Why the frankness, part dieux

Down below I wondered why the frankness about the abundance of natural resources in Afghanistan. As a matter of propriety, we are never told about real objectives of war. (And often we learn later that within power centers there are a myriad of objectives, and even confusion about them. There is just one consistency: They lie, they lie, they lie.)

So I reviewed my text on modern public relations techniques to see if there is a role for truth in propaganda. I vaguely remembered that Goebbels preferred that public pronouncements be true, and that if the truth was not useful, that there simply be silence. That technique is widely used today. Here’s a brief compilation of Ellul’s discussion of the role of truth in propaganda:

The idea that propaganda consists of lies (which makes it harmless and even a little ridiculous in the eyes of the public) is still maintained by some specialists … but it is certainly not so. For a long time propagandists have recognized that lying must be avoided. “In propaganda, truth pays off” – the formula has been increasingly accepted.

Lenin proclaimed it. And alongside Hitler’s statement on lying* one must place Goebbels’s insistence that facts to be disseminated must by accurate.

How can we explain this contradiction? Ellul says that lies can discredit propaganda, and that “the truth that pays off is in the realm of facts.” Lies pay off as well, but if exposed can be damaging. The essential features of modern public relations are are in the realm of intentions and interpretations.

So we have been told the truth about the existence of vast mineral resources in Afghanistan, resources that the military-industrial complex has likely known of for decades. We could have been told that in the 1980’s, but we weren’t officially there in the 1980’s until Sly Stallone told us about it in Rambo III,. Bush could have told us in 2001, but at that time the American public was so angry that he could have invaded Denmark and it would have succeeded.

A decision was made to share the information with us. The information has been set free, and the press has dutifully reported it and then discarded it. But it has entered the public consciousness.

So the question to ask is this: What interpretation do we give it, and what are the intentions of those who allowed the information to be set free?

The interpretation is easy: Various media elements have emphasized that these minerals will be a boon for the Afghan people. As resource colonies go, that’s not true. But it feels good to say it.

Intentions? I can only guess, as there is so much that is kept secret from us, but I posit that the information will be used in the future to help the government maintain the fiction that we are there for lofty motives – to help them develop their minerals.

Now Panamanians, Grenadans, Libyans, Palestinians, Vietnamese, Kosovans, Iraqis and residents of Diego Garcia might be screaming at the top of their lungs to the Afghans … Please! Please! Don’t let them “help” you! But the opinions of these people do not matter. The whole of this interesting release of information is intended for domestic consumption.
__________
*The larger the lie, the more believable it is