking of which i & others have been concerned fro a long time with the dissapearance of 'outraged' - he brought so much to this community that i long for his frantic posts

still steel

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Oct 25 2004 18:05 utc | 22

From what I understand of the professional German military in WW2, they were not to be confused with the evil SS. Individual german soldiers, like Rommel, had integrity and honor -- and saw Hitler for what he was and, although they followed orders on the battlefield, they did not follow the bigotry and hatred and the orders to commit civilian atrocities.

Can the same be said for our military? Are our soldiers merely fighting enemy soldiers on the battlefield, or are they jarhead bigots who believe they are on a Christian crusade to kill 'sandniggers' and 'towelheads'? There seem to be some elements of the SS within our own military system. Two words: ABU GRAIB.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 26 2004 0:49 utc | 23

2 more words: geneva conventions.

Our military is becoming a Republican Party tool opposed to the geneva conventions, blindly following the Party, not the UCMJ.

Posted by: gylangirl | Oct 26 2004 1:04 utc | 24

Tell more lies, please.

Posted by: RickVonSloneker | Mar 14 2005 7:38 utc | 25

Glad this thread was revived.

Reading through this, I wondered about all those american soldiers who proudly believe in the "F" part of "OIF." Many soldiers and much of the American public was fooled by the Bush administration, so the soldiers, imo, are not culpable for imperialism.

We "need to think about this" because the war is moral only if "OIF" is true. The responsibility of the left is to treat soldiers with respect and to demonstrate kindly to them the immorality of this war.

So much evidence points to this immorality. Consider today's Juan Cole post on the>collapse of Kurd-UIA negotiations:

So why is the United Iraqi Alliance, the coalition of Shiite parties that can count on about 53% of the members of the Iraqi parliament to vote for it in the wake of the Jan. 30 elections, not able to form a government? If it were the Labor Party in the UK, which is the parliament described above, Ibrahim Jaafari would already be Prime Minister.

The US spiked the Iraqi parliamentary process by putting in a provision that a government has to be formed with a 2/3s majority. This provision is a neo-colonial imposition on Iraq. The Iraqi public was never asked about it. And, it is predictably producing gridlock, as the UIA is forced to try to accommodate a party that should be in the opposition in the British system, the Kurdistan Alliance.

Likewise, in France, a simple majority of the National Assembly can dismiss the cabinet. Likewise in India. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the 2/3s super-majority is characteristic of only one nation on earth, i.e. American Iraq. I fear it is functioning in an anti-democratic manner to thwart the will of the majority of Iraqis, who braved great danger to come out and vote.

It is all to the good if the Shiites and Kurds are forced to come to a set of hard compromises. But not everything can be decided at the beginning of the process. Some issues (Kirkuk is a good example) must be decided by a long-term negotiation. I perceive this latest Kurdish demarche to consist in a power play where they grab all sorts of concessions on a short-term basis, just because they are needed to form a government, even though no national consensus has emerged on these issues.

To be sure, only after the soldier knows w/ certainty the imperialism of "our" aim does he deserve to be culpable in this immoral act, and worthy of our scorn.

Posted by: slothrop | Mar 14 2005 16:21 utc | 26

what gets me is that i've heard from veterans organized against war that in a marine's training they still speak highly of smedley butler and cherry pick around war is a racket and what butler did outside of his service. copies of the book float around barracks, so how can one not grasp the msg? groupthink, peer pressure, rigid authoritarianism, etc means that a soldier doesn't have to face the facts, but merely follow orders.

anyway, that type of change requires change from w/i the leadership and from a soldier's immediate family. several veteran groups are prominently involved in the big demo near ft. bragg in fayetteville, nc this coming saturday (march 19th). also was a good cover story in harper's this month on going awol.

Posted by: b real | Mar 14 2005 16:43 utc | 27

"what gets me is that i've heard from veterans organized against war that in a marine's training they still speak highly of smedley butler...."

I guess you saying it means it is either:
1. true
2. not true

Posted by: lumberjack | Mar 26 2005 17:25 utc | 28

It must frustrate you sniveling little shits to no end to realize just how irrelevant you really are.

America is going to crush the Islamic fascists, and you will go down in history as so many, at best, mewling '30s-style pacifists who sat smugly on their hands, boasting of their virtue while the fascists built their death camps.

Quite a few will be remembered as the moral equivalents of Lindbergh, or even the Brown/Silver/Blue shirts.

Keep running your mouths. We won't forget who you are and what you say.

And pray to whatever gods you believe in that we will be as tolerant and forgiving this time as we were in '45.

Posted by: Earnán | Apr 27 2005 18:49 utc | 29


America is going to crush the Islamic fascists

What's your proof? What do you mean islamic fascists?

I'm intrigued by your ideas. Can you explain yourself?

Do you have a newsletter?

Posted by: slothrop | Apr 27 2005 19:19 utc | 30

The comments to this entry are closed.