A question about the Propaganda Model (new data)

[SpearthrowerOwl]

1. I would also like to point out some interesting quotes in the article

"The payments are not universally supported in the United States government. American diplomats and soldiers expressed dismay on Monday about the C.I.A.’s cash deliveries, which some said fueled corruption."

This hints at my possible root cause 'b', though the cause for concern about "fueled corruption" doesn't seem like something the New York Times should even suggest under the propaganda model. It's also likely that if there really is a difference in views amongst power elites that sparked this article, that is not the real reason for the dispute (I have to research this point the most..)

"The C.I.A. payments open a window to an element of the war that has often gone unnoticed: the agency’s use of cash to clandestinely buy the loyalty of Afghans. The agency paid powerful warlords to fight against the Taliban during the 2001 invasion. It then continued paying Afghans to keep battling the Taliban and help track down the remnants of Al Qaeda."

This part does seem very in line with the propaganda model, however, as it couldn't simply be that we pay off leaders to decrease susceptibility to public opinion (in the same way our companies buy off politicians), it has to be worded in some way like "buying the loyalty of Afghans".. It further suggests that these payoffs had a necessary wartime basis.

"But the cash deliveries to Mr. Karzai’s office are of a different magnitude with a far wider impact, helping the palace finance the vast patronage networks that Mr. Karzai has used to build his power base. The payments appear to run directly counter to American efforts to clean up endemic corruption and encourage the Afghan government to be more responsive to the needs of its constituents."

But then the article is right back to profound moments of clarity. This is a very rare event indeed (not the corruption, that's common, the reporting of the story by our mainstream media is the rare event..)

"“I thought we were trying to clean up waste, fraud and abuse in Afghanistan,” said Mr. Chaffetz, whose House subcommittee has investigated corruption in the country. “We have no credibility on this issue when we’re complicit ourselves. I’m sure it was more than a few hundred dollars.”"

More frank reporting, perhaps the investigation by a House subcommittee in part prompted the inability to simply ignore the US backed corruption in Afghanistan.

"A former adviser to Mr. Karzai said the palace was rife with speculation that the details of the payments had been leaked to settle a bureaucratic or diplomatic score, either by Afghans or by American officials."

Another possible hint at my point 'b'.

"Outside official circles, some Afghans offered a lighter take. “They make it sound as if it was a charity money dashed by a spy agency,” wrote Sayed Salahuddin, an Afghan journalist, on Twitter, referring to the palace statement that money had been used to help wounded soldiers. “They must have ‘treated’ many people.”"

A final demonstration of rare reporting.


Best New York Times article I've seen in a very long time, however, maybe this is what HAD to be said, and there are real disconcerting facts that are hidden from the public and would make this story seem egregiously submissive to US power interests abroad.