I don't disagree with you, and I acknowledge that you are simply reporting the tactics used to recruit. However, if the army IS going to be tasked with more insane and unwinnable missions like Iraq, the only way to maintain the army IS to enlarge it significantly.
And the only way to stop this insanity is to elect a congress capable of restraining an administration out of control. Or electing a president who is not an ignorant, intellectually incurious boob who is easily manipulated by these war-hungry so-called neocons. Preferably both.
i support big budget in green advertising. the bigger, the better. i support it because i think we're not out of the woods yet. ZERO POLLUTION is the name of the game.
APCO Worldwide's B.J. Cooper rips Harper's Ken Silverstein for July piece that duped the D.C. PA shop about bid to rep repressive Turkmenistan. Trashes the article as the "most unethical reportorial project that he has ever seen." Silverstein, who admits "trickery," says he acted in "public interest." Tells O'Dwyer's he selected APCO as target because of the firm's "unsavory past."
This item merely describes the PR firms and tactics that the army is using to recruit. CMD reports on PR and propaganda campaigns of all kinds. I agree that the army is acting as an agent of the U.S. government when it does so, but is that a reason for us not to report on it?
As for whether its "standing force is not nearly large enough," I personally think that the U.S. military is more than large enough for national defense. The only reason it seem not large enough is that it has been deployed for missions that have nothing to do with defending the nation and everything to do with projecting U.S. power beyond its borders and controlling the affairs of other nations. In the end, I don't think it will be possible to have a military large enough for that purpose.
I don't disagree with you, and I acknowledge that you are simply reporting the tactics used to recruit. However, if the army IS going to be tasked with more insane and unwinnable missions like Iraq, the only way to maintain the army IS to enlarge it significantly.
And the only way to stop this insanity is to elect a congress capable of restraining an administration out of control. Or electing a president who is not an ignorant, intellectually incurious boob who is easily manipulated by these war-hungry so-called neocons. Preferably both.
i support big budget in green advertising. the bigger, the better. i support it because i think we're not out of the woods yet. ZERO POLLUTION is the name of the game.
...of a book I read years ago -- a confession -- by a former phony medium. The best chapter title was, "Who Grabbed My Ectoplasm?"
From O'Dwyer's PR Daily:
This item merely describes the PR firms and tactics that the army is using to recruit. CMD reports on PR and propaganda campaigns of all kinds. I agree that the army is acting as an agent of the U.S. government when it does so, but is that a reason for us not to report on it?
As for whether its "standing force is not nearly large enough," I personally think that the U.S. military is more than large enough for national defense. The only reason it seem not large enough is that it has been deployed for missions that have nothing to do with defending the nation and everything to do with projecting U.S. power beyond its borders and controlling the affairs of other nations. In the end, I don't think it will be possible to have a military large enough for that purpose.
Pages