Information Warfare: All the World is a Stage

All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players: - Shakespeare
 

After Bill's Alternate Time Line post provided by his friend Vadim, a long conversation ensued that really left the issue of the timeline and attack and went right into information dissimenation.  I thought that dove tailed nicely into The Belmont Club's piece:

War in the Ether

long before there was any allegation that the Georgians had entered South Ossetia, the Russian cyberwar apparatus began their campaign against Tbilisi:

“Weeks before physical bombs started falling on Georgia, a security researcher in suburban Massachusetts was watching an attack against the country in cyberspace.

Somewhere around July 20th, Denial of Service attacks were underway.  Everyone keeps wondering what tripped Saakashvili's trigger.  There were too many signs to ignore, really.  But, what was happening did not simply end with cutting off Georgian communications.  Georgia actually did what bloggers do when their site goes down.  They quickly put their backed up websites on other servers and even started a blogspot account to insure that information continued to get out. 

Blogger is on an American server.  What seems to imply that the DDOS attacks and other hacking were part of an official cyber war plan is not only its timing weeks before the attack, but specifically because it did not attempt to knock out western servers or Ukrainian after the Georgian sites moved.  Non-state hackers have already tried to take down these servers in the past for their own purposes and would seem to have no appreciation for greater geo-political niceties. 

Then again, it may have simply been that these servers were better protected or the hackers needed American servers to work to make their attacks.  However, had the hackers attacked other nations' servers, particularly the US, at the same time that Russia was attacking Georgia, it would have set off a much wider panic and response.

At the same time, websites that can be considered information conduits, particularly those with high visits and/or "pro-American" were suddenly being visited by pro-Russian commenters.  Some of whom took unassuming American names.   On Pajama's Media and a website called Registan, a commenter calling himself "Jack Chambers" was suddenly everywhere calling Georgia a fascist state. A typical Russian insult to any country not their own; even the Georgian population, during recent mass protests in country and in front of Russian embassies around Europe, held signs equating Russia with fascism. 

Some commenters were not so subtle in their names. 

Other interesting efforts were the  appearance of Russian ex-pats or Russian citizens posting pro-Russian comments at places like UK Times Online and other news sites.  There were, of course, other western Europeans and Americans who were making anti-Georgian and anti-American comments. 

These weren't necessarily coordinated efforts.  As we have found throughout the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, information warfare on a website or blog comments was not a matter of the United States government unleashing its paid minions (though, that accusation was flung around considerable against Americans and pro-American Iraqi bloggers) to purposefully spread government propaganda.  It was American citizens venturing into the blogosphere for information and finding themselves involuntary and unwitting militia in the civilian information corps.  Or, as Canonneer calls it: civilian irregular defense group. 

The organization of that militia was completely voluntary, often unrecognized even by the militia member and worked by linking information, news and blogs in common forums, posts and blog rolls.  Usually in support of their own opinions and ideas, but often in tangent with American government policies.  Particularly in those forums where there was a large mix of opinions.  Most people were not aware they were participating in any war effort.  But, even in linking blogs with common or similar ideology, through numbers of hits on websites and posts, the information began to "bleed through", appearing higher and higher in rankings through search engines when ordinary people used these tools to find information. 

Some of the information that was being linked or posted during this "hot" war in cyberspace came from "official" sources and websites such as CentCom or MNF-Iraq.  Whether all those who linked to it and read it believed every word is hard to say, but it wasn't about accepting it as complete, objective truth, really, though we trusted it more than reports from Al Jazeera.  It was about circumventing the established information by-ways and challenging or changing established "accepted" wisdom by presenting alternate, additional or more complete information. 

We did (do) believe that the information we had was more truthful than the information being propagated.  Much of that information being largely provided by foreign "stringers" or press releases or videos from the actual enemy as if the media had to give it fair time.  

What seems apparent today, and something the blogosphere should not miss nor dismiss, is that such activities are not the sole province of westerners or non-state actors.  The blog post and comment page is just as much a battle field for irregular information warfare as any other media and equally as subject to propaganda, from all sides, as reporters receiving official statements from any official agent or agency or interested party and reporting it either on the internet, in print or in video on the television.

My original point, drilled down to the extreme simplicity is this: All information is propaganda.  Official information is official propaganda.  Thus, it always deserves to be challenged.  Paraphrasing Socrates, question everything.

A question was posed in the comment section here as to how I perceived the term "propaganda".  For many people, the term "propaganda" immediately engenders a bad taste because we equate propaganda with lying.  That is not necessarily correct.  Sometimes propaganda is the objective truth.  In all respects, propaganda in its purest form is information meant to persuade people or influence perceptions. 

Comment from Belmont Club, August 12, 5:28 pm

Well, I’m unnerved by how much a meme that is repeated over and over early enough seems to become “Gospel Truth” in classic information cascades. But, all it takes is a break at the top of the cascade for mass opinions to shift.

Sometimes it is not the information that is the problem as it is sometimes the objective truth, but what is said about it in order to shape opinions surrounding it.  Or, in some cases, where it starts and what is left out.  All of which has the ability to shape perception and turn objective facts into subjective perceptions.  

Those who spread this information are not necessarily witting propagandists or paid representatives of a national apparatus.  They are simply part of this great stream of information we call the internet.  Every person trying to find information or provide it to the best of their abilities is participating.  That is not to say that everyone has a pure or altruistic motive.  Some are moved by national pride, belief in an ideology or simply through emotional compulsion of a subject.  Some of it is even outright lies or defamatory remarks purposefully posted to derail other information, denigrate the originator of information or cause support among the people..

Missing information is just as important as the information we do receive.  Right before that timeline was posted, I had just finished reading the official Georgian government's timeline.  That did not make either of those timelines more or less truthful than the other.  What I do know is that it was missing information.  Largely, several years, even decades, worth of history and definitely at least six weeks worth of prepatory information leading up to the start of hostilities.  

For all intents and purposes, it had the ability to shape our perceptions and was; just as media and comments were doing around the internet, in print and on the air waves.  In the end, the most telling part of that time line was what was missing and the emotional plea at the end.  Purposefully or not, it did pull at our emotions and shape our perception of who was responsible, who was the aggressor and who was the victim. 

What was missing was the background story of Georgia, Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia.  What was missing was when the cyber attacks began, when the Russian armored divisions appeared on the other side of the mountains, when did Russian air planes begin flying over Georgian air space and many more "who, what, when and where" to make good decisions about what was going on.  That kind of information, missing from any timeline, can influence people who, for the most part, pay little attention to that part of the world. 

There are large swaths of citizens who barely pay attention to what is happening in America, our government or in our own wars much less some little place called Georgia in Eurasia.  That is a crucial factor for any group or government in shaping perceptions.  They count on their audience to know little or nothing or already have an ideological bias. 

Words matter, too.  Russia has been prepping the information battle space from the beginning by insisting in their official statements that they were "liberating" the people or defending the people.  Every statement from both sides are accusations of human rights violations, war crimes and various other statements meant to evoke visceral reactions in the listener or reader.   These are strategic communications.  The audiences they are meant to influence vary.  The message is meant to invoke pride, anger, hate, disgust, shame and any other emotion that can be used to shape perceptions and relationships based on the relationship of the audience to the actors.

9) Russians with no access to sources for news other than the official, found themselves in total isolation in terms of information. The degree of manipulation of public opinion, and the speed with which the society was brought to mass hysteria, are clear evidence of the regime’s “achievements,” and pose an undeniable and unprecedented danger to the Russian society.
 

Russia says they are "liberating" the Ossetian province from a "fascist" state.  We should know that "liberation" simply means taking power over a country.   It's what happens after that, that matters.   That decides whether the word "liberation" is meant in the form that we take it: ie, to give liberty; or, if it is meant in the simplest terms: take something from another, to liberate.  In fact, Russia liberated Poland at least five times in the last three hundred years.  Three times it was divided between Imperial Russia and other European states and once, in the twentieth century, it was liberated from the Nazis only to have a repressive communist regime installed.  Liberation. 

The word fascism today has lost its original meaning, but on the European continent, having suffered under it sixty years earlier, it is a word that engenders more fear and loathing than the word "Communist" even though Communism has been equally deadly and horrific.    In the United States, fascism is routinely used to denigrate anyone that rejects an ultra-liberal political belief or adheres to any conservative ideology.  But, its use still invokes a visceral reaction.  Its use in this case is not simply an insult, but meant to shape political and ideological perceptions in parts of the home society and abroad about the opponent.  

Pictures speak a thousand words.  For instance, Russia reports that Georgian soldiers have burned a church full of civilians.  The picture that accompanies that story was a burned, stone apartment building without any bodies, rescuers or other markings of a church.  But, just the image with the claim seemed to validate the story. 

Russia also knows how to play the game that we have been playing with our own media about misleading images or captions, intentional or otherwise.  For instance, this article indicates that CNN aired footage of Ts'khinvili with bombed out tanks and buildings while announing that Gori had been bombed.  Russia Today immediately called out CNN for deliberately airing incorrect footage of bombings that they blame on the Georgians while CNN was trying to illustrate the war damage in general.  However, that sent a message of Russian destruction that Russia did not want to have portrayed so it challenged CNN.  Correctly, as it appears.  However, the media is now learning that it can't simply use stock footage to illustrate a point.  People want the truth as much as possible because they do believe that all information is propaganda.

In the end, we decide what we make of informaiton, but leaving information unchallenged means that we leave perceptions unchallenged.  Milblogs, political blogs and others came to prominence because people were looking for missing information.  Because we did not believe we were getting a complete picture or story.  Because we believed that without some sort of expertise or background information, the real story was missed for sound bites or two sentences that basically said: bomb today, three soldiers killed.  Left to itself and to ourselves, we would have been led to believe, purposefully or not, that the only thing happening in Iraq or Afghanistan was bombs and death. 

What is a military blog or milblog?  It is a place to get direct information or stories from men and women in the military or retired from the military or with connections to the military.  Mostly without any filters.  When those blogs proved accurate and the people legitimate, their voices were trusted more than any other media source to be the gage by which to evaluate progress.  We linked to those stories to persuade ourselves and others of the facts or views being different than those presented. 

We were and are, in fact, conducting a very small part of the information war whether that is our original intent, current purpose or accepted outcome.  Information dissemination is information warfare. 

All information is meant to inform and persuade.  Thus, all information becomes propaganda.  All official information is official propaganda.  Regardless of who it comes from or how trusted the source.  Looking at information to evaluate its persuasive purposes and capability is not paranoid any more than evaluating the purpose of a commercial for its ability to sell a product is paranoia.  It does not entail the same potential risk to national or international actions, but it is the same concept.

Being aware of that does not mean that we reject information, even information to the contrary of our own.  It does mean that we should evaluate it more closely and look for information that we are missing to form a more complete picture.  Further, we should be aware that blogs that we use to convey information to one another or outsiders can be used to provide a platform for opposing propaganda.  When we are talking about war, we keep that dictum in mind: All information is propaganda.  All official information is official propaganda.

In fact, I wrote this piece to persuade you that you are being propagandized by everything and everyone.  Propaganda.  I expect this entire post to be challenged immediately, even by people I consider "allies" and "friends" because it is...
 
...propaganda.

I would like to point out that neither this blog nor several other more prominent blogs repeated the claims of ethnic cleansing, war crimes or other overstated claims of aggression by either side.  While I did disagree with Vadim and the time line, it was more in relation to the idea of information and its persuasion, than any objections to Vadim.  Information should not go unchallenged.