We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:18:36 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification (Kat-Denizen Opinion; hopefully the Armorer doesn't think I am invading the castle via the port door with all my posts) In light of the Armorer's post below, I thought I would bring this to our attention: Analyzing Al Qaida's Media Arm I believe both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz warned against over estimating your enemy. Bryan Preston from Hot Air goes head to head with the "experts" over their analysis of AQ's As-Sahab (The Cloud) capabilities. The long and short of it is, the "experts" believe that AQ's As Sahab "Institute" is a large group (in Bryan's words, "an army") of... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:41:03 -0600 Info War Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers Citizen Information Militia The Strategic Citizen and Information Operations Information Warfare Smith-Mundt PSYOP Surrogates and Propaganda Proxies Blogospheric Resistance — IO In Denied Battle Spaces]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64843 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64843 Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:15:16 -0600 http://haftofthespear.com/ if one wants to find it themselves.). Kat's just given me a mother huge reading and essay writing assignment tonight that I'm not sure I'll get around to hunting thru Haft's archives. ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64786 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64786 Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:38:01 -0600 Doctrine... doctrine... doctrine... and law. One of the poins the OSD PA bubbas made at the Milblogger conference was the need, for credibility *and* because of the law, for the PAO types to *not* engage in overt Info Ops of a "putting out false stories" flavor, on many levels. I see the point. The other point is, however, that taking PA into account, by the IO guys, is important in the campaign planning. Doctrine... doctrine... doctrine. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64774 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64774 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:00:35 -0600 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who Watches The Watchers? When we talk about having a Cyber Force, PSYOPS, or some other governmental entity or entities (CIA, State, NSA, etc.) patrolling the internet, monitoring content and traffic flow, and hacking into and exploiting whatever vulnerabilities are out there, we really do get into some troubling areas regarding the law, Constitutional rights, and the power of Big Brother. (Thanks, John, for reminding me earlier.) I'm all for having SOMEONE do SOMETHING to provide system security for DoD and other governmental and commercial systems, as well as conducting PSYOPS (including propaganda and misinformation) against and exploitation of terrorist websites, etc. But we really do need to be careful about who's doing it, how much of this power resides in any central authority, and whether or not any governmental agency is infringing on Constitutional rights. The last thing we want is Hillary's Pentagon or State Dept. or CIA (circa 2009) targeting Castle Arrgggh! or Blackfive or NRO or VictorHanson.com as a "terrorist" site.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64773 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64773 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:24:41 -0600 State, CIA, and NSA are all probably much better equipped to handle that type of mission. Considering the numerous, recent security leaks and attempts to undermine our efforts in the GWOT coming out of the CIA and State Dept lately, this worries me greatly.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64770 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64770 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:51:02 -0600 Regardless... it's *Doctrine* http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64765 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64765 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:20:27 -0600 I thought about that as I was posting. However, I think there are two different aspects to this just as State and the DoD have two different responsibilities. As in the article,the state deals with policy and is responsible for addressing those policies to other nations and engaging directly in those discussions with others. then there is the actual war. I don't expect state to comment on or try to counter the latest "we blew up 100 American soldiers" video or report. I think that is the DoDs responsibility. I don't expect state to do the "we built 100 schools" and "gave 10,000 kids" immunization shots. that is DoD. ONe thing I constantly think about is the slicked up videos at the Pentagon channel showing some of the things we don't see in the mainstream media. However, the Pentagon Channel has gone "mainstream" in its format and does not possess the one on one personal and direct interaction of individuals which is the power of personal blogs. That's the draw to both the supporters and the "neutrals" who are trying to figure out which is right. So, yes, I see your point, but only so much as a division of labor based on area of responsibility, not in forgoing appropriate IO for the military. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64763 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64763 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:34:21 -0600 Don't be so quick to assume all things GWOT must be done by DoD. There are a lot of .gov agencies that might do a better job, especially in this area. The military does have PYSOPS, but they traditionally work at the tactical (brigade and division and below) level, maybe operational at most. STRATCOM does have a Cyber Warfare section, but as far as I know, their mission is more geared toward attacking the other guys' networks and keeping our own safe. Message spreading at the global level probably isn't necessarily what you want the armed services doing anyway. State, CIA, and NSA are all probably much better equipped to handle that type of mission. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64762 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/09/cyber_warfare_d.html#comment-64762 Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:40:00 -0600