Lawyerlisa critique of Information Warfare and where DOD is shortsighted vis a vis CCP IW
I will add my thoughts within the article itself in brackets. Generally the thrust of my thesis in this analysis is to lay plain the subversion visible that has not been yet highlighted within this spectacular article. It is as though the authors approach the diving board and prepare for a dismount and walk back to the ladder only to climb down.
We observe our world and lay our observations in groups we inevitable come to conclusions. It is the sum of experience within premises and we walk them out to conclusions where they fit. The premises have to be adjusted.
What I know.
the DOD started partnering with corporations and tech with the idea that this would bring a close collaborations that would bring the brains of top corporations and tech into the DOD. IN that way they could take turns within each organization and leverage knowledge.
so then I think like a spy. The CCP only has to then subvert the corporation to have access sensitive information and even if fully not that: to start preparing an information warfare of its own.
Here’s my video on that discusses the DOD and CCP both becoming clients of big tech. https://rumble.com/v1r4ay4-dod-ccp-both-clients-of-big-tech.html
This article discusses the advantage a totalitarian state has in terms of information warfare because nearly 50% of citizens participate in some way directly as agents of their government.
so then i think if you want to own the societies you need only own who holds the chalice. So you become the higher paying partner of tech. You subvert the next organization that hold the chalice you subvert the WEF. In such ways you have in your manner the most influence, all the while DOD is doing tech and corporate exchange within its walls.
This article discusses how the CCP infiltrates and uses international instruments and law to its advantage.
so then tie the bow. Tedros is a CCP appointee. Ethopia, through the belt and road was heavily funded during its genocide and repression years while Tedros was in government. Etheopia was the only airport open during some periods of covid.
so the WHO is an organization nodding heavily to the CCP. This is directly observable. Therefore the organization and its instruments will be a form of warfare on the west. This IW is omitted not observed or not even highlighted.
the economic advantage of the vid nodded to the CCP both in policies which foreseeably decimated the west in terms of the economy AND provided the CCP the advantages (buy their products, PPE etc.) it was a shifting of wealth in many ways. from the west to China. But more importantly from the middle class and small businesses to the uber class.
if you look at my video you see CCP was a client of big tech google, facebook.
the other observation is that the society being promulgated for repetition is in fact the CCP model with its citizens. cameras, digital id, cbdc and total control. CCP type China is being rolled out in OECD countries and IW and subversion isn’t suspected. remember you win without bullets by making the society look like yours. HELLO.
questions I have: IF groups like the club of Rome Rothschield, Rockerfellar, the Good Club, Kellogg, etc buy into the club of Rome and the necessary ‘depopulation’ aka let’s just call it mass genocide then do these groups work with CCP or try to leverage the subversion for their advantage, or has the CCP effectively entered those organizations as well. Is it a quiet entente, to wait to see how much damage is done, and then the war will be rise afterwards to decide who takes the prize?
I know the central banks are proponents of CBDC digital ID, that the OECD and these governing groups are pushing with timelines and objective the rolling out of this objective worldwide. So I know too that these are the CCPs goals. So I ask myself, is this just because it is the best now widget that they have decided the similar or exact approach for feudalism of the masses? Or are they becoming in some ways one in the same. Who infiltrated who. what is their entente. The central banks depend on intellectual human capital like the rest, and would be vulnerable to the subversion of the CCP.
The GAVI et al works with the WHO too closely to not be an arm of the CCP. Either truly, or de facto in operation. The Who says I’ll give you the mandates and you will make off like bandits from the tax base funding the financial coup. those in GAVI and organizations in industry that then profit need not be CCP to decide to have this arrangement. Money especially the tool of using your competitors citizens tax base to fund who it is you are buying off has become exceptionally easy by penetrating ze cabinets. All you need to own for this to work out is the CCP and WEF.
The article discusses and we have observed the subversion of academia. So tie the bow. All the publications academia pushes out, say for instance on climate works with the ,agenda, the subversion of the corporate and government and mostly above all the subversion of the NGo WEF class who are bought with the promise of green money, being the same formula as the covid steal. and has the same result decimation of the west through high energy that destroys industry the middle class.
I see the Paris Accord vastly favours China. Why would the authors think subversions in the academia stayed at the level of promulgating communism as the ideal society? Every piece of academic product could have its brick like layer in a plan to subvert the enemy. Why would they observe the CCPs exploitation of legal mechanisms and not see this glaring star shinning out. The legal instruments at the international level have been a type of warfare, the cornering of academia and their output has been subverted and becomes a type of warfare. Now how does the Soros organization and the left work into it. So I ask myself if the monied left likes the state ownership models. that is what we are seeing in the green new deal. The far left, is now what? So left that they are indistinguishable from the CCP in terms of social objectives? of pilfering the middle and lower classes. of wanting citizens dependent on the state. The rich will soon cease to exist in favour of uber class and the rest? So then the Good Club et all have their mechanism for profit, but do they see the result they are producing. Do they want the society that has slavery, servitude, or serfs for fellow citizens. What is that like to exist among. who champions you for giving a pork roast to every member of your audience. their is no adulation, only desperation. Greed is the easy mechanism to exploit the uber rich to go along. and so they have been absorbed into the goals of a control base economy and a class of others controlled a la CCP. I wonder when the coup is complete if they have thought of their vulnerability, for they instantly become competition? They aren’t all one and the same. What am I missing. probably informaiton.
Demoralization. The article lays plain that the CCP uses information warfare to demoralize the citizens and beat them before they have been had. HAHHAHAHAHAHA. what kind of laugh is that. ok so we see our schools abandoning hard curriculum for a phd is sucking dick and other shit lick ball ideas suicide education. Safe drug movement clearly is subversion. fentanyl is the echo of the opium wars. the green earth is dying curriculum makes activists disinterested in participating in the economy, sucking the teat of utopia, and shitting out the crap we see everywhere as green marxism. well that is also funded in the organizations of the left, supposedly Soros et al. so its a joint subversion. At some point you think the Nazis and communists are trying to lay waste to capitalism and while thus engaged should there be enough room for us to come up the middle. the green alarmist subversion ensconced in curriculum in grade schools makes the ‘enemy’ not want to have kids, stay depressed, and easy picking. this IW is not examined at all. the IW by unions that send out communist manifesto and call each other comrades, that iw AND CCP infiltration is not examined.
dei comes from academia and organizations like professional bodies who also aspire after communist like results. Don’t earn a living unless you agree with the state.
dei seems to have a systematic roll out championed by the Larry Finks. but does it have anything to do with the stated goal of helping the under-fortunate or have as a result the decimation of
history of the west; (and thus their bearings)
bills of rights that protect all;
religions role in society (and the bearing that provides);
brands or organizations that are part of US history (bud light, boy scouts, target, beauty pageants, Disney seem to fail when exposed to DEI- it is the minority governing the majority when the formula is supposed to be the majority rules and the minority gets protected with minimum rights) So DEI inverts democracy and this is de-stabilizing. its universal coverage makes it a conquest like geography.
whether the rainbow understands or not the transgender rights is about transhumanism and rolling that out on the medical and rights infrastructure.
having kids study gender at the age of 6 and up is a hell of a distraction from participating in society in a manner that is competitive to china. Imagine just the tax payer funding that goes into the massive amount of clinics etc. They coincide with population activities’ by the UN which have been actively sterilizing populations since the late 60s early 70s. But we are supposed to think it all naturally bubbled up. Academia is being dumbed down at all levels of curriculum. Whether its high school US history changing to the history of baseball. Or an arts degree in Taylor Swift.
a war on family unit and values is simply another subversion CCP would aspire after and what we observe. Gay does not mean no family or obviously not part of a larger family structure that loves and support them and vice versa. However the goal of any outward communist structure is for the state to raise the children. this is the subversion visible in Canadian Schools. where health care is performed increasingly at schools, where the parent is demonized as adverse in interest from the child.
tiktok algorithms favor distrust and subversion and are run out by ccp as a op against the west.
next level subversion is to split us against our families. This subversion is polarized with those who endorse it seeing only the ideological wins and not where it come from and the ultimate goals. they believe their fulfilled lives are the ultimate goals. and thus it is an apt thing to have in school. those views also advance the interest of the CCP. all the Academic writing advances the CCP and once you see that you may have less narcissistic response.
So then the DEI adoption by the DOD is in effect a subversion even there. It is an outward expression of the minority running the majority, so then you have the majority rejecting all where DEI is espoused. in that manner CCP succeeds at diluting those talent that would want to sign up for the army corp. until and unless the DOD sees the effect of DEI on society at large and sees it as a tool of the CCP it does not recognize the subversion. the only other conclusion is worse. and the effect is known and desired.
The article acknowledges the CCP uses laws and regulations to infiltrate and subvert. This is the case with Professional regulatory bodies and of bureaucracy;
lest you need any hope the cure is as Bezmenov says. Morality is the cure speaking truth to power is the cure. there must be amazing people in the DOD and every other organization that should be protecting the west. As soon as the subversion is obvious to them, or the outcome that the subversion leads to, then, they will make decisive choices to move on this. they will have to see ESG as a tool that hurts the west. DIE likewise. they will have to see the green alarmism as a tool for the decimation of the west and the WHO as a organization combative to the interest to the Nation state and democracy. They will have to see CBDC as a tool that while useful, destroys the very reason the west is the west. Freedom and the pursuit of happiness. There is only a dark outcome in following the path now set out in legal and international instruments. What is the incremental increase to happiness that comes from diabolical full totalitarian control. those supposed to be on guard for the west are supposed to guard against this too.
If the top organizations and institutions of the west depart from their most important goal: to preserve WESTERN VALUES. then we have truly been subverted.
If already all move to a global order, well the result will be battles everywhere as citizens form alliances to defeat what torments their path to safely raising their families in peace and prosperity.
Do not wait for any hero. All in some ways are heroes in times like this. we must occupy the square. Occupy with our dialogue and our common sense. No one of any race religion, creed or rainbow benefits from a system where totalitarianism has succeeded. Thus in some ways, those who suffered in the past, must now take a new punch for the team, they must reject the systems they have up until now, believed benefited them. Otherwise those new DIE ESG will have as outcomes of subversion of the way of life in the WESt that we all ALL ALL come to love.
I want my freedom. YOU?
One thing I have noticed. the smarter you are, sometimes the more difficult things can become especially without grounding principles found in theology and religion. If you can see all the downsides then you become frozen by the fear that those visions provide.
Think instead that each time you take action, all the premises alter and the outcomes available to you do so as well. the do nothing approach leaves you with the outcome chosen by external forces. Doing nothing, always favours the enemy.
I worked along a man I admired in business. he made a decision on Monday and was moving to put these in place by Tuesday. We are all born with our talents and abilities and areas of strength.
Every where I look Lions are moving. they are not waiting anymore for someone to save them. they are making paths. We all have that ability.
in high school I tutored a girl in chemistry. She was such a hard worker. I got her a 54% in grade 13 chemistry. Damn it was hard for her. so hard. I found it hard myself. She would say, Lisa maybe you aren’t explaining it well enough. Internally I’d groan, when she would insult me, but was I going to just call her stupid?
I’d try another tack. I’d keep trying, and try to keep my own fuse from going off. Sometimes my head would explode and I’d want to yell back no you are dumb girl. But I didn’t not just because it would be mean, but because I was growing to admire her. Despite being quite dumb at chemisry, she wanted it badly.
I pulled up her grade from no hope- failing at 35% to by the end of the year to that 54%. Not mensa. But I admired how much she wanted it and how much she was willing to put in to just pull out that 54%. She wanted her credits, and to graduate with her class. She put me to shame. I never had to work like that to get grades. I was astounded that anyone had to work that hard just to pass. I was astounded at how proud she was of that 54%. I always thought- she has something going for her. Stubborn determination. Bull headed plodding. Moving ahead despite the adversity. If it was that hard, I wondered, would I be able to push through?
It’s not our starting place, it’s our determination that is going to matter.
We in the west want our institutions to work as designed and so the subversion will need to be rooted out. But not like an IW secret op. OUT IN THE FREAKING OPEN. WE CRAVE accountability.
Our schools, education, academia, professional bodies, civil service etc. Pick your spot.
If you need to 100% certainty before you move, well the time has been lost.
The subversion recognized in this article is a start, but it needs to be expanded to include DIE, ESG, green alarmism etc. So while I am just a lay person and the DOD has a budget that exceeds anything I can conceptualize, just the same I have some points they should consider.
“ABSTRACT The United States risks losing its information advantage over its near-peer competitors, specifically China. One reason behind this possibility is that the U.S. lacks a coherent doctrine of information warfare, which has put the U.S. at a disadvantage. Considering the Russian interference in elections of several North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) states and allies, including Ukraine, Germany, and, the United States, most stunningly in the 2016 presidential election, this article addresses the question: What is to be done? Before delving into possible solutions, the exact nature of the complex problem must be explored. The purpose of this article is to investigate the ways the U.S. could improve in information warfare, specifically against one of its top near-peer competitors, China. First, this article summarizes how China compares with the United States concerning information warfare and influence operations. Second, it delves into some of the definitional chaos in which the U.S. is mired. Thirdly, the article illustrates the doctrinal and data policies of the U.S. Department of Defense. Finally, it concludes with policy recommendations.
INTRODUCTION T his article asserts that the United States (U.S.) could perform better in the realm of information advantage against its near-peer competitors. Specifically, we examine China’s IW (Information Warfare) as it is an increasingly DoD-recognized threat and its growing technological development in the realm of artificial intelligence poses unique threats to the U.S.1 (LL DIE AND ESG IS IW)
We demonstrate that the key reason for the current This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.
Craig Douglas Albert, Ph.D. Samantha Mullaney Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Huitt Weaponizing Words: Using Technology to Proliferate Information Warfare Lance Y. Hunter, Ph.D. Lydia Snider 16 |
THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE predicament is that the U.S. lacks a coherent doctrine of IW, which puts the U.S. at a disadvantage. (ll TIKTOK IS IW)
China’s current advantage is due not to its superior capability, but to the U.S.’ lack of clear definition of terms, lack of unified approach, and lack of effective use of data. Thus, the U.S. has the capacity and capability to improve and to regain strategic superiority in this realm. We acknowledge that “information warfare” is not a term currently endorsed and widely used by the U.S. government. In fact, As Ross denotes, the U.S. Army is moving toward a new terminology, contained within the Information Advantage (IA) and Decision Dominance (DD) doctrinal framework.2
Information Warfare is one of the tasks associated with the IA & DD framework, but we chose to focus on IW to examine an adversary’s point of view, and the Chinese Communist party (CCP) is waging information warfare against the U.S.. Also, it is a term commonly used outside the U.S. government and within academia, but we also seek to acknowledge the future of IA & DD in DoD.
As recently as 2018, Seth Jones noted that the U.S. abandoned most of its information capabilities, choosing to focus on lethal rather than political or information operations.3
Historically, the U.S. has been surprised by its strategic adversaries’ sophistication and offensive capability, including non-state actors such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS). (LL NON STATE ACTORS SHOULD INCUDE GAVI ET AL AND THE WHO AND WEF)
The Institute for the Study of War acknowledged this in 2016, stating that tactics such as ISIS’s virtual caliphate, posed a distinct threat to the U.S. as long as they did not have a clear, government-wide IW strategy.4 Today, the CCP wields specific information warfare tactics and poses a similar threat. The U.S.’s IW deficit stems from a lack of a common definition. At times, different units within the U.S. military work against each other, rather than with each other, producing a “silo effect” of data, information, and ultimately intelligence collection and analysis. There is considerable movement within the service branches Craig Douglas Albert, Ph.D., is Professor of Political Science and the Graduate Director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. His areas of concentration include international relations and security studies, ethnic conflict, cyberterrorism, cyberwar, information operations, and epidemic intelligence. He is widely published, including articles in the Defense and Security Analysis; Iran and the Caucasus; Politics; East European Politics; Chicago-Kent Law Review; Politics and Religion Journal; Politics & the Life Sciences; Cyber Defense Review; Journal of Cyber Policy; Global Society; and Intelligence and National Security.
Dr. Albert has testified before a U.S. Congress’ joint sub-committee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You can follow him on Facebook/Instagram/Twitter @DrCraigDAlbert. CRAIG D. ALBERT | SAMANTHA MULLANEY | JOSEPH HUITT | LANCE Y. HUNTER | LYDIA SNIDER FALL 2023 | 17 Samantha Mullaney is a graduate of Augusta University’s Master in Intelligence and Security Studies Program in Augusta, Georgia. The focus of her research is on information warfare forms, tactics, and implications. Her capstone included completing an information warfare internship at the Georgia Cyber Center, where she researched Russian information warfare forms and tactics in Ukraine and the US between 2014 and 2020. Samantha has a BA in History from Fairfield University, an MA in Elementary Education from Boston University, and spent nearly a decade teaching children in Djibouti, Yemen, Jordan, and the UAE. She also speaks intermediate Arabic and basic German. She has been published in The Cyber Defense Review. to adopt and update the language from information warfare and information operations in favor of the term “information advantage.” However, many branches are still suffering from a historical lack of common parlance.
For instance, when President Clinton established the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), it did not synchronize other elements of public diplomacy or strategic communications, and thus the Departments of State and Defense disseminated different public messaging.5
Some of this may stem from the fact the Department of State-led Global Engagement Center (which has a vital role supporting information operations) seems to be understaffed, undersourced, and plagued by internal problems that have affected proper messaging in this realm.6 In fact, Kiesler notes, “There is no recognized leadership to task, direct, resource, or guide policy in the highly complex, disparate field of information operations.”7 LTG Stephen Fogarty and COL (Ret.) Bryan Sparling recently wrote, “The stunning social media-powered rise of ISIS in 2015, Iran's increasing digital belligerence, and China's disinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic” are all examples of information warfare challenges that have begun “a conversation across the defense establishment regarding appropriate roles for the uniformed armed services in this environment of unprecedented information warfare.”8 (LL is the vaccine mandate an example of subversion given the easily known consequences of the shot. Were those at the top duped by the mandate, and then doubled down on the hiding of the observations in order to hide the shame of being duped. or worse? only the DOD as an institution is harmed by illness or deaths in their ranks, or by being seen not to do anything. How would you attract more members?)
The above instances of information warfare and information operations (IWIO), as well as Russian interference in several NATO states and allies since at least 2018, begs the question: What is to be done?9 Of course, before delving into possible solutions, the exact nature of the complex problem must be explored. The purpose of this article is to investigate how the U.S. is fairing in information warfare, specifically against one of its top near-peer competitors, China. It also seeks to deliver recommendations on how it could do better concluding with specific policies meant to create discussion within the community and mitigate the problems. Before proceeding, however, it is important 18 | THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE LTC Joseph Huitt is a Cyber Warfare Operations Officer, currently serving as Cyber Warfare Deputy Director, Talent Management U.S. Army Cyber Command and also as a senior fellow at West Point’s Center for Junior Officers. He is a graduate of the College of Naval Command and Staff, U.S. Naval War College, and a Distinguished Military Graduate of Augusta University. LTC Huitt holds master’s degrees in Defense and Strategic Studies, and Intelligence Studies. LTC Huitt has served in leadership positions from the tactical to strategic levels, over his 23-plus years of service. He has gained invaluable experience serving with Special Operations Command in West Africa, USAFRICOM in England, NATO-ISAF in Afghanistan, 66th Military Intelligence Brigade in Germany, USARCENT in Saudi Arabia, 2nd Infantry Division in South Korea, and various stateside units. to provide some conceptualization of terms that are used throughout this article. Information warfare (IW) refers to the deliberate use of any element of information to influence the decision making of the adversary and achieve a strategic goal.10 IW takes place within the information environment, which refers to the physical, informational, and cognitive dimensions that interact with information.11 Information operations (IO) refer to the specific tactical undertakings in the pursuit of information warfare.
The goal of IW is to act in a manner that aids in manipulating the adversary “to win strategic victories and bend the wills of their adversaries without ever engaging in physical combat.”12 (LL GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE CHANGE IS CLEARLY THIS. CCP enjoys a massive advantage. so the result lends itself to this, the means is the academic and IW control through organizations, but also the science no one is allowed to discuss comes to that conclusion- only other result is that the Global warming is par of an IW that the west is participating in against citizens- except that CCP makes out like bandits and that is a factor that leads me to believe it is subversion)
It is important to note that IW is used at all stages of warfare, including in kinetic operations. We now turn to a brief illustration of how China dominates the narrative and achieves an advantage across the information environment.
LEFT BEHIND AND OUTMANEUVERED Malicious actors have benefited from access to modern technology, such as social media platforms, AdTech, and vast troves of stolen data, enabling IW to become one of the cheapest, easiest, and least restrictive types of warfare.13
The quest to disrupt the decision-making process by using and misusing information is incredibly destabilizing to open societies since IOs target the cognitive domain of individuals and the citizenry as a whole.14 (LL are we to believe the DOD doesn’t understand the harms of the vid vaccines? or this a shelter the fuck up op, or subversion. how they regarded the “misinformation” and acted was that because of a belief in the product, the WHO and GAVI without seeing these as part of the IW? or was there those within the DOD that were part of knowledge of these harms? difficult questions.)
IW seeks to sow confusion and polarization, thereby destroying the bonds that provide for stability within a society.15 (LL DIE sows race and gender polarization, and yet DOD are part of this on an obscene levels.)
The U.S.’s historical emphasis on tactical and kinetic activities has placed it at a distinct disadvantage during the current period of conflict between major competing powers, specifically with China.16
Competing nation-states seek to undermine the U.S.’s democratic norms and stability by utilizing information operations.17 CRAIG D. ALBERT | SAMANTHA MULLANEY | JOSEPH HUITT | LANCE Y. HUNTER | LYDIA SNIDER FALL 2023 | 19 Lance Y. Hunter, Ph.D., is Professor of International Relations in the Department of Social Sciences at Augusta University. Dr. Hunter’s expertise is in security studies and democratization. Hisresearch focuses on the causes and effects of terrorism and the relationship between evolving technology and conflict. His work has appeared in Journal of Peace Research; Terrorism and Political Violence; Party Politics; Studies in Conflict and Terrorism; Armed Forces and Society; Conflict, Security and Development; European Political Science; Global Policy; Cyber Defense Review; and World Affairs. China’s Strategic Advantage China possesses a comprehensive doctrine and advanced physical IW assets.18
This is possibly due in large part to the nature of the totalitarian state, which has more comprehensive control over the information infrastructure than the U.S. and therefore greater strategic advantage.19 (LL WUHAN Welcome Trust? has the DOD considered the asymetric IW of the WHO. That the WHO 2005 treaty requires satellite offices where information goes to the WHO from subject countries. This is not innocuous or simply about health. There fore has the DOD looked at whether the public health offices are foreign actors and more then slight subversion. The silos they speak of within their IW, can account for different understandings or levels of possible implication. The IW is effective if the dod doesn’t examine the WHO or their satellite offices.)
Limited in scope, but strategically long-term, IW measures are consistently implemented, creating a cumulative effect. Chinese IW emphasizes “limited objectives in a limited theatre of operations, conducted away from its borders, higher in tempo, shorter in duration, but highly decisive in nature.”20 (LL i would think the most effective occupation after academia, is politics, civil service, bureaucrats, and international NGOs, the WEF. If you expand the consideration of this then, you have to examine thier output in terms of requirements. DIE and ESG, WHO pandemic treaty, IHR and public health offices and policies themselves.)
By combining the thinking of Sun Tzu and Mao Zedong, Chinese IW is heavily focused on psychology and is used as a weapon in and of itself rather than as a support tool.21 (LL Mao Zedong was all about activating the youth, and using identity politics the very ones effectively deployed in DIE, polarization of race and gender)
Most Western scholars define Chinese IW as encompassing China’s “three warfares,” which include legal, psychological, and media operations. (LL science - global warming and pandemics, banking, dollar wars, CBDC)
These “warfares” attempt to demoralize the adversary, influence public opinion, and manipulate international law.22 (LL then wake up and realize the WHO PANDEMIC TREATY AND AMENDMENTS ARE THESE).
(LL demoralization is what happens when they run their groups in social media, get patriots to think a plan is being hatched that will sve them, from CCP infiltration, rather than engaging citizens to save their own nation state where subversion is obvious. Fear is demoralization, so who is running that. )
Most noticeable is China’s willingness to use highly integrated IW preemptively, illustrated by its IO campaign against Taiwan.23 (LL ACTUALLY MOST NOTICED IS THE VID PANDEMIC AS AN IW AGAINST THE PEOPLE, MIDDLE CLASS, BUSINESS, ECONOMY GDP AND GLOBAL WARMING- THIS of course has problems as the pandemic treaty and IHR amendments were submitted by the Biden administration)
Wortzel explains that China combines electronic warfare, precision strikes, cyber warfare, and attacks on space systems to paralyze an adversary’s information capabilities.24 (LL in the smart city infrastructure the cameras are made by china, the solar panels are attached to our grid-these all connected to a cloud. the 5G 6G is beaming and is controlled where as a possible weapon or crowd dispersal within the Western cities. Fentanyl is a scourge and more IW, kinetic even)
Strategically, China adheres to Mao’s concept of the “People’s War” when waging cyber-enhanced IW. This means utilizing a high volume of cyberattacks or dissemination of disinformation through cyber means. Watts explains the content across platforms is uniform.25 (LL then tie the bow. DIE is the people’s war, sex based cults are the peoples war, sex in school. WPAth GliSen is that IW and the people’s war)
Furthermore, as a totalitarian state, the CCP can coerce numerous Chinese citizens to do their part and espouse a narrative on behalf of the state, as illustrated by the ”50 Cent Party.”26
One advantage is the sheer number of people the CCP has working in this arena. They have the ability to direct vast numbers of actual users to execute bot-like operations. Unlike actual bots, however, these are immune to platform bot 20 | THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE Lydia Snider works for the U.S. Department of the Army as a specialist in foreign malign influence. violation rules, because behind the accounts are real people. While thousands may be posting at the behest of the CCP, even copying and pasting the same response, when the platform AI studies the event, it sees numerous real accounts, not a bot network. IW is at the forefront of China's revolution in military affairs and is viewed as the critical weapon rather than a support for other military endeavors.27
China recognizes that it cannot compete with U.S. defense spending and instead, starting in the 1950s, has institutionalized IW which has developed into a Strategic Support Force (SSF), the current central element of China’s IW capabilities.28 China has created entire institutions to develop IW capabilities, including the Academy of Military Sciences Military Strategy Research Centre, the PLA Academy of Electronic Technologies, and the Xian Politics Academy that trains psychological warfare officers.29 Additionally, the PLA has utilized simulation training for IW for more than a decade.30 Psychological warfare units are dispersed throughout the PLA following initial training, providing a common language and doctrine across departments.
Additionally, Elsa Kania and John Costello, as well as Larry Wortzel note that China’s view of IW subsumes cyber warfare.31 Given the totalitarian control the CCP needs over the domestic population, this sort of integration of cyber and information capabilities in the international arena would not be out of character. In fact, the control over information and therefore ideology, whether through cyber-mediated elements or not, “may allow for better planning, acquisition, and operations while enabling the creation of a more flexible cadre of personnel tailored toward new paradigms of information operations.”32
China’s global network of influencers illustrates this strategy.33 In this strategy, videos of mostly young Chinese women speaking in the language of the target audience speak of their respect for the target country and its culture and of China as a good friend. These videos appear in over a hundred different languages with almost the same script.34 (HAAHAHA, that is the tip of the iceberg- biggest plays are the rainbow subversion of schools to disable the middle class who are worried about their children, and become demoralized, and distracted from GDP earnings or participating in society. DIE demoralizes all. it polarizes and makes the races have difficulty bridging the gap. more issues come with DIE then they solve. racism was not perceived to be a big issue until the play was provided 246 airtime and IW. Climate change is the big IW. catch up. )
Each CRAIG D. ALBERT | SAMANTHA MULLANEY | JOSEPH HUITT | LANCE Y. HUNTER | LYDIA SNIDER FALL 2023 | 21 of these academies and centers gives China a probable advanatage over the U.S. in that they are steadily increasing their understanding of TTPs in the realm of information warfare and have wide dispersion capabilities as well. The resulting strategy allows for more flexibility and fluidity in its offensive operations. The last two decades have seen China attempt to move from confrontational IW to the appearance of cooperation.35 However, the facade has grown very thin in recent years with the development of the “wolf warrior diplomacy” strategy, which vigorously targets the U.S. and other Western nations and institutions.36
China builds the facade through a proliferation of Confucius Institutes, hosting new journalists from Africa in training workshops, and promoting tourism and events for foreign elites.37 The Belt and Road Initiative is presented as economic cooperation for the betterment of developing states, but large-scale Chinese investment in Africa has led to negative consequences. (LL so what about Ethiopia, Tedros and the WHO. what about the fact CCP likes to put the infrastructure up in Africa because owning the infrastructure gives them the exact means to listen and control to their subjects. how is that different then the infrastructure mounting in homes, smart meters, on our grids, how is that different than the smart city infrastructure, the green infrastructure. they are not tested but work with 5g the next gs and are hackable or instrumented direct to CCP)
The CCP’s infrastructure investment, a core element of the Belt and Road Initiative, is directly linked to undercutting local construction companies, operating on a profit margin of less than 10 percent, and is often tied to selection and use of Chinese contractors.38 (LL chinese solar panels the whole nine yards are the same play. think!!)
In addition, these single-source projects often are launched without feasibility studies or may include a clause to allow for a loan’s cancellation and immediate repayment.39 Although the Initiative is presented as a cooperative endeavor, one is reminded that it is indeed another form of Chinese propaganda, aimed at promoting the overall aims of the CCP.
The Chinese strategy focuses on weakening the institutions that stabilize American society by co-opting human networks inside these institutions. Other CCP-backed groups include the Chinese Students and Scholars Association and the China Association for International Friendly Contact. The former is a network across universities that receives funding from the CCP and distributes propaganda targeted at universities where there may be negative narratives about China.40
The latter organization specifically targets business people and veterans and seeks to shape messaging through invitations to tour China.41
When China faces an inability to create a façade of cooperation, it relies on different elements of the three warfares to coerce or manipulate adversaries. This is most adeptly seen in China’s activity in the South China Sea.42 (LL it is most aptly seen in the long play of global warming using those very academia and wealth of IW through institutions)
China’s aptitude in IW is clear. Its fleet of spy ships, SIGINT stations located as far afield as Cuba, its own dedicated SIGINT/EW aircraft, and dispersed human asset network allow it to carry out IW simultaneously along multiple fronts.43 In terms of media warfare, China has adroitly co-opted media outlets around the world through its front organization, Xinhua News. (LL and the cbc ha)
In Africa especially, this co-option of local journalists has weakened any concerted critique of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and extractive policies, helping China wage a psychological war and also enabling the manipulation of Africa’s legal structures. (LL JUST IN AFRICA? what about regulatory bodies that now have deference from courts. the perfect ccp control of legal structures)
There is little distinction between foreign and domestic media control by the Chinese Communist Party. For example, the Central Propaganda Department controls China National Radio, China Radio International, and CCTV. Consolidating media control is a deliberate attempt to unify domestic and international propaganda narratives.44
The United Front, Confucius Institutes, and wealthy Chinese working on behalf of the CCP have co-opted universities, 22 | THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE professors, think tanks, multinational corporations, and researchers to convey to the public crafted messages on behalf of the CCP, funnel research to China, and censor scientific or academic research that would negatively affect China’s reputation.45 (LL*********OK THIS HAS TO BE VIEWED AS WEF UN AND WHO AND THEIR GOALS)
This use of messaging encourages Americans to trust the espoused narrative because it comes from traditionally venerated U.S. institutions, such as universities and think tanks. (LL THEY GET journalists in the west too)
This creates a unified front within China, where the domestic and international narrative focuses on Chinese supremacy, posing a threat in itself to the effectiveness and longevity of democratic states worldwide. The more people “believe” in China’s regime, the more a threat is posed to democratic institutions worldwide, in the long run. This is yet another angle China uses in its information war against the U.S.
Chinese IW is also present on social media platforms. Scott Harold, Nathan Beauchamp-Mustafaga, and Jeffrey Hornung posit that China’s use of social media helps it destroy an adversary’s command authority through the demonization of a leader and the demoralization of the public.46
Like Russia’s, Chinese IW sees chaos and division as a product of successful psychological warfare, whether waged on social media platforms or through strategically placed individuals parroting a Chinese narrative. Given the totalitarian nature of the CCP, any and every business or actor inside of or connected to China can and may be used for the benefit of the state. One advantage the CCP maintains over the U.S. is its willingness to exert state control over social media platforms, through its censorship of internal conversation and with state control over the now internationally used platform, TikTok.
With TikTok, the CCP has a platform that both collects data on users and over which it has complete control of what content is delivered to users. Currently, China’s use of cyber for IW is coupled with a powerful and far-reaching network of human agents cultivated through organizations such as the United Front that help execute highly complex and integrated influence operations.47 This vast network of human assets in multiple arenas enables China to alter public perception and portray messages favorable to the CCP.
Specifically, China targets personnel and institutions with financial incentives to dampen negative publicity.48 The CCP’s response to the COVID pandemic is illustrative of its IW capabilities and its strong coordination between overt and covert IW.49
Now that a brief case analysis of China’s use of IW and IO has been illustrated, it is necessary to understand how and in what ways the U.S. lags behind China in the IW/IO competition. Ultimately, the U.S. cannot replicate the CCP’s power over the PLA and utilize its IW forms and tactics without demolishing national and international war standards.
That does not mean the U.S. cannot find a way to counter these tactics and maintain democratic norms. DEFINITIONAL CHAOS The U.S.’s competitors and near-peer competitors have institutions devoted to the successful utilization of information operations and achievement of strategic advantage in this domain. They also have broad, but useful, definitions of IW. Largely, the U.S.’ adversaries define IW as conflict in the information space that forces a specific decision by undermining political, information, social, or economic systems, often using mass psychological tactics to destabilize CRAIG D. ALBERT | SAMANTHA MULLANEY | JOSEPH HUITT | LANCE Y. HUNTER | LYDIA SNIDER FALL 2023 | 23 society by targeting a population.50
The goal of modern IW against the U.S. is to erode trust in authority and institutions, thereby undermining shared values.51 (LL so then what about when the institutions perform functions that destroy trust. Does that mean the CCP has infiltrated that institution and influenced the decisions)
The U.S. government does not have a consistent definition of what IWIOs are, and lacks a dedicated institution or agency with which to wage IWIOs effectively for strategic advantage.52 IW is divided across multiple agencies in the U.S., such as the Department of State’s Global Engagement Center, the CIA, U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), and other elements of the military.53 Essentially, the U.S. uses the “same terms differently in different contexts,” which creates confusion and a lack of strategic capability.54
Scholars such as Whyte define IW as the use or abuse of information to influence the decision-making options and processes of the adversary to achieve military or strategic gains.55 This is a broad definition that encompasses many tactics within the military and non-military realms. The Army’s definition is somewhat similar, noting that IW is a simultaneous effort directed at creating a specific effect in the information environment and is a battle “of information,” rather than just a battle for information.56
However, a 2012 joint publication from the Joint Chiefs of Staff confined IOs to military operations.57 In fact, Alicia Wanless and James Pammet note that the U.S. interprets IW/IO in largely military terms and tries to delineate between acceptable and unacceptable actions within these parameters.58
(LL i note the rudimentary nature of the discussion so far doesn’t involve any deployment of IW against China, rather is playing catch up and defence on IW. It should be presumed that all decisions in internation real that disfavour the west and prefer the CCP are the result of IW- and especially in areas where already known to be operating and have strengths thus CLIMATE CULT and DIE ESG. The presumption thus far in analysis as that these are not examined, and therefore in the realm of naturally occurring. BUT THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES.)
There is no such distinction for foreign adversaries given their different governing structures. It is understandable that the military focuses on command and control and how IW targets critical military elements necessary to gain a military strategic advantage. However, the IW waged against the U.S. is far broader than this focused definition. IOs target the cognitive domain of individuals and the citizenry as a whole.59
China utilizes persistent narratives that cause members of the target society to question themselves, and China seeks to disrupt the decision-making process of a state by using and misusing information.
(LL tHUS THE TIK TOKS constantly aimed at youth to sexualize them at young age, question if they should keep their breasts or shlongs, or if their skin colour is indicative that dead people did bad things they should have the guilt for, or if the planet is dying and it is their fault. demoralizing yes. subversion yes. part of DIE and ESG yes. benefits China yes.)
The U.S. government requires a common definition of IW which can be disseminated to national security agencies, the military, and public relations elements. These terms should be clearly defined and the parameters demarcated. The U.S. cannot wage an effective defensive information war without a consistent definition of IW.60
This article now proceeds to a discussion regarding how the DoD understands and effectuates IW. After detailing this, this article proceeds to set-forth policy recommendations that seek to bolster the U.S.’s IW/IO. DATA AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE To better understand the impact of information warfare and the U.S. Government’s (USG) approach to counter adversary actions, it is imperative to review the existing doctrine and policy that guide it. This article highlights the current guidance from the DoD and some of the challenges of wading through the vast data, directives, and policies which reference decades-old policy, include conflicting guidance, and lack of a common lexicon.
To set some common ground, the authors first discuss what DoD defines as data and how this is used to generate information and intelligence. Armed with the understanding that U.S. adversaries and competitors are waging IW, this section outlines the basics of how DoD processes data. 24 | THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE DoD highlights in its Data Strategy that “data is a high-interest commodity and must be leveraged in a way that brings both immediate and lasting military advantage.”61 Joint Publication (JP) 2-0 highlights that raw data must be collected and by itself may not be relevant or useful. As JP 2-0 further illustrates that information consumed solely by itself may be utilized by a commander, but is not of much use for decision dominance. When related to the operating environment and considered in the light of past experience, however, it gives rise to a new understanding of the information, which may be termed intelligence.”62 The intelligence directorate enriches information by collecting national tactical means to answer a commander’s requirements, enabling decision dominance. DoD made information the seventh joint function in 2017 based on 2016 guidance first established in Joint Publication 1, “Operations in the Information Environment (IE).”63
Publicly available information (PAI) is information available on the open Internet and it plays an important role in IW/IO. DOD Directive 3115.18, “DoD Access to and Use of PAI,” issued in 2019, outlines the lawful and appropriate access to “obtain, and use PAI to plan, inform, enable, execute, and support the full spectrum of DoD missions.”64 While new directives are important, old directives have not always been updated, causing confusion and gaps in strategy implementation. The U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) is flush with data; however, it is generally just white noise. Because of the definitional chaos of IO,65 and the silo effect of data, different U.S. agencies approach IWIO differently and are often at odds with one another. Different units across all branches of the military often look at the same data for different issues and do not share the information across the DoD.
In many instances, different military organizations are buying the same data from companies under different contracts for each organization. In other words, there is such a disunity of approach in data collection because DoD has not created a data governance entity to manage data acquisition from private industry and make it available across the force. DoD has put the onus on components to develop and implement their own data acquisition plans.66 (LL Canada is becoming a premiere country at watching its citizens, a country that nods to the ccp in many ways.)
Furthermore, if DoD had a data lake that housed curated, publicly and commercially available information, which was available to its components, it would drastically reduce redundant data as a service contracts.(LL DOD must consider the relationship between tech and CCP and THAT the CCP is moving fast beyond IW into collecting data on Western citizens through the Smart city infrastructure. they make the cameras and the grid hood ups for solar, it is a massive vulnerability. and I know how I would think about it and what I would do and therefore reverse engineer it. I know how I would exploit it if I were evil and thus that is how it is being utilized. under green exploitation YOU GET access to all homes in a western country: solar panels on grids, cameras on street lights. they did it with the telco infrastructure in Africa. therefore the west and the green marxism is no different. smart city infrastructure will lead back. who builds who installs who hacks where does it go)
This situation is one of the reasons the U.S. is behind the curve relative to China concerning the information domain and battlespace. This strategic adversary has clear conceptual approaches to influence operations, and has a more centralized or unified approach to information warfare and intelligence collection than does the U.S..67 Thus, a more unified approach will help connect the dots with the U.S.’ collected data. It should be noted that the IC has the data at hand but does not always efficiently utilize the data to achieve its ends. As the U.S. plans for future data acquisition it needs to follow its adversaries’ lead in tracking narratives in the languages in which they are communicating and bringing on language and cultural experts who understand the nuances of those narratives. (LL free speech and knowing the enemy’s objectives should be the guide. IF DIE and ESG has as a result subversion and demoralization then it too must be CCP IW. Wake up. it came from academia and the very institutions known to be subverted. is very hostile to the domestic population and demoralizes them.)
LACK OF A UNIFIED APPROACH DoD understands the challenges of IW and has developed numerous policies to attempt to address them with the end state of achieving information advantage.68 However, these new CRAIG D. ALBERT | SAMANTHA MULLANEY | JOSEPH HUITT | LANCE Y. HUNTER | LYDIA SNIDER FALL 2023 | 25 policies failed to provide guidance that would benefit DoD organizations and military branches in the twenty-first century. Despite the existing elements of known national power, diplomacy, information, military, and the economy (DIME), and the aforementioned new policies for DoD, the military branches have developed their own approaches that are not synchronized.
The term “IW” is also a point of contention—DoD prefers the term (IO), which encompasses a host of information-related capabilities (IRCs). DoD has published Joint Publication (JP) 3-13, “Information Operations,” in 2012 and updated it again in 2014. The definition of IO outlined in JP 3-13 is “the integrated employment, during military operations, of information-related capabilities in concert with other lines of operation to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision-making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own.”69 JP 3-13 further discusses that, after analyzing a target audience, desired effects can be accomplished through various means, including DIME actions. Here, the lack of a unified approach becomes apparent as these IRCs are managed separately at the joint level and across all military branches. For context, IRC capabilities can include but are not limited to personnel from the electronic warfare (EW), cyberspace operations (CO), military information support operations (MISO), civil-military operations (CMO), military deception (MILDEC), intelligence, and public affairs (PA) communities.70
All the communities mentioned above have developed their own guidance over time, executed it with various authorities, and achieved varying degrees of success. Some of these capabilities are nascent (i.e., cyber), and others have a long tradition (i.e., MILDEC). Historically, it is challenging for DoD to synchronize all these capabilities beyond incorporating them for a specific operation. However, the U.S. Congress has noticed that the environment has changed and identified gaps in its understanding of combating the shaping operations U.S. adversaries are conducting within the information environment.
To summarize, the U.S. is behind its strategic near-peer competitors, specifically China, due to the lack of a clearly implemented and unified approach, definitional chaos within the information environment, and inefficient utilization of evolving data and information into intelligence.
(LL on the defence of domestic side the international instruments, organizations and transnational tropes favour CCP and are therefore part of the subversion of IW that are NOT being examined and must be. Believe that the game was longer then your assent to the DOD. So it is possible and once you look at the science that is also where you get.)
With the understanding of Chinese influence operations and an illustration of the precise reasons the U.S. is behind its strategic adversaries based on DoD doctrine and implementation, what is to be done? POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISCUSSION The first and most obvious policy recommendation is that the U.S. needs to form a centralized, unified approach dedicated to data, intelligence, and IW. (LL with all due respect to many people eons smarter than me, look at the benefit of the tropes follow the lines back to the institutions- and biggest- LAWS ON THE BOOKS with respect to subversion- where intuitions are being utilized as weapons like WHO WEF, Climate alarmist- look with open mind at other science and then see the trope helping China ALOT, WHO will change and alter American and western society. Laws on the books for subversion need to be drafted.)
This has already been achieved by the CCP. Although there are some in the U.S. who may oppose the creation of such a plan, this article demonstrates why it is a strategic necessity. (LL free speech and education citizens against the tropes and ccp infiltration of instructions. High penalties for infiltration, not censorship. otherwise you become china haha. isn’t that ironic. in defending your values you adopt china means? watch yuri bezmednov. is th attack on God Himself subversion.)
The U.S. is losing because of its inability to turn data into operational intelligence and its lack of human capital allocation regarding IW. This gives its adversaries the strategic advantage. What is not necessarily needed is a 26 | THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE centralized entity to develop a unified approach. Rather, it is a unified approach based on policy across departments and within a unified command structure. Existing institutions may provide the backbone from which to consolidate and then disseminate a unified approach to IW. (LL defeating IW with IW in defence strategy is stupid. deploy IW in their area ie in their institutions etc, but defense has to be out in the open: deploy education of people of the subversion name it root it out punish it and protect the values that are western through western values. root out die, esg and return history and western values. investigate the climate trope thoroughly, as well the WHO as an institution of the CCP otherwise subversions win is complete and society becomes ccp controlled esk. but what do I know. just a philosopher observer of my world.)
Sue Gordon and Eric Rosenbach argue in Foreign Affairs that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency should become the center of gravity for domestic cybersecurity operations.71
Additionally, they argue that USCYBERCOM ought to be realigned and re-envisioned into something approaching the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). In a similar vein, Lieutenant General Timothy D. Haugh, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas J. Hall, and Major Eugene H. Fan argue that this new information environment requires “tight partnerships among all elements of the DoD, the interagency, and our coalition partners, driving a shift in the weight of effort from preparing for conflict to competing now.” They continue, “We do not need a new approach to command and control, but a new framework that both materially creates the awareness among, and organizes the horizontal coordination of, organizations across the continuum of cooperation, competition, and conflict.”72
Regardless of whether a unified approach creates a new entity or reenergizes current entities with new authorizations to handle all aspects of IWIO, this is the first step to help the U.S. counter IWIO by adversaries. It is currently unclear if the upcoming redefinition of terms by the Army, and its switch to using information advantage rather than information operations, as recently noted by Ross, will help or hinder the operational chaos produced by the terminology.73
Secondly, once a unified approach is defined, the U.S. needs to develop clear operationalizations and definitions for its information operations and strategic approaches. These concepts need to be clearly codified and implemented across the board, intra- and interagency. Once this is done, it may be necessary to go on the IW offensive.
The U.S. needs to set the narrative in several key areas in an assertive way, using digital and social media in a fashion similar to how Radio Free Europe was used in the Cold War to communicate pro-democratic and anti-communist messages to thousands of individuals living behind the Iron Curtain.74 (LL WELL DO IT DO PRO DEMOCRATIC AND ANTI CENSORSHIP. PRO FREE SPEECH AND ANTI GLOBALIST CONTROL)
The advantages and strengths of democracy, democratic participation, and respect for human rights need to lead the agenda-setting program of the U.S.. Currently, the U.S. is playing defense concerning the democratic narrative and, in fact, is generally reactive in response to disinformation and propaganda. There is almost no chance of winning the influence war within the Chinese space if the U.S. does not utilize successful tactics. (ll THEIR TROLLS INTIMIDATE AND RACE EXPLOIT. die must be their tool. They infiltrated the organizations pushing these)
Justin Sherman explains in a prior article for CDR that the Chinese have built out “variously undemocratic practices, such as online censorship, using digital technologies.”75 However, he also notes that digital authoritarianism affects the international arena, and U.S. national security directly, by allowing authoritarian regimes to consolidate power, encouraging the global diffusion of digital surveillance and propagating the idea of Internet sovereignty, thereby potentially avoiding U.S. deterrence strategies.76
Thus, authoritarian spaces control the information environment and, conversely, the information environment helps proffer authoritarianism.77 Playing constant defense is a poor strategy and has been largely unsuccessful for CRAIG D. ALBERT | SAMANTHA MULLANEY | JOSEPH HUITT | LANCE Y. HUNTER | LYDIA SNIDER FALL 2023 | 27 the U.S. Our near-peer competitors’ sophistication demands the return to strategic offense in the information environment. Furthermore, the U.S. must strengthen its defenses. For instance, U.S. policy typically does not allow for individuals within the IC or IWIO domains to engage with fake accounts, bots, or organized campaigns aimed at the U.S. citizenry. In fact, according to Major Jessica Dawson, “The result of this is that there is no agency within the Army charged with understanding the ways in which U.S. adversaries can manipulate the domestic information warfare space… [T] he U.S. Army is unable to assess or respond to threats in the social media space.”78 Although it may draw more attention to these accounts and issues, which the U.S. typically discourages, counter-attacking or taking the offensive may surprise Chinese information operatives. If done in a sophisticated manner, U.S. intervention into these spaces may quickly throw its adversaries into an emotive state, which could derail their policy. The action would also signal a policy and strategic culture shift in the U.S., which could help reassert U.S. dominance in this information space, forcing adversaries to play its game, rather than vice versa. (LL couldn’t you just look at where they are making out like bandits and back it out, to what the IW is and its top sources climate, smart cities, solar on grids, vaccines)
Additionally, U.S. near-peer competitors use popular influencers to their strategic and cultural advantage.79 China pushes out influencers targeting its own population, and it hires Western influencers to target the West. In fact, China targets its own population through data-driven analytics to exert domestic control.80 The U.S. could use a similar methodology against China and foreign adversaries as well, without violating U.S. law, military norms, or democratic codes of conduct. Instead of shutting down DoD military influencers, the U.S. could help them expand to combat Chinese IW/IO.
Military members not on TikTok could be used to counter CCP efforts stateside by explaining why they are not on the platform. Active social media influence by exceptionally talented individuals could act as an IWIO deterrence. As Morin states, domestic IIOs would be targeted toward adversarial IIOs and seek to reduce “the viewing of an adversary’s IIO content.”81 (LL don’t throw out the baby with the bath water- PROTECT WESTERN VALUES, THE RULE OF LAW)
As the digital age progresses and the information environment becomes a clearinghouse for great power conflict, the U.S. needs to engage this domain strategically and tactically. It can do so by setting its own agenda in this space, while also remaining dedicated to liberal democracy.82 As noted earlier, Chinese IWIO strategies focus on active offense at all times; there is no difference in their peacetime versus conflict strategies. To compete within this space, the U.S. needs to choose wisely which elements of IW should be used offensively. (OFFENSE IS TO HONOUR THE WESTERN INSTITUTIONS VALUES, THE NATION STATE, to never approximate them, to call it out publicly, to get people up to speed on subversion and for the DOD to see the plain subversion in front of their noses. DIE ESG, climate, the WHO power grab, UN)
David Morin explains that incorporating Information Influence Operations (IIOs) into USCYBERCOM tactics “would allow [the U.S.] to effectively guide perception and even shape the targeted population’s perception of reality, if effectively conducted.”83 The U.S. should also consider its strategic use of the Internet in multiple areas. In terms of web presence on the domestic front, all government sites should be technologically savvy and well-integrated with social media platforms to help bolster government legitimacy among generations that are increasingly technologically-oriented. Additionally, the government should 28 | THE CYBER DEFENSE REVIEW WEAPONIZING WORDS: USING TECHNOLOGY TO PROLIFERATE INFORMATION WARFARE consider policies and procedures that would enable the exclusion of bad foreign actors, companies, and advertisement funding.84 If the U.S. were to disrupt and deny foreign actors’ abilities to disseminate influence operations actively through U.S. companies and Internet platforms, it would begin the process of active defense. Due to China’s regime structure, the U.S. and China are playing two separate games with separate rule books.
China is directly targeting U.S. civilian interests, has deep pockets to spread its message, and has control of its own media. It can even pay U.S. companies for advertising space, whereas the U.S. denotes limited funds to IW/IO and does not focus on the same targets. The U.S. should utilize the Internet in a manner that aggressively goes on the offensive on behalf of American citizens. This will likely encourage China to complain that the U.S. has caused offense on the international stage.
However, it is long past time for the U.S. to demonstrate clearly its IWIO capabilities and impose costs on its adversaries in their attempts to disrupt American society. For this to be effective, the U.S. must engage in IWIO through a whole-of-society approach, but one that plays out much differently than the centrally directed, coercive manner of authoritarian regimes. Although this article argues that DoD needs a centralized division and strategy for IW/IO to compete with China, it also needs a decentralized environment which allows for all sectors of U.S. society to engage in the game by their own initiative. This would include defense, entertainment, schools, and the citizenry, as imagined by researchers Cristina-Elena Ivan, Irena Chiru, and Rubén Arcos.85
The U.S. needs an overarching message to disseminate and, to be effective, it has to come from multiple segments of society. As a part of this whole-of-society approach, U.S. companies will need to play an active role. As Dawson notes, technology companies such as Facebook and Google are ungoverned, unrestricted spaces; as such, they pose a significant security risk for the United States, especially concerning data and intelligence for IOs.86 The focus of technology platforms should be to prevent U.S. adversaries from co-opting the platform to wage a disinformation campaign against the U.S. citizenry. Most especially, as Major Dawson insists, “The U.S. must recognize the current advertising economy as enabling and profiting from information warfare being waged on its citizens and address the threat.”87
While we must address the fight the adversaries put in front of us, we win, not by trying to play their game, but by playing ours effectively. DISCLAIMER The views presented are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of DoD or its components.”
This article is published here:
“https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/Portals/6/Documents/2023_Fall/CDR_V8N3_Fall_2023_r3.pdf”
I try to follow, but unidentified contractions make me lose the thread.
What is IW, please?
Is English your native language?