A 2004 memo by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff formalized the separation between the two branches, which had been in place since the end of the Vietnam War. Apparently, that separation has been getting in the way of fully informing Americans about all the good news coming out of Iraq lately.

A senior military officer close to Petraeus said the memo now in place prevents coordination between the information-operations officers and public-affairs officers. "The way it is written, it puts a firewall between information operations and public affairs," the officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "You shut down things that need to be done."

Outright revocation of the memo might cause a fuss. Instead Petraeus has been told that a "new policy outlining the relationship and interaction between information operations and public affairs" will be developed. In the meanwhile he's been given the green light to let the two branches work together:

Pentagon officials have told Petraeus's aides that, while the new policy is being developed, they should not interpret the Myers memo as a prohibition against coordination between public affairs and information operations... "Conflicting efforts could impede operational success," the proposed new wording warned, emphasizing the need for the two branches to "be aware of each other's activities."

The wall between the two branches has come down at least once before (that we know of), though only within Iraq itself:

In one highly controversial information-operations undertaking, the U.S. military used the Lincoln Group, a Washington defense contractor, to pay Iraqi editors to publish articles casting the American military in a favorable light. Although the articles, written by U.S. troops, were truthful, some public-affairs officers criticized the practice after it was revealed in the Los Angeles Times in 2005, because it appeared as if the military was peddling propaganda to journalists.

Um...appeared?

Supposedly the two branches will merely "coordinate extensively." The "aggressive information management" types would prefer for the public-affairs officers to report to the information-operations officers, but they've been overruled – for now.

"Public-affairs officers will not be involved in deception operations," the officer said. "There are red lines public affairs will not cross. They will not jeopardize their credibility."

But if they do – when they do - how would we ever know?

After all, isn't the whole point of a policy like this to make sure we're fed just the news they want us to know?