Talk:Paul E. Vallely

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note to Ron[edit]

Thanks for expanding the quote - I think it is more informative now. But I think it's rather telling that you confuse this quote with a "commitment to truth." Quite Orwellian indeed. Cheers! --csloat 16:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I think you are projecting onto him a cynical goal of deception. If you read the entire passage you can see he is talking about communications (in both word and deed) that victory is assured. That victory may not have happened yet, but you speak and act as if it is a fait accompli. People on both sides of the conflict need to know you are not going to give in, give out or give up. One example is the truth that Islamic terrorism is a global threat that will be defeated in our lifetime. Any talk about quitting only gives aid and comfort to the enemy. The War on Terror is too important and too dangerous to quit. Iraq is now the focus of the War on Terror. His goal is not to "select" truth or decide what people are permitted to know. He advocates full disclosure, but it is disclosure with confidence in victory. I hopes this helps! RonCram 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I see him as more of an idealist than a cynic. I think it's orwellian in the sense that one is expected to fully embrace and believe the myth, essentially creating truth. Your example is a good one - what do you do with Iraq, now that it is clear that the goal of creating a stable pro-US democracy there are out of reach? The "MindWar" philosophy is, as you admit, to treat all such talk of the realities on the ground as treasonous ("giving aid and comfort to the enemy") and to persist with the "truth" that the insurgency can be decisively defeated, even though the empirical evidence may suggest the opposite. Thanks for the help :)--csloat 02:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that a stable democracy in Iraq is out of reach. The recent voting there was very encouraging, as is the movement by Syria to stop protecting terrorists in their country that are destabilizing Iraq. The issue is not a matter of "Can we win in Iraq?" That is a given. The question is "Will we pull our troops out before the Iraqi government is able to stand on its own?" If Kerry had been elected, he would have snatched defeat from the jaw of victory. Thankfully, the UN security council voted unanimously yesterday that the mandate in Iraq should continue for another year until Dec. 31, 2006 (unless Iraq asks for troops to leave earlier). It is evident the Iraqi government wants us to stay until they can fight terrorism on their own. The signals we have sent to the terrorists in the last two weeks have clearly shown that we will not accept anything but victory. Progress in Iraq has been phenomenal in the last two weeks. There is every reason to be optimistic about the future of Iraq. RonCram 17:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Of course you disagree; it's required according to your ideology; if you didn't it would be treasonous as you say above. (2) I said a stable pro-US democracy. If we get a stable democracy there it is likely to be pro-Iran and anti-US. (3) Your point that winning in Iraq is a "given" seems consistent with your mindwar philosophy. The problem is that we are losing Iraq in very important ways politically (there is no question of course, of US military superiority, but that simply isn't important anymore), and your ideology will not allow you (or anyone else who holds such a view) to acknowledge that and take steps toward a different solution. (4) Kerry probably would not have withdrawn from Iraq, though it's impossible for either of us to know that. (5) If you consider 30 US casualties over the past week alone to be "phenomenal progress"; if you consider the destruction at Husaybah to be "phenomenal progress"; the murder of police officers guarding oil facilities in Kirkuk, the assassination of a newspaper chief in northern Iraq and of Saddam's attorney, house-to-house searches that keep insurgents out of a town just until the US troops move on, the movement in the US towards once again supporting the known criminal and Iranian spy Ahmed Chalabi as the new Saddam, the escalating violence between the Mahdi army and Sunnis in Diyala province, the threats on both sides to employ "collective punishment" by destroying the houses of guerrillas and defense officials; if you consider all of these things "phenomenal progress" (and this is just for the past two weeks!), then you're very good at ignoring cognitive dissonance. MindWar at work, eh? (6) Most importantly, my point is not that one shouldn't try to be optimistic about things; my point is that this philosophy of mindwar is self-destructive as it leads you to ignore or gloss over the realities in front of you if they are inconsistent with your ideology. I know we're never going to convince each other about this war, but hopefully you can understand my criticism of a philosophy that amounts to support for disinformation.--csloat 18:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS to get a Sunni Iraqi perspective on the US failure in Iraq, check recent posts at Baghdad Burning or Alive in Baghdad. It's a lot easier to be optimistic about what's happening in Iraq when we're sitting in California. These blogs are not pessimistic, per se, and their authors are certainly no supporters of Saddam, but they are also not embracing the kind of unthinking optimism you advocate.--csloat 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never used the word "treasonous." You used the word and then write "as you say above." What kind of nonsense is that? In order to be guilty of treason, intent has to be proven. I did not address intent in my comments and I think most people who provide aid and comfort do so unintentionally. Just to set the record straight, I am not an expert on MindWar. I had never heard of the paper before you linked to it. However, I think I understand what Vallely is trying to say. Anyone who has ever been a competitor knows the importance of the mental aspect of the game. If you don't go into it with confidence, you have no chance. That does not mean you expect to get a hit in every at bat or win every battle. You know that setbacks are part of the game and you are honest about them when they happen. But you don't quit the war when you lose a battle.

My philosophy is not an issue of ignoring cognitive dissonance, it is a matter of building a philosophical construct. How do you decide what information is important and what information is noise? Did you ever play sports? If not, you may have a difficult time understanding. When playing away from home, you usually need to ignore sounds from the fans but you need to listen to your coach and other players. This is not unthinking optimism. This is well thought out in advance. Let's address the issue of casualties for a moment. Every single casualty is a tragedy to the soldier and his family. But before you go into war, you have to calculate what your casualties may be and whether or not it is worth the risk. Remember, we lost nearly 3,000 civilians in one day in 2001. Prior to the Iraq invasion, some people were projecting tens of thousands of fatalities. We, as a country, decided those numbers were reasonable given the threat from terrorists we were facing. While every casualty is a tragedy, until fatalities hit 25-30,000, those numbers would not dissuade me from the task.

Iraq is now the focal point of the War on Terror. There is only one option - to win. I reject any notion that I have engaged in disinformation. I am not attempting to block information like the casualty numbers. I have no wish to block any information from the public at all. (I wish you would embrace this value.) You have chosen to focus on casualty reports and the expense of the war and built your POV around that. I read the casualty figures and note they are well below what we as a nation decided we were willing to pay. BTW, I do not expect any democracy to be "pro-U.S." After all, is France or Germany "pro-U.S?" I would expect any democracy to place its own interests above U.S. interests. My goal is that we keep in mind the positive things we have accomplished. Here are the reasons I am optimistic: 1. Iraq now has a Constitution that respects the rights of minorities and women. 2. Several countries in the Middle East have rejected terrorism and begun to prosecute terrorists. 3. Syria is making noises like it will do the same. (Of course, this may just be a ruse since they are in trouble for killing the former PM of Lebanon.) 4. Military campaigns in western Iraq have dealt a significant blow to the terrorists operating there. 5. Several of Zarqawi's top aides were caught or killed in the last two weeks. 6. It appears that Osama died in June of this year. Last time a report came out that he was dead, he quickly issued a videotape proving he was alive. He has not done so since the Pakistani paper published in October reported his death. 7. The UN security council voted unanimously yesterday to continue the mandate in Iraq. It is also apparent future extensions are possible if deemed necessary as is an earlier withdrawal if the Iraqi government requests it. 8. The US and UN have badly damaged the financing resources of the terrorists. RonCram 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was defining treason as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," which were your words. For me of course the problem is not whether you call it treason, but the lack of an open mind that seems to be the goal of the MindWar philosophy. I don't dispute the role of confidence, but I do question a philosophy of disinformation that holds confidence as a higher goal than truth, or which creates "truth" in order to win a game. Politics is not a spectator sport; you are advocating filtering out "noise" of actual facts in order to persist in a rather bull-headed ideology; this is not just the taunts of the opposing team. It's also not clear who is the opposing team in your flawed analogy -- the insurgents? the Iraqis? or American citizens who happen to be on the other side of the political fence?
I'm not sure the point of comparing 911 fatalities to Americans lost in Iraq since Iraq had nothing to do with 911. And I am not questioning the notion that casualties are inevitable in war. The important question is whether war - and now a seemingly endless occupation - are inevitable. Your philosophy of filtering out "noise" that suggests that it isn't, causes harm to truth and to your own ultimate goals. Your list of reasons for optimism is a case in point - you simply ignore the things to worry about here (which are far more significant than mere casualty counts), and you deploy in reckless speculative assertions as if they were facts (e.g. "The US and UN have badly damaged the financing resources of the terrorists," which is demonstrably false). You claim Iraq is closer to democracy and yet we see movement even today toward installing the spy and thug Chalabi as the new Saddam. As usual, you simply ignore the arguments I made and advance your own list.
I am glad you at least hint that when the Iraqis demand a US withdrawal you will support it. It will be interesting to see if you maintain that position when it actually occurs. Of course, by that time, this administration may have other more pressing political (and possibly criminal/legal) matters on hand and might welcome the chance to pull out of this wasteful adventure.--csloat 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is not equivalent to treason. You are clear on that now, right? An open mind is vitally important when conducting an investigation. But an open mind is a distraction when you are trying to get something done. The ability to close you mind to the noise around you is an important skill. Nothing of what I do or how I explained it "causes harm to the truth." Let me use something other than a sports analogy. Where you sit right now, you can feel a number of sensations - the clothes against your skin, your weight against the chair, maybe air blowing from the air conditioning, sound of your computer humming, or possibly pain in your "tennis elbow." All of these are inputs to your sensory systems and your brain. Autism is a disease in which people are not able to screen out these meaningless sensations the way normal people can. Autistic people cannot function normally because of this. What we all do, subconsciously usually, is set certain parameters of normalcy. We think "A little pain in that elbow is understandable but if it swells or hurts worse, I will have to see a doctor." We then occasionally monitor the situation but try to put it out of our minds. It is important to check the fatalties in Iraq occasionally or to check the cost of the war but we fix our minds on the goal. This single-minded determination is the most important factor for success. It "creates" the victory. By the way, financing for al-Qaeda is way down. Zawahiri wrote a letter to Zarqawi asking for money. But it is clear if he sent any. Zarqawi himself is pressed against the wall. And yes I will support a US withdrawal when the Iraqis say they want it. Thankfully, the Iraqis and UN agree that we should stay. RonCram 22:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ron please read the definition of treason in the U.S. Constitution. I am clear on that - if you choose to define it differently that is fine; as I said above it is not word choice that matters to me. An open mind may be a distraction when you are playing sports but when writing an encyclopedia it is certainly not. And as you are well aware we are not talking about filtering out information such as the touch of your skin on your clothes when you are trying to pay attention to something else; we are talking about filtering out vital information about the topic at hand such as Chalabi's criminality and spying for Iran, such as the hydra-headed nature of the insurgency, such as the looting of Iraq, such as the disaster that is Husaybah, such as the assassinations, such as the testimony of the Iraqi public itself through polls and public statements, etc. It is telling that to you these things are of the same order.--csloat 23:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?[edit]

Headlining a section of the article with 'A Propagandist' is certainly not NPOV. Barring any discussion, I'm going to retitle and rework that section into something a little less aggressive. MWShort (talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

explanation[edit]

The article said Vallely and Gordon Cucullu were co-writing a book titled: "The Myths of Gitmo: Torture, Abuse or the Truth". I made this change because the book has been published, and Cucullu had already published a book on Guantanamo, where he is listed as the sole author. That book is Inside Gitmo: The True Story Behind the Myths of Guantánamo Bay.

After making the change I found Vallely and Cucullu did publish a book together, about Guantanamo, entitled: Behind Gitmo Wire: How Our Men and Women in Uniform Defend America at Guantanamo Bay

Regarding Cucullu, he has done a considerable amount of work on Google's Gnol, on Guantanamo. I am not exactly sure on the details on how Gnol works, but it seems that, as some kind of recognized expert, he has been allowed to stake out the Guantanamo territory -- similar to how prospectors used to stake out mines during gold-rushes. I was frankly shocked at partisan and biased his writing was. I do not believe it would have ever survived a review here due to what seemed to me to be a lack of commitment to the principle of neutral writing.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to "Plame Affair"[edit]

I overhauled the section by: replacing a "citation needed" tag with a cite to the WorldNetDaily article; deleting a quote at the end of the section which rehashed the assertions of the first quote; deleting some confusing, unsourced words about events over a weekend as the lead in to the second quote, replacing them with a statement that Vallely later said, etc.; and added what seems to me a rather significant statement that Wilson denied ever having disclosed his wife's CIA status to Valelly and that he demanded a retraction from both Vallely and WND. By the way, there has been a lot of digital ink expended on various Wikipedia boards about whether WND is a "reliable source" for factual assertions vs. opinions (do they do any fact checking, assess reliability of sources used by writers, etc). I propose to resolve that here by saying that WND is a reliable source for its assertions as to what Vallely said, as he would have had ample opportunity to deny ever making such claims and has not. I note that topics Joseph Wilson, Plame affair etc are highly controversial and frequently the subject of edit/revert wars. I hope my changes are uncontroversial, and ask anyone who disagrees with what I have done to discuss here before reverting. Jonathanwallace (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MindWar[edit]

The publication: From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory - by - Colonel Paul E. Valley Commander - with - Major Michael A. Aquino PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader It is open source, found at: http://www.markdice.com/documents/MindWar_co_authored_by_Michael%20Aquino.pdf It might be useful to add it in the "external links", or "see also" section. It is a mere 10 pages document, one third of which is dedicated to rational discussion of the usefullness of psychological approach and information management in a war, another third is something like propaganda for the acceptance of the psychological operation department by the readers (quite enlarging its real impact and importance), and finally one third a batch of weird suggestions concerning the proposal for the use of "MindWar" instead of propaganda or psychological operations ("The term is harsh and fear-inspiring, and so it should be") and some hints at ESP and other esoterical ideas as possibly useful for future operations. It seems in bottomline as a publication with no particular reason above the one that the author could claim to have one. 94.64.46.173 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul E. Vallely. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paul_E._Vallely&oldid=1210827388"