US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
This is a story from the BBC, looking at the US military’s plans for information operations, from physchological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks. You can see the original article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm.
US plans to
fight the net revealed
By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
Friday, 27 January 2006
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military’s plans for
information operations—from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.
From influencing public opinion through new media to designing
computer network attack weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.
The declassified document is called
Information Operations Roadmap. It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.
Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.
roadmap calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military’s ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.
The document says that information is
critical to military success. Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.
The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.
All these are engaged in information operations.
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military’s psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.
Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience, it reads.
Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public, it goes on.
The document’s authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda.
Specific boundaries should be established, they write. But they don’t seem to explain how.
In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States—even though they were directed abroad, says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.
Public awareness of the US military’s information operations is low, but it’s growing—thanks to some operational clumsiness.
Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories—all supportive of US policy—were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.
And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.
But the true extent of the Pentagon’s information operations, how they work, who they’re aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.
The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to—and the grand scale on which it’s thinking.
It reveals that Psyops personnel
support the American government’s international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti—a station which broadcasts to Cuba—as receiving such support.
It recommends that a global website be established that supports America’s strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from
third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials.
It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles,
miniaturized, scatterable public address systems, wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.
fight the net
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.
It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.
Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will it reads.
fight the net as it would an enemy weapons system,
fight the net appears several times throughout the roadmap.
The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.
Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing.
US digital ambition
And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to
provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum.
US forces should be able to
disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum.
Consider that for a moment.
The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.
Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?
The fact that the
Information Operations Roadmap is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.
And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military’s ambitions for it.
General Fair Use Notice
This reposted page may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Globalissues.org is making this article available in efforts to advance the understanding of the workings, impact and direction of various global issues. I believe that this constitutes a “fair use” of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond “fair use,” you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
This article is part of the following collection:
- New War on Terror
- Why I Opposed the Resolution to Authorize Force
- Main aid agencies reject US air drops
- Folly of aid and bombs
- Bombing Will Not Make U.S. More Secure
- US attacks raise mixed feelings in Africa
- Killing Them Softly: Starvation and Dollar Bills For Afghan Kids
- Mr. Bush is abusing both the UN and international law
- This is Not a War on Terrorism
- The Empire Wants War, Not Justice
- This War is a Fraud
- Hypocrisy, hatred and the war on terror
- Unjustified means
- World Opinion Opposes the Attack on Afghanistan
- Mass Death of Civilians in Afghanistan
- Congratulations America
- Annotated State of The Union
- Thoughts About America
- Kill the Messenger
- Tech companies chase homeland security
- Buying Trouble: Your Grocery List Could Spark a Terror Probe
- The return to Afghanistan: Collateral damage
- Afghan massacre haunts Pentagon
- Why U.S. Intelligence Stumbled
- Afghanistan: Time of transition
- Top White House Anti-Terror Boss Resigns
- This War on Terrorism is Bogus
- Rumsfeld Doubts on Terror War
- Iranian Agent Warned U.S. of Impending al-Qaida Attack
- American Troops Killing and Abusing Afghans
- War Rules and Law Enforcement Rules in Terror War
- Gap Grows Between U.S., World Public Opinion
- Bush Terror War Suffers Body Blow in Spain
- Guantanamo: Maybe None of Them Are Terrorists
- Blix Says Iraq War May Have Worsened Terror Threat
- War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser
- US plans to 'fight the net' revealed
- America’s War on the Web
- Thousands Wrongly on Terror List
Back to top