2:57 PM
I don't even know where to begin in my reactions to "Pentagon Debates Propaganda Push in Allied Nations". I'm certain it will be discussed to death on Instapundit and other more politically-charged pages than OD, but a couple things before I leave it to them:

First, I'll acknowledge that the word propaganda doesn't, by definition, have a negative connotation. But in colloquial usage...it does. And when you frame it between secret and against allies you do nothing but confirm that popular belief.

Second, and I don't know whether to blame anyone beyond the Times reporters for this, if the government actually claims to be fighting "a global campaign against terrorism and militancy"--and reports bear out that they might actually be doing just that--I hope that they at least acknowledge the slight hypocrisy of the second half of that mandate.

Finally, I can't believe that I'm agreeing so wholeheartedly with something said by Henry Hyde: "America's effort to engage the peoples of the world must assume a more prominent place in the planning and execution of our foreign policy." Yes. Of course, whatever Pentagon yahoos are behind the propaganda plan should note that Hyde said this in support of additional funding for the State Department's public diplomacy efforts.

I now step back into the cheap seats to observe the discourse of the more politically adroit, and pray that the whole ridiculous macho carnival that is American foreign policy bottoms out soon so that we can start behaving like a civilized nation sometime in the near future.

(Of course, I remain thankful to live in a country where "secret" agendas are announced in front-page news and are allowed to be discussed on a global medium by its citizens.)