The announcement last week by the United
States of the largest military aid
package in its history – to Israel – was
a win for both sides.
Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast
that his lobbying had boosted aid from
$3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per
cent increase – for a decade starting in
2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a
rebuff to those who accuse him of
jeopardising Israeli security interests
with his government’s repeated affronts
to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence
minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared
last year’s nuclear deal between
Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich
pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr
Netanyahu has implied that US opposition
to settlement expansion is the same as
support for the “ethnic cleansing” of
Jews.
American president Barack Obama,
meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own
critics who insinuate that he is
anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a
fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic party’s candidate to succeed
Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama
administration has quietly punished Mr
Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli
expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal
were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu
stalled negotiations last year as he
sought to recruit Congress to his battle
against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives
roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s
assistance on developing missile defence
programmes is factored in. Notably,
Israel has been forced to promise not to
approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither
inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation
against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White
House’s demand to phase out a special
exemption that allowed Israel to spend
nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on
weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will
soon have to buy all its armaments from
the US, ending what amounted to a
subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed
military largesse – in the face of
almost continual insults – inevitably
fuels claims that the Israeli tail is
wagging the US dog. Even The New York
Times has described the aid package as
“too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has
received at least $100bn in military
aid, with more assistance hidden from
view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid
half of Israel’s military budget. Today
it still foots a fifth of the bill,
despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its
massive investment. As the late Israeli
politician-general Ariel Sharon once
observed, Israel has been a US
“aircraft carrier” in the Middle East,
acting as the regional bully and
carrying out operations that benefit
Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for
Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s
and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A
nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have
deterred later US-backed moves at regime
overthrow, as well as countering the
strategic advantage Israel derives from
its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored
military prowess is a triple boon to the
US weapons industry, the country’s most
powerful lobby. Public funds are
siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies
from American arms makers. That, in
turn, serves as a shop window for other
customers and spurs an endless and
lucrative game of catch-up in the rest
of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive
in Israel in December – their various
components produced in 46 US states –
will increase the clamour for the
cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line
laboratory”, as former Israeli army
negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the
weekend, that develops and field-tests
new technology Washington can later use
itself.
The US is planning to buy back the
missile interception system Iron Dome –
which neutralises battlefield threats of
retaliation – it largely paid for.
Israel works closely too with the US in
developing cyberwarfare, such as the
Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s
civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from
Israel’s new aid package is one
delivered to the Palestinians:
Washington sees no pressing strategic
interest in ending the occupation. It
stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran
deal but will not risk a damaging clash
over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the
aid package to win the credibility
necessary to overcome his domestic
Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the
hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly
before he leaves office, that corners Mr
Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected
meeting at the United Nations in New
York on Wednesday. But their first talks
in 10 months are planned only to
demonstrate unity to confound critics of
the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure
Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid
agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu
need not fear US financial retaliation,
even as he intensifies effective
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right
lesson from the aid deal – he can act
against the Palestinians with continuing
US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf
Fake News And False Flags:
Pentagon Paid $540mn For Fake ‘Al Qaeda’
Videos
By Crofton Black and Abigail Fielding-Smith
October 03, 2016 "Information
Clearing House"
- "Bureau
of Investigative Journalism"
- The Pentagon gave a controversial UK PR
firm over half a billion dollars to run a
top secret propaganda programme in Iraq, the
Bureau of Investigative Journalism can
reveal.
Bell Pottinger’s output included short TV
segments made in the style of Arabic news
networks and fake insurgent videos which
could be used to track the people who
watched them, according to a former
employee.
The agency’s staff worked alongside
high-ranking US military officers in their
Baghdad Camp Victory headquarters as the
insurgency raged outside.
Bell Pottinger’s former chairman Lord Tim
Bell confirmed to the Sunday Times, which
worked with the Bureau on this story, that
his firm had worked on a “covert” military
operation “covered by various secrecy
agreements.”
Bell Pottinger reported to the Pentagon,
the CIA and the National Security Council on
its work in Iraq, he said.
Bell, one of Britain’s most successful
public relations executives, is credited
with honing Margaret Thatcher’s steely image
and helping the Conservative party win three
elections. The agency he co-founded has had
a roster of clients including repressive
regimes and Asma al-Assad, the wife of the
Syrian president.
In the first media interview any Bell
Pottinger employee has given about the work
for the US military in Iraq, video editor
Martin Wells – who no longer works for the
company – told the Bureau his time in Camp
Victory was “shocking, eye-opening,
life-changing.”
The firm’s output was signed off by
former General David Petraeus – then
commander of the coalition forces in Iraq –
and on occasion by the White House, Wells
said.
A huge media operation
Bell Pottinger produced reams of material
for the Pentagon, some of it going far
beyond standard communications work.
The Bureau traced the firm’s Iraq work
through US army contracting censuses,
federal procurement transaction records and
reports by the Department of Defense (DoD)
Inspector General, as well as Bell
Pottinger’s corporate filings and specialist
publications on military propaganda. We
interviewed half a dozen former officials
and contractors involved in information
operations in Iraq.
There were three types of media
operations commonly used in Iraq at the
time, said a military contractor familiar
with Bell Pottinger’s work there.
“White is attributed, it says who
produced it on the label,” the contractor
said. “Grey is unattributed and black is
falsely attributed. These types of black
ops, used for tracking who is watching a
certain thing, were a pretty standard part
of the industry toolkit.”
Bell Pottinger changed ownership after a
management buyout in 2012 and its current
structure has no connections with the unit
that operated in Iraq, which closed in 2011.
It is understood the key people who worked
in that unit deny any involvement with
tracking software as described by Wells.
Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was a huge
media operation which cost over a hundred
million dollars a year on average. A
document unearthed by the Bureau shows the
company was employing almost 300 British and
Iraqi staff at one point.
The London-based PR agency was brought
into Iraq soon after the US invasion. In
March 2004 it was tasked by the country’s
temporary administration with the “promotion
of democratic elections” – a “high-profile
activity” which it trumpeted in its annual
report.
Transactions worth $540 million
The firm soon switched to less
high-profile activities, however. The Bureau
has identified transactions worth $540
million between the Pentagon and Bell
Pottinger for information operations and
psychological operations on a series of
contracts issued from May 2007 to December
2011. A similar contract at around the same
annual rate – $120 million – was in force in
2006, we have been told.
The bulk of the money was for costs such
as production and distribution, Lord Bell
told the Sunday Times, but the firm would
have made around £15 million a year in fees.
Martin Wells, the ex-employee, told the
Bureau he had no idea what he was getting
into when he was interviewed for the Bell
Pottinger job in May 2006.
He had been working as a freelance video
editor and got a call from his agency
suggesting he go to London for an interview
for a potential new gig. “You’ll be doing
new stuff that’ll be coming out of the
Middle East,” he was told.
“I thought ‘That sounds interesting’,”
Wells recalled. “So I go along and go into
this building, get escorted up to the sixth
floor in a lift, come out and there’s guards
up there. I thought what on earth is going
on here? And it turns out it was a Navy
post, basically. So from what I could work
out it was a media intelligence gathering
unit.”
After a brief chat Wells asked when he
would find out about the job, and was
surprised by the response.
“You’ve already got it,” he was told.
“We’ve already done our background checks
into you.”
He would be flying out on Monday, Wells
learned. It was Friday afternoon. He asked
where he would be going and got a surprising
answer: Baghdad.
“So I literally had 48 hours to gather
everything I needed to live in a desert,”
Wells said.
Arrival in Baghdad
Days later, Wells’s plane executed a
corkscrew landing to avoid insurgent fire at
Baghdad airport. He assumed he would be
taken to somewhere in the Green Zone, from
which coalition officials were administering
Iraq. Instead he found himself in Camp
Victory, a military base.
It turned out that the British PR firm
which had hired him was working at the heart
of a US military intelligence operation.
A tide of violence was engulfing the
Iraqi capital as Wells began his contract.
The same month he arrived there were five
suicide bomb attacks in the city, including
a suicide car bomb attack near Camp Victory
which killed 14 people and wounded six
others.
Describing his first impressions, Wells
said he was struck by a working environment
very unlike what he was used to. “It was a
very secure building,” he recalled, with
“signs outside saying ‘Do not come in, it’s
a classified area, if you’re not cleared,
you can’t come in.’”
Inside were two or three rooms with lots
of desks in, said Wells, with one section
for Bell Pottinger staff and the other for
the US military.
“I made the mistake of walking into one
of the [US military] areas, and having a
very stern American military guy basically
drag me out saying you are not allowed in
here under any circumstances, this is highly
classified, get out – whilst his hand was on
his gun, which was a nice introduction,”
said Wells.
It soon became apparent he would be doing
much more than just editing news footage.
CDs that could track the viewer
The work consisted of three types of
products. The first was television
commercials portraying al Qaeda in a
negative light. The second was news items
which were made to look as if they had been
“created by Arabic TV”, Wells said. Bell
Pottinger would send teams out to film
low-definition video of al Qaeda bombings
and then edit it like a piece of news
footage. It would be voiced in Arabic and
distributed to TV stations across the
region, according to Wells.
The American origins of the news items
were sometimes kept hidden. In 2005,
revelations that PR contractor the Lincoln
Group had helped the Pentagon place articles
in Iraqi newspapers – sometimes presented as
unbiased news – led to a DoD investigation.
The third and most sensitive programme
described by Wells was the production of
fake al Qaeda propaganda films. He told the
Bureau how the videos were made. He was
given precise instructions: “We need to make
this style of video and we’ve got to use al
Qaeda’s footage,” he was told. “We need it
to be 10 minutes long, and it needs to be in
this file format, and we need to encode it
in this manner.”
US marines would take the CDs on patrol
and drop them in the chaos when they raided
targets. Wells said: “If they’re raiding a
house and they’re going to make a mess of it
looking for stuff anyway, they’d just drop
an odd CD there.”
The CDs were set up to use Real Player, a
popular media streaming application which
connects to the internet to run. Wells
explained how the team embedded a code into
the CDs which linked to a Google Analytics
account, giving a list of IP addresses where
the CDs had been played.
The tracking account had a very
restricted circulation list, according to
Wells: the data went to him, a senior member
of the Bell Pottinger management team, and
one of the US military commanders.
Wells explained their intelligence value.
“If one is looked at in the middle of
Baghdad…you know there’s a hit there,” he
said. “If one, 48 hours or a week later
shows up in another part of the world, then
that’s the more interesting one, and that’s
what they’re looking for more, because that
gives you a trail.”
The CDs turned up in some interesting
places, Wells recalled, including Iran,
Syria, and even America.
“I would do a print-out for the day and,
if anything interesting popped up, hand it
over to the bosses and then it would be
dealt with from there,” he said.
“Truthful” material
The Pentagon confirmed that Bell
Pottinger did work for them as a contractor
in Iraq under the Information Operations
Task Force (IOTF), producing some material
that was openly sourced to coalition forces,
and some which was not. They insisted that
all material put out by IOTF was “truthful”.
IOTF was not the only mission Bell
Pottinger worked on however. Wells said some
Bell Pottinger work was carried out under
the Joint Psychological Operations Task
Force (JPOTF), which a US defence official
confirmed.
The official said he could not comment in
detail on JPOTF activities, adding: “We do
not discuss intelligence gathering methods
for operations past and present.”
Lord Bell, who stood down as chairman of
Bell Pottinger earlier this year, told the
Sunday Times that the deployment of tracking
devices described by Wells was “perfectly
possible”, but he was personally unaware of
it.
Bell Pottinger’s output was signed off by
the commander of coalition forces in Iraq,
according to Wells. “We’d get the two
colonels in to look at the things we’d done
that day, they’d be fine with it, it would
then go to General Petraeus,” he said.
Some of the projects went even higher up
the chain of command. “If [Petraeus]
couldn’t sign off on it, it would go on up
the line to the White House, and it was
signed off up there, and the answer would
come back down the line’.”
Petraeus went on to become director of
the CIA in 2011 before resigning in the wake
of an affair with a journalist.
The
awarding of such a large contract to a
British company created resentment among the
American communications firms jostling for
Iraq work, according to a former employee of
one of Bell Pottinger’s rivals.
“Nobody could work out how a British company
could get hundreds of millions of dollars of
US funding when there were equally capable
US companies who could have done it,” said
Andrew Garfield, an ex-employee of the
Lincoln Group who is now a senior fellow at
the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “The
American companies were pissed.”
Ian
Tunnicliffe, a former British soldier, was
the head of a three person panel from the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) – the
transitional government in Iraq following
the 2003 invasion – which awarded Bell
Pottinger their 2004 contract to promote
democratic elections.
According to Tunnicliffe, the contract,
which totalled $5.8m, was awarded after the
CPA realised its own in-house efforts to
make people aware of the transitional legal
framework ahead of elections were not
working.
“We
held a relatively hasty but still
competitive bid for communications companies
to come in,” recalls Tunnicliffe.
Tunnicliffe said that Bell Pottinger’s
consortium was one of three bidders for the
contract, and simply put in a more
convincing proposal than their rivals.
A legal
“grey area”
Iraq was a lucrative opportunity for many
communications firms. The Bureau has
discovered that between 2006 and 2008 more
than 40 companies were being paid for
services such as TV and radio placement,
video production, billboards, advertising
and opinion polls. These included US
companies like Lincoln Group, Leonie
Industries and SOS International as well as
Iraq-based firms such as Cradle of New
Civilization Media, Babylon Media and Iraqi
Dream.
But
the largest sums the Bureau was able to
trace went to Bell Pottinger.
According to Glen Segell, who worked in an
information operations task force in Iraq in
2006, contractors were used partly because
the military didn’t have the in-house
expertise, and partly because they were
operating in a legal “grey area”.
In
his 2011 article Covert Intelligence
Provision in Iraq, Segell notes that US law
prevented the government from using
propaganda on the domestic population of the
US. In a globalised media environment, the
Iraq operations could theoretically have
been seen back home, therefore “it was
prudent legally for the military not to
undertake all the…activities,” Segell wrote.
Segell maintains that information operations
programmes did make a difference on the
ground in Iraq. Some experts question this
however.
A 2015 study by the Rand Corporation, a
military think tank, concluded that
“generating assessments of efforts to
inform, influence, and persuade has proven
to be challenging across the government and
DoD.”
Bell Pottinger’s operations on behalf of the
US government stopped in 2011 as American
troops withdrew from Iraq, and its unit that
worked there no longer exists.
“Part of
the American propaganda machinery”
Wells left Iraq after less than two years,
having had enough of the stress of working
in a war zone and having to watch graphic
videos of atrocities day after day.
Looking back at his time creating propaganda
for the US military, Wells is ambivalent.
The aim of Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq was
to highlight al Qaeda’s senseless violence,
he said – publicity which at the time he
thought must be doing some good. “But then,
somewhere in my conscience I wondered
whether this was the right thing to do,” he
added.
Lord Bell told the Sunday Times he was
“proud” of Bell Pottinger’s work in Iraq.
“We did a lot to help resolve the
situation,” he said. “Not enough. We did not
stop the mess which emerged, but it was part
of the American propaganda machinery.”
Whether the material achieved its goals, no
one would ever really know, said Wells. “I
mean if you look at the situation now, it
wouldn’t appear to have worked. But at the
time, who knows, if it saved one life it
[was] a good thing to do.”
This
investigation was published
in collaboration with The Sunday Times,
and a
version was also published by The Daily
Beast. It is part of a series by the Bureau
looking at the use of military contractors
worldwide. If you have any stories or tips
please email croftonblack@tbij.com or
abigailfielding-smith@tbij.com
Follow Crofton Black on
Twitter:
@cr0ft0n - Follow Abigail Fielding-Smith
on Twitter:
@AbbieFS |