FARA seems to have little impact on social media trolls who, in all likelihood, represent foreign interests. Hence the abundance of disinformation which produces misinformed accounts which share it.
1. Knowing what we know now, it was a resentful reading… including gag reflex. Yet even with that shadow, Flynn’s dialogue flowed logically and believable. If it came with the required disclosure, it would have lost a lot of impact. That transparency inspires mental vigilance.
2. Tough question. Yes, I believe covert foreign propaganda has a place. However, in today’s borderless information realm, I believe that covertness is a myth – at least after it has time to spread.
3. Yes, I believe the covert propaganda can erode our credibility. One thing most folks don’t like about communications from countries such as Russia and China is the propaganda. And that propaganda is quite overt. Consider how China’s attempt to look better to the world in dealing with COVID went. We really have a hard time believing anything from those countries.
1. I don’t recall having ever read Flynn’s op-ed before, and it’s hard to scrub my mind of his treachery in hindsight. That said, I think there’s enough crazy uncle in his piece to set off alarm bells, not least of all that he never connects Güllen to any specific act of terrorism besides setting up sketchy charter schools (a market the cleric certainly had not cornered). Flynn tosses out all the right-wing buzzwords (the media, radical Islamist, Sharia law, 9/11…Clinton), and there’s plenty of guilt by association (he’s just like the Qutb guy, and did I tell you about al Bana? Scratch that, he’s the AYATOLLAH!). Flynn is, predictably, completely unreflective about our foreign policy failures in both Iran and Iraq. But this line really earns a Hooboy™: “If he were in reality a moderate, he would not be in exile, nor would he excite the animus of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government.” I mean, if he's in exile he must deserve it right? Totally circular. Knowing now that Flynn was getting paid by Turkey for this disinfo campaign only helps explain why this piece is as bad as it is. Erdoğan probably should have asked for a refund.
2. In the age of the internet and social media we probably can’t make a meaningful distinction between foreign and domestic audiences. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws to limit how and when government agencies engage in propaganda. There needs to be a mechanism to stifle and punish bad actors within our own institutions. The revelations about Mark Meadows’ texts from TPM this week indicate that there are way too many people in the U.S. government that share Mike Flynn’s mentality.
3. Blowback is real, but I would argue that the more serious danger is from genuinely bad foreign policy than propaganda. We can recognize the necessity of U.S. support for democracy and independence in Ukraine for instance, and also justifiably say to the administration, “Great! Now do Yemen.” Without oversimplifying the complexities of international relations, I think there is a broad principle that the more, and more consistently, we support democracy (and necessarily, economic independence) around the globe, the less reliant we will be on propaganda and less vulnerable to blowback.
Dec 15, 2022·edited Dec 15, 2022Liked by Asha Rangappa
1. Turkey is the perfect example of a country that is a USA ally and NATO member because of the adage, “The enemy of our enemy is our friend,” similar to why the Soviet Union was our “friend” during WWII against Nazi Germany. So Mike Flynn’s pro-Turkey propaganda in his 2016 op-ed should not have been credible for informed people who are aware of WHY Turkey is our “friend.”
2. Limited US government propaganda domestically is OK if it provides a public service such as battling the Covid pandemic AND the information is factual. Foreign US government propaganda is absolutely permissible as it was effectively used during the fall of the autocratic governments of the USSR and Eastern Bloc, and is no doubt used today in Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other countries to help provide factual information about the USA and Western countries to help offset the constant black propaganda fed to their citizens by their repressive governments.
3. If US covert propaganda activities are focused on our “enemies” with hostile governments such as Iran in an attempt to assist the masses to rise up and overthrow their government, I don’t think it matters if covert US propaganda activities are exposed. However, our credibility would likely be eroded if some sort of propaganda activities are exposed in countries which are USA allies, such as NATO members.
1. Does the law prescribe how prominent/where the foreign agent disclosure appears? Appending a disclaimer to the end of an article is not effective notice because most people will just see a headline within a social media feed and will not click on the article, let alone read to the end. A prominent disclosure might make readers more skeptical, but I’m not sure this can be enforced. It’s too easy for private citizens who agree with a foreign agent’s argument to share it without the disclaimer.
2. In a world where a foreign publication can be instantly shared with Americans, there is no meaningful distinction between permissible foreign propaganda and impermissible domestic propaganda. This creates a difficult problem. If you ban the US government from promoting ideas to Americans, you are exposing Americans to unrestricted propaganda from foreign governments who are acting against our interests without providing any response. Yes, private citizens can disagree with foreign propaganda but they won’t have the same incentives, reach, and resources that a government would.
At the same time, allowing the government to promote ideas to Americans poses different challenges. What is the basis for distinguishing between legitimate domestic propaganda and illegitimate partisan campaigning that uses the resources and psychological playbooks of the intelligence services for political gain? Would Democrats trust the Trump administration to use that power responsibly? Would Republicans trust Biden to do so? I doubt it. I think the solution cannot turn on government speech. Any good solution will have to make changes to the information environment itself.
“What if there is a really, really good reason to engage in covert, pro-democracy propaganda, even if it might reach domestic audiences? What if it’s to help an ally, like, say, Ukraine, counter an actual military aggression by winning hearts and minds in the information space? Yeah, no, we Americans don’t really go for that, either.”
What happens when a signal or symbol is released and a battle develops over what that signal or symbol means? In theory, each person is free to define that signal or symbol however they want, yet it would be naive to assume there aren’t influencers who wish to define it for a larger audience— some of those influencers being potential enemies. For example: who invented the circle? What does it mean to you? If it represents, say, *global democracy* to one person (or audience or demographic), and “kleptocracy” to another person (or audience or demographic), do you stand back and watch that conflict develop, or do you participate, and say, hey, I’d rather have this mean *global democracy*? Is “winning hearts and minds in the information space” such an evil thing, versus the alternative— doing nothing, and/or being a welcome mat for geopolitical adversaries?
All this may sound vague, and perhaps I’m wading into murky territory where influence campaigns, psy-ops, psychology, and visual communications merge. Forgive me— I’m still learning. And these classes are some serious food for thought.
1. a) If one did one's homework on Flynn and Gulen in 2016 one wouldn't even have read it. I didn't.
b)I don't know enough about "The HIll" to comment on whether they'd print it or not.
c)it can. It neutralized it for me. If The Hill had put the disclaimer at the top of the article it might be more immediately "transparent". But then, why take time to read it once you know it's BS? Unless, of course it's an assignment for the Freedom Academy!
2. a) It may depend on the purpose of the p-ganda. i.e., to inform about pandemics or disasters, etc. And then it's a matter of degree. IMHO all political speech is p-ganda, for domestic or foreign consumers.
b) You use the word "enforced" and there's the rub! I suppose you mean By Law. Well, I guess we'll have to can the 1st Amendment and just start over. Fox News/Tucker Carlson, etc. are often broadcast in Russia to strengthen their p-ganda to their own people. I often wish US would declare war w/Russia just so we could take the Putin apologists off the "air"! Because right now all that disinformation is protected speech.
3. a) WELL....! What credibility is that? AND... Why is the Pentagon even doing cyber ops? The US should have ONE department devoted specifically to cyber ops and not a fractured policy with Military, CIA, State Department, etc. all doing it.
b) I'm of the opinion our credibility would be *enhanced* if we had a dedicated cyber ops unit that was effective in promoting democracy and countering foreign cyber ops.
(1) Transparency would not have been a sufficient guardrail for me in 2016. I would have assumed that the arguments in Flynn's essay were legitimate, even if one-sided. Seated in a jury box, I assume that the arguments offered by competing attorneys are one-sided, but not outright lies. So a shameless liar can always fool me once.
(3) But not twice. I resent being lied to, and I assume international audiences do so as well. So I object to any deceptive propaganda on the ground that it breeds, not only resentment, but a reluctance to trust the government even when it is telling the truth. If a country has worthwhile goals, it can honestly promote them. If not, it should change its goals.
Of course there are exceptions—I wouldn’t have asked Eisenhower to announce his D-Day strategy—but the exceptions prove the rule: Such examples do not breed resentment or mistrust.
(2) For the same reason, I don’t think it matters whether the audience is foreign or domestic. A reputation for honesty is a precious asset and shouldn’t be thrown away. (Unfortunately, thanks to Trump, it will take many years of scrupulous honesty to rebuild whatever favorable reputation the United States once had.)
So glad I did! The audio helps makes the lesson very comprehensible, easy to follow. It's also great to hear the more subtle nuances you're able to impart.
Q1. This is going to sound really bad and I dont mean it to. I am not this conceited, but I need to make a point. Because I am reasonably well-educated, I am skeptical of anything I am told or read. Also, I know what an "Op-Ed" piece means in terms of journalism, so I would not be immediately swayed. "Op-ed" is in itself a warning label, right? (Watch Fox News try to deal with opinion v. news reporting in the Dominion suit.) I would look for references in his article ("According to ..."). I would look for "sales" language (hyperbole, extreme sounding claims or statements). I might consider the logic of his argument. I dont sit down with a pad and paper and do this: it is how I read "Opinion" pieces. And yes, I can and have been fooled. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer (thankfully) to do this. But one does need a good education. Any good education would teach someone how to write a paper or presentation ie make an argument, do research, support it with reliable sources and address apposing arguments. Any high school kid in this day and age should at least know what the scientific method is and how it works (without being a scientist) and therefore have at least an inkling of what BS smells like. Anyone care to speculate on how well this is going in the schools in your state? As I said, it is not fool proof and you dont need to be a fool to be deceived but it would at least cause a reasonable person to harbour doubt and maybe check it out. This is not about adding to the curriculum! It is about teaching reading and writing and arithmetic. Unless individuals are equipped to at least not be swept away by everything they read or see, I doubt that any law or any number of content moderators will save us from being swept away in a tsunami of ignorance. It would be interesting to see the research on whether more "educated" people are more easily swayed than less educated. There must be some.
1. Flynn's credibility was eroded considerably after his ties with Turkey were revealed, which speaks to the Transparency part of your discussion. That background creates another context for his speech, changing its value or meaning. The communicator needs to be credible to persuade. Revealing Flynn's conflict of interest hurt perceptions of his character. "[The speaker's] character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possess." - Aristotle
Persuasion is the root of democracy. After all, we've decided to give up violence as a means of deciding power distribution in the United States. We vote, and use persuasion to decide who to vote for. Transparency, and the conflicts of interest it reveals, is an important part of that.
I listened to the lecture while making raw cat food which is a mindless and yucky task. The first 1/2 of the lecture being about Flynn increased the yuck factor.
Pre 2016 I may have considered Flynn's position though I would have been skeptical. I would have been even more skeptical knowing he was a registered foreign agent of Turkey. I don't consider The Hill an objective news source to begin with especially after the Solomon debacle.
Unfortunately, the US has to engage in covert propaganda. Although the facebook propaganda had more engagement when it was overt and not fed through fake accounts, there are times when just knowing the source will cause resistance. Our historical credibility was such that overt propaganda was effective. The US had a good reputation in the world in general, but then ops like the one you described in Iran cause a ripple of distrust that widens over time. Iranians didn't call the US the "Great Satan" for nothing.
So the cat food making took longer than 15 min and I listened to Mary Trump's latest Nerd Avengers podcast. While discussing CRT and school board meetings, Danielle Moodie said that the source of the greatest spread of White Supremacy in the US is in the K-12 school curriculum. It seems to me that this form of propaganda is the most insidious and worrisome.
Q1. I think Flynn's op-ed carried good weight with credibility as he had good instruction, not only from the Turks, but I think from Stone and Manafortas well. Those two have a long history of promoting authoritarian/ autocratic strongmen by working for Mobutu, Barre and Marcos- with Manafort representing Putin for three years. Flynn's article projected the Turkish slant really well while seeming credible simply by his credentials. I would hope The Hill would have thought very carefully regarding whether to publish or not, balancing protection by the First Amendment versus what they want public perception of their identity to be. I do not think transparency neutralizes black propaganda, it rescues the publisher from responsibility and accountability, both of which are (have been) seriously lacking for years.
Q2. I do not see how US government propaganda, whether foreign or domestic - overt or covert can be enforced. So many players in digital communication across the world have access to disseminate propaganda, and disinformation at lightning speed with a very short end game (versus the long game for Operating Infektion). I think the loop holes are large and easy to overcome simply with the "I did not know" defense and in reality no accountability or consequences if discovered.
Q3. Yes. I think covert operations are necessary to keep pace with every other countries covert operations. In my opinion, US credibility has been damaged but is improving. I find it interesting that people like Flynn, Stone, Manafort and many others, who have engaged in strongmen's tactics for a very long time are probably watched by government officials but there is no plausible legal action to take simply by what has been outlined in todays lecture. The only potential I see is effective counter measures, that with enough research on digital trails by these people, lead to the launch large scale pre-bunking information operations.
You got the 1953 coup in Iran kind of backwards. The coup got rid of the Prime Minister, thus strengthening the position of the Shah, who had been in office since 1941 (and remained in office until the 1979 Revolution). This does not affect the points you were making, but it's nice to get the details right.
FARA seems to have little impact on social media trolls who, in all likelihood, represent foreign interests. Hence the abundance of disinformation which produces misinformed accounts which share it.
1. Knowing what we know now, it was a resentful reading… including gag reflex. Yet even with that shadow, Flynn’s dialogue flowed logically and believable. If it came with the required disclosure, it would have lost a lot of impact. That transparency inspires mental vigilance.
2. Tough question. Yes, I believe covert foreign propaganda has a place. However, in today’s borderless information realm, I believe that covertness is a myth – at least after it has time to spread.
3. Yes, I believe the covert propaganda can erode our credibility. One thing most folks don’t like about communications from countries such as Russia and China is the propaganda. And that propaganda is quite overt. Consider how China’s attempt to look better to the world in dealing with COVID went. We really have a hard time believing anything from those countries.
1. I don’t recall having ever read Flynn’s op-ed before, and it’s hard to scrub my mind of his treachery in hindsight. That said, I think there’s enough crazy uncle in his piece to set off alarm bells, not least of all that he never connects Güllen to any specific act of terrorism besides setting up sketchy charter schools (a market the cleric certainly had not cornered). Flynn tosses out all the right-wing buzzwords (the media, radical Islamist, Sharia law, 9/11…Clinton), and there’s plenty of guilt by association (he’s just like the Qutb guy, and did I tell you about al Bana? Scratch that, he’s the AYATOLLAH!). Flynn is, predictably, completely unreflective about our foreign policy failures in both Iran and Iraq. But this line really earns a Hooboy™: “If he were in reality a moderate, he would not be in exile, nor would he excite the animus of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his government.” I mean, if he's in exile he must deserve it right? Totally circular. Knowing now that Flynn was getting paid by Turkey for this disinfo campaign only helps explain why this piece is as bad as it is. Erdoğan probably should have asked for a refund.
2. In the age of the internet and social media we probably can’t make a meaningful distinction between foreign and domestic audiences. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws to limit how and when government agencies engage in propaganda. There needs to be a mechanism to stifle and punish bad actors within our own institutions. The revelations about Mark Meadows’ texts from TPM this week indicate that there are way too many people in the U.S. government that share Mike Flynn’s mentality.
3. Blowback is real, but I would argue that the more serious danger is from genuinely bad foreign policy than propaganda. We can recognize the necessity of U.S. support for democracy and independence in Ukraine for instance, and also justifiably say to the administration, “Great! Now do Yemen.” Without oversimplifying the complexities of international relations, I think there is a broad principle that the more, and more consistently, we support democracy (and necessarily, economic independence) around the globe, the less reliant we will be on propaganda and less vulnerable to blowback.
1. Turkey is the perfect example of a country that is a USA ally and NATO member because of the adage, “The enemy of our enemy is our friend,” similar to why the Soviet Union was our “friend” during WWII against Nazi Germany. So Mike Flynn’s pro-Turkey propaganda in his 2016 op-ed should not have been credible for informed people who are aware of WHY Turkey is our “friend.”
2. Limited US government propaganda domestically is OK if it provides a public service such as battling the Covid pandemic AND the information is factual. Foreign US government propaganda is absolutely permissible as it was effectively used during the fall of the autocratic governments of the USSR and Eastern Bloc, and is no doubt used today in Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other countries to help provide factual information about the USA and Western countries to help offset the constant black propaganda fed to their citizens by their repressive governments.
3. If US covert propaganda activities are focused on our “enemies” with hostile governments such as Iran in an attempt to assist the masses to rise up and overthrow their government, I don’t think it matters if covert US propaganda activities are exposed. However, our credibility would likely be eroded if some sort of propaganda activities are exposed in countries which are USA allies, such as NATO members.
1. Does the law prescribe how prominent/where the foreign agent disclosure appears? Appending a disclaimer to the end of an article is not effective notice because most people will just see a headline within a social media feed and will not click on the article, let alone read to the end. A prominent disclosure might make readers more skeptical, but I’m not sure this can be enforced. It’s too easy for private citizens who agree with a foreign agent’s argument to share it without the disclaimer.
2. In a world where a foreign publication can be instantly shared with Americans, there is no meaningful distinction between permissible foreign propaganda and impermissible domestic propaganda. This creates a difficult problem. If you ban the US government from promoting ideas to Americans, you are exposing Americans to unrestricted propaganda from foreign governments who are acting against our interests without providing any response. Yes, private citizens can disagree with foreign propaganda but they won’t have the same incentives, reach, and resources that a government would.
At the same time, allowing the government to promote ideas to Americans poses different challenges. What is the basis for distinguishing between legitimate domestic propaganda and illegitimate partisan campaigning that uses the resources and psychological playbooks of the intelligence services for political gain? Would Democrats trust the Trump administration to use that power responsibly? Would Republicans trust Biden to do so? I doubt it. I think the solution cannot turn on government speech. Any good solution will have to make changes to the information environment itself.
“What if there is a really, really good reason to engage in covert, pro-democracy propaganda, even if it might reach domestic audiences? What if it’s to help an ally, like, say, Ukraine, counter an actual military aggression by winning hearts and minds in the information space? Yeah, no, we Americans don’t really go for that, either.”
What happens when a signal or symbol is released and a battle develops over what that signal or symbol means? In theory, each person is free to define that signal or symbol however they want, yet it would be naive to assume there aren’t influencers who wish to define it for a larger audience— some of those influencers being potential enemies. For example: who invented the circle? What does it mean to you? If it represents, say, *global democracy* to one person (or audience or demographic), and “kleptocracy” to another person (or audience or demographic), do you stand back and watch that conflict develop, or do you participate, and say, hey, I’d rather have this mean *global democracy*? Is “winning hearts and minds in the information space” such an evil thing, versus the alternative— doing nothing, and/or being a welcome mat for geopolitical adversaries?
All this may sound vague, and perhaps I’m wading into murky territory where influence campaigns, psy-ops, psychology, and visual communications merge. Forgive me— I’m still learning. And these classes are some serious food for thought.
1. a) If one did one's homework on Flynn and Gulen in 2016 one wouldn't even have read it. I didn't.
b)I don't know enough about "The HIll" to comment on whether they'd print it or not.
c)it can. It neutralized it for me. If The Hill had put the disclaimer at the top of the article it might be more immediately "transparent". But then, why take time to read it once you know it's BS? Unless, of course it's an assignment for the Freedom Academy!
2. a) It may depend on the purpose of the p-ganda. i.e., to inform about pandemics or disasters, etc. And then it's a matter of degree. IMHO all political speech is p-ganda, for domestic or foreign consumers.
b) You use the word "enforced" and there's the rub! I suppose you mean By Law. Well, I guess we'll have to can the 1st Amendment and just start over. Fox News/Tucker Carlson, etc. are often broadcast in Russia to strengthen their p-ganda to their own people. I often wish US would declare war w/Russia just so we could take the Putin apologists off the "air"! Because right now all that disinformation is protected speech.
3. a) WELL....! What credibility is that? AND... Why is the Pentagon even doing cyber ops? The US should have ONE department devoted specifically to cyber ops and not a fractured policy with Military, CIA, State Department, etc. all doing it.
b) I'm of the opinion our credibility would be *enhanced* if we had a dedicated cyber ops unit that was effective in promoting democracy and countering foreign cyber ops.
(1) Transparency would not have been a sufficient guardrail for me in 2016. I would have assumed that the arguments in Flynn's essay were legitimate, even if one-sided. Seated in a jury box, I assume that the arguments offered by competing attorneys are one-sided, but not outright lies. So a shameless liar can always fool me once.
(3) But not twice. I resent being lied to, and I assume international audiences do so as well. So I object to any deceptive propaganda on the ground that it breeds, not only resentment, but a reluctance to trust the government even when it is telling the truth. If a country has worthwhile goals, it can honestly promote them. If not, it should change its goals.
Of course there are exceptions—I wouldn’t have asked Eisenhower to announce his D-Day strategy—but the exceptions prove the rule: Such examples do not breed resentment or mistrust.
(2) For the same reason, I don’t think it matters whether the audience is foreign or domestic. A reputation for honesty is a precious asset and shouldn’t be thrown away. (Unfortunately, thanks to Trump, it will take many years of scrupulous honesty to rebuild whatever favorable reputation the United States once had.)
I have to say, even after all the interviews you've done that I've listened to and enjoyed and the pod with Renato [ https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/its-complicated/id1434320092 ], I didn't listen to the lesson audios 'til this one.
So glad I did! The audio helps makes the lesson very comprehensible, easy to follow. It's also great to hear the more subtle nuances you're able to impart.
Thank you. 👍🏾
Q1. This is going to sound really bad and I dont mean it to. I am not this conceited, but I need to make a point. Because I am reasonably well-educated, I am skeptical of anything I am told or read. Also, I know what an "Op-Ed" piece means in terms of journalism, so I would not be immediately swayed. "Op-ed" is in itself a warning label, right? (Watch Fox News try to deal with opinion v. news reporting in the Dominion suit.) I would look for references in his article ("According to ..."). I would look for "sales" language (hyperbole, extreme sounding claims or statements). I might consider the logic of his argument. I dont sit down with a pad and paper and do this: it is how I read "Opinion" pieces. And yes, I can and have been fooled. Not everyone needs to be a lawyer (thankfully) to do this. But one does need a good education. Any good education would teach someone how to write a paper or presentation ie make an argument, do research, support it with reliable sources and address apposing arguments. Any high school kid in this day and age should at least know what the scientific method is and how it works (without being a scientist) and therefore have at least an inkling of what BS smells like. Anyone care to speculate on how well this is going in the schools in your state? As I said, it is not fool proof and you dont need to be a fool to be deceived but it would at least cause a reasonable person to harbour doubt and maybe check it out. This is not about adding to the curriculum! It is about teaching reading and writing and arithmetic. Unless individuals are equipped to at least not be swept away by everything they read or see, I doubt that any law or any number of content moderators will save us from being swept away in a tsunami of ignorance. It would be interesting to see the research on whether more "educated" people are more easily swayed than less educated. There must be some.
This NYT article is good. "An Alternate Reality: How Russia's State TV Spins the Ukraine War"
This is a gifted article for everyone here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/technology/russia-state-tv-ukraine-war.html?unlocked_article_code=TTmbMSnlSgJs9fP6JB2yrLUKaAdOWWogoyJ_5ViiqZ1mbdlOp2AJPdKYq_AFxNdElPm8eRrt_eJqQo_Md3l5zQuVYKdSA8KRsLnijIOgDUyzxZouPU-hPiBgFj_vhwmfn_NdpgsUKugCnghXOF48FESDpNieLNO2RG56zu1F-M0WDY70MZ9Q1OdW2QsyzR7fG7JEbn9ZLHFHR36me-O4Tfrnvfd-Vd0hHzdOWWD-h0YolrzOe8msYKYXFOL_VPEcFV4WURw_0oXbah-1zGjPcfUd2tiBtfIn7K1NAXMV-0zpN-ecfDrFzZ8sxQUXbLcS5ii0dJeI1aaVmm9l3eBDH2Z7v5wA-feoVQ&smid=share-url
1. Flynn's credibility was eroded considerably after his ties with Turkey were revealed, which speaks to the Transparency part of your discussion. That background creates another context for his speech, changing its value or meaning. The communicator needs to be credible to persuade. Revealing Flynn's conflict of interest hurt perceptions of his character. "[The speaker's] character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possess." - Aristotle
Persuasion is the root of democracy. After all, we've decided to give up violence as a means of deciding power distribution in the United States. We vote, and use persuasion to decide who to vote for. Transparency, and the conflicts of interest it reveals, is an important part of that.
I listened to the lecture while making raw cat food which is a mindless and yucky task. The first 1/2 of the lecture being about Flynn increased the yuck factor.
Pre 2016 I may have considered Flynn's position though I would have been skeptical. I would have been even more skeptical knowing he was a registered foreign agent of Turkey. I don't consider The Hill an objective news source to begin with especially after the Solomon debacle.
Unfortunately, the US has to engage in covert propaganda. Although the facebook propaganda had more engagement when it was overt and not fed through fake accounts, there are times when just knowing the source will cause resistance. Our historical credibility was such that overt propaganda was effective. The US had a good reputation in the world in general, but then ops like the one you described in Iran cause a ripple of distrust that widens over time. Iranians didn't call the US the "Great Satan" for nothing.
So the cat food making took longer than 15 min and I listened to Mary Trump's latest Nerd Avengers podcast. While discussing CRT and school board meetings, Danielle Moodie said that the source of the greatest spread of White Supremacy in the US is in the K-12 school curriculum. It seems to me that this form of propaganda is the most insidious and worrisome.
Q1. I think Flynn's op-ed carried good weight with credibility as he had good instruction, not only from the Turks, but I think from Stone and Manafortas well. Those two have a long history of promoting authoritarian/ autocratic strongmen by working for Mobutu, Barre and Marcos- with Manafort representing Putin for three years. Flynn's article projected the Turkish slant really well while seeming credible simply by his credentials. I would hope The Hill would have thought very carefully regarding whether to publish or not, balancing protection by the First Amendment versus what they want public perception of their identity to be. I do not think transparency neutralizes black propaganda, it rescues the publisher from responsibility and accountability, both of which are (have been) seriously lacking for years.
Q2. I do not see how US government propaganda, whether foreign or domestic - overt or covert can be enforced. So many players in digital communication across the world have access to disseminate propaganda, and disinformation at lightning speed with a very short end game (versus the long game for Operating Infektion). I think the loop holes are large and easy to overcome simply with the "I did not know" defense and in reality no accountability or consequences if discovered.
Q3. Yes. I think covert operations are necessary to keep pace with every other countries covert operations. In my opinion, US credibility has been damaged but is improving. I find it interesting that people like Flynn, Stone, Manafort and many others, who have engaged in strongmen's tactics for a very long time are probably watched by government officials but there is no plausible legal action to take simply by what has been outlined in todays lecture. The only potential I see is effective counter measures, that with enough research on digital trails by these people, lead to the launch large scale pre-bunking information operations.
Asha --
You got the 1953 coup in Iran kind of backwards. The coup got rid of the Prime Minister, thus strengthening the position of the Shah, who had been in office since 1941 (and remained in office until the 1979 Revolution). This does not affect the points you were making, but it's nice to get the details right.
Missed zoom today (12/20) due to a changed appt. time, but saw this tweet thread and found it germane to our discussions of propaganda and the US use of same internationally: https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1605292454261182464?s=20&t=1SqIbrGe2JHOOQlDyhO_FA