Payne Media as Instrument of War

Kenneth Payne has an article in the new issue of Parameters, the official journal of the US Army War College, called "The Media as an Instrument of War."   The introduction and most of the analysis is pretty straightforward, reviewing the importance of strategic deception and all that:

The media, in the modern era, are indisputably an instrument of war. This is because winning modern wars is as much dependent on carrying domestic and international public opinion as it is on defeating the enemy on the battlefield. ... Today’s military commanders stand to gain more than ever before from controlling the media and shaping their output. The laws and conventions of war, however, do not adequately reflect the critical role that the media play in shaping the political outcome of conflicts. International humanitarian law requires that media members are afforded the rights of civilians; the question is whether this is sustainable when the exigencies of warfighting suggest that controlling the media is essential.

Much of the analysis is pretty unexceptionable, until I got to this, which stopped me cold:

If the media are present, and they are undermining the political-military strategy, it makes sense to control them. If they are behaving in a non-neutral way, it may even seem appropriate to target them. But where are the boundaries of neutrality? Perhaps targeting is lawful if your enemy is using the media to defeat you militarily, for example through a deception operation. But what if he is merely shaping the media reporting of the conflict through his own information operations? Would targeting the media be legitimate in these circumstances, even if the media were not complicit in this strategy?  Or what if the media in question have brought their own damaging prejudices to the battlefield, regardless of the ambition of the enemy to control them?

The broad outlines of debate are readily apparent, as illustrated by the opinion from the Pentagon counsel quoted earlier. If the media are behaving impartially, then they are entitled to treatment as civilians. Where they are not, the assessment of the general counsel suggests that they can be targeted militarily. The trick is in making an accurate judgment about their partiality and the motives behind it.

If I understand Payne correctly, what he is saying is that if the military makes a determination that a media outlet - say, al Jazeera - is reporting in a biased way which complicates the military solution, targeting them militarily is both justifiable and appropriate.   Is that really current Pentagon policy?   

Payne quotes as typical of standard customary international law this opinion from the Red Cross: “The media cannot be considered a legitimate target, even if they are being used for propaganda purposes.”  He then juxtaposes this with a May 1999 legal finding from the Pentagon's general counsel:

"Civilian media generally are not considered to be lawful military targets, but circumstances may make them so....  When it is determined that civilian media broadcasts are directly interfering with the accomplishment of a military force’s mission, there is no law of war objection to using the minimum necessary force to shut them down. The extent to which force can be used for purely psychological operations purposes, such as shutting down a civilian radio station for the sole purpose of undermining the morale of the civilian population, is an issue that has yet to be addressed authoritatively by the international community."

What does this mean for existing policies about targeting 'hostile' media?   Payne says that "As to whether the international media have ever deliberately been violently attacked by Western forces, it is impossible for an outsider to provide a definitive answer, but it seems improbable in most conceivable circumstances."  And he argues specifically against the idea that targeting al Jazeera in Iraq would have been appropriate.   

But what about the broader question of American policy?  If some military commander's judgement about al Jazeera differed from Payne's, would such targeting be deemed a legal and acceptable policy?   Perhaps these issues have been thoroughly mooted elsewhere - perhaps during the Eason Jordan controversy - but I find it fairly shocking.   Is Payne right in his characterization of current legal and policy thinking within the Pentagon? 

UPDATE: John in comments points out that Parameters is an academic journal, not an official Army War College policy journal, which means that this should be treated as a think piece and not an official interpretation of policy. Which leaves the question of whether Payne has correctly interpreted current Pentagon legal and policy thinking open, but would be at least somewhat reassuring. Thanks for the catch.

Comments

[praktike]

A couple points.

One, the US military deliberately dropped bombs without apology on the Serbian, Taliban, and Iraqi media. So there's that, and I imagine that this is pretty standard warfare, as ugly as it sounds. It may even be against the "laws of war."

Re: Al Jazeera, when do the coincidences, accidents, and denials stop being plausible? You read the Hugh Miles book, right?

[hk]

As disturbing as it may seem, attacking "hostile media" has always been a part of military thinking: radio stations were always targeted during World War 2, for example. During the intervention in the Balkans, Belgrade Radio and TV were targeted for much the same reason--it was justified on the claim that it was being used as a "propaganda tool" for the Serbian government. But effective "propaganda," in the end, is a retelling of the facts in a manner favorable to one side or the other (since totally groundless claims are not credible and therefore useless as propaganda), and that's hard to distinguish from, if at all the distinction could be made, from any reporting not advantageous to one side.

In the end, then, I don't see how a military force, if it accepts the notion that some form of media constitutes "legitimate" target, can get away from targetting whoever that it doesn't like, that engages in "unfavorable" reporting. Of course, in the long run, it's counterproductive and smart politico-military leaders would see it. But we are not led by "smart" folks nowadays who can see beyond the obvious.

[upyernoz]

does this mean that eason jordan was right? i mean, it looks to me like the pentagon is saying deliberately targetting journalists is okay

[Freedom Fries]

That's precisely the point, and the scary element of this: before, the lines between friend and foe were clear, as in WWII and during the Kosovo war. So, western public opinions did not react with outrage to the bombing of the Serbian TV building in 99.

But now, the lines are blured, with former allies disagreeing on war operations. So their media will automatiquely being considered more foe than friend if they support their countries stance (ie. France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, etc.).

But more importantly, the question of whether journalists should be considered civilians or not is turned upside down: now civilians are becoming journalists (thru blogs). So what happens to a civilian journalist from the 'other side'?

"Civilian media generally are not considered to be lawful military targets, but circumstances may make them so." Take media out, and you've got your objective.

The Pentagon debate stems from trying to deal with that new and powerful phenomenon. With the same dumb elephant-in-the-China-store reflexions.

[David All]

The media is certainly a legitimate target if it is used openly by the enemy as instruments of propaganda as the Axis radio stations were in WW II and Serbian TV in the Kosovo War were. In other cases such as Al Jazeera where the media seeks to potray a combantant unfairly it seems that keeping them away from the battle along with censorship would hamper their ability to report the war. Differ here from deliberatly slanted reporting like Al Jazeera from reporting stories like Abu Ghraib prison scandel that are bad news, which should not be suppressed.
Finally I note that war is extremely dangerous for all who participate. It is not a sports event where one can get a great action shot with a zoom lense from the sideline. A reporter/photographer/cameraman has to exercise certain common sense: Like not pointing something that could be an armored pierceing missile launcher at a tank and not expect to get blown to pieces! Even if they are doing so from a hotel housing the media corps. Soldiers in the midst of battle are not going to remember such things. The better safe then sorry rule applies with absolute supremacey on the battlefield.

[John Penta]

Abu Aardvark, it may be a good idea to note that Parameters is an ACADEMIC JOURNAL. What Payne speaks of is *not* policy, not even close.

Those unfamiliar with it may read your post and think it's a policy publication.

It's not, not even close. This is where Army thinkers (and lots of others) go to throw stuff and see what sticks to the wall. It's supposed to be a forum for debate, nothing more, nothing less. I can assure you, there'll be lots of letters reaching Parameters for the next issue opposing the idea from up and down the officer corps.

As far as current thinking: David All would know better than I, but I strongly doubt that that's current policy, policy under consideration, or anything resembling a possible policy. It would be irrational. The PR costs of attacking the media would vastly outweigh whatever benefit you might get.

[Penta]

Praktike: Bombing the other guy's media is not against the laws of war. Everybody does it and did it and will always do it if they can. It's generally accepted that communications media (usually transmitters and the like, I've not heard of studios being hit) are targets, because the same TV station that carries the local version of Sesame Street can also carry, for example, reserve callups. It's the same reason you attack the other guy's electrical grid.

[the aardvark]

John,

That's reassuring. I thought that Parameters was an official journal. If it's more of a think-piece journal, that's a different story.

[John Penta]

(Sidenote: Aardvark, I have cookies enabled. However, this thing will never remember my info. Help?)

Yeah. It's official in that it's published by the Army, and high-ranking officers are frequent contributors.

But do *not* mistake it for policy. Every piece contains the disclaimer that it does not represent the opinions of the US Government, the DOD, the Army, etc, etc, etc. It's hard to miss, actually. (Did you get it from the Parameters website? They're really clear.)

The same applies to the journals published everywhere else by DOD organizations. Unless it comes from official channels (which the journals are not considered to be), it's not even close.

[praktike]

Penta, I actually meant to write "It may [not] even be against the "laws of war." If you read the graf, it actually makes more sense that way. Thanks for the catch.

[Patrick]

I don't see why some thought on this subject should be so controversial. We don't even need to reach back to World War II or think about the targeting of Serbian media during the Kosovo campaign. Samantha Powers, in her treatment of the Rwandan genocide, discussed how the US did not take steps to either a) jam or b) destory the Hutu power radio station that not only incited the violence against the Tutsis but served as a communication/coordination tool for the Hutu. Powers makes a convincing case that taking that station off the air and preventing it from returning would have had a significant effect on the speed and intensity of the genocide. There was, however, concern at the DoD, on the part of the General Counsel, that this would raise "freedom of speech" questions. I suspect their concerns were similar to those of the Aardvark and some of the other commenters here. In my opinion, journalists do not hold some special privileged super-national status on the battlefield. If you are an instrument of the enemy, you are fair game. We can argue about the definition of such an "instrument" but that said instruments should be targetable seems intuitive to me.

[Patrick]

Additionally, I would point out that Payne appears to be a professional journalist (a producer for the BBC, of all places) and a Brit to boot. He is not affiliated with the US government or the Department of Defense. It strikes me as interesting that a journalist would be advancing such an argument.

[David All]

John Penta: "As far as current thinking, David All would know better then I".
Gee, thanks for the ego boast, John, but I am just a lowly librarian technician in the Pentagon. I know as much or as little as anybody who follows politics, both domestic and international. I am kind of freeloading off of Uncle Sam in lieu of getting a PC at home, but this freeloading may soon come to an end!
To John and everybody else at abuaarvark, thanks for an interesting week of posts and comments. Abu, thank you especially for your theme song! I think every web site should have one!

[hk]

Patrick,

What exactly "an instrument of the enemy" would constitute?

In a conventional war, where a well-defined "enemy" exists--say, Serbia during the Kosovo crisis--and the radio/TV station is owned by that "enemy," that's fairly easy.

But, in cases like Iraq, the "enemy" owns no such instrument. Rather, it's the "local" (that is, ME) media that's broadcasting with an anti-American slant, partly because US is unpopular in the region and they are catering to their core audience.

What's more, the local media outlet that's given to engaging in anti-American slant more often than others (al Jazeera) also happens to be one of a few reasonably free news sources in a region full of mouthpieces of dictatorships. Incidentally, we are claiming that we're trying to promote democracy and free speech in the area.

The first part of the equation seems to mean that we should regard anyone who engages in anti-American slant in their news reporting as enemy. But this totally undermines the second--free speech means being free to criticize anyone, including us. Regarding journalists as a "legitimate military target," not merely engaging in censorship, is a dangerous step that seriously undercuts our credibility in the region, as if we have more to lose. One might say that it's a war zone and we have a "right" to conduct the war as we see fit, but we've also undertaken the goal of advancing democracy in the region (at least, we claim to) and, unless we can show we're serious about it by subordinating our warfighting aims to the democratizing activities, we lose.

[Patrick]

HK:

My point was that I am not sure what the definition of such an instrument should be, but it does not make sense to a priori prohibit targeting of media. I would suggest that the value of targeting that instrument should be weighed against the cost, both in terms of immediate cost on the battefield and political cost, in terms of its effects on our broader political objectives. It seems to be that this balancing test would of course preclude the targeting of Al-Jazeera correspondents in Iraq. I am not a huge fan of their coverage (I watch it in Arabic by the way) but I don't think that they act at the direction of our enemy. Individuals, say Taysir Alluni, may share sympathies or actually collaborate, but the organization does not. This stands in stark contrast to Al-Manar, a media organization that is an "instrument" of Hezbollah, by any reasonable definition of instrument, in so far as it is owned and operated by the group. While I am not in favor of a military campaign against Hizballah, I see no reason why it wouldn't constitute a legitimate military target.

I would also point out that even in unconventional conflict, the propoganda outlets of the enemy of usually easily identified, per the example I provided of Hutu power radio in Rwanda. In Iraq, it appears that we allow many such outlets, especially those located on the Internet, to continue to operate because we have calculated we have more to gain from such information than to lose from their continued agitation.

There is a clear line between mainstream Arab press, in which, BTW, I would now include Al-Jazeera, and their "slant" against the United States and direct incitement to violence. This line may have been less clear in the case of Muqtada al-Sadr's newspaper and there may be cases in which I makes sense to allow individuals/organizations to cross it. However, it does exist, and the response to transgressors should be a calculated one. There is no pre-existing protection for such people just because they are "media."

[Robert McDougall]

hk:

attacking "hostile media" has always been a part of military thinking: radio stations were always targeted during World War 2, for example

WWII is not a guide to what "has always been" but to what democracies are willing to do when the enemy is Evil with a capital "E". Admittedly for the United States that seems to be most of the time.

Freedom Fries:

So, western public opinions did not react with outrage to the bombing of the Serbian TV building in 99.

As I recall, there was a quite a bit of adverse reaction in Europe, not enough to stop it from happening but enough to make European governments think twice or thrice.

David All:

The media is certainly a legitimate target if it is used openly by the enemy as instruments of propaganda . . .

"Legitimate" by what law? Not by the Geneva Conventions, since propaganda is a civilian not a combatant activity.

Penta:

Bombing the other guy's media is not against the laws of war . . . It's generally accepted that communications media are targets

That is, bombing the other guy's general media is against the laws of war, but bombing specifically military communications facilities is not.

I've not heard of studios being hit . . .

What rock have you been living under, that you "haven't heard" of Radio Television Serbia or Radio Afghanistan?

Patrick

Samantha Powers, in her treatment of the Rwandan genocide, discussed how the US did not take steps to either a) jam or b) destory the Hutu power radio station that not only incited the violence against the Tutsis but served as a communication/coordination tool for the Hutu

Yeah, Payne trailed that red herring too. The pros and cons of breaching the law to interfere with a non-military atrocity have about nothing to with defining the rules of war. The only function of the reference is to confuse the impressionable.

. . . it does not make sense to a priori prohibit targeting of media. I would suggest that the value of targeting that instrument should be weighed against the cost, both in terms of immediate cost on the battefield and political cost, in terms of its effects on our broader political objectives.

You could make the same argument against every protection of civilian persons, or every other item of the laws of war. Arguing for respecting them except when it might cost you is just an obfuscated way of arguing for ignoring them altogether.

Payne, Penta:

To be clear: What you guys are doing is advocating murder. Morally, you're accessories before the fact.