[iwar] [fc:Defining.Propaganda,.Illegal.Deception]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-02-24 21:30:23


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4520-1014615025-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com>
Delivered-To: fc@all.net
Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:32:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 28947 invoked by uid 510); 25 Feb 2002 05:30:23 -0000
Received: from n18.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.68) by all.net with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 05:30:23 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4520-1014615025-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.191] by n18.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 25 Feb 2002 05:30:41 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: unknown); 25 Feb 2002 05:30:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 51569 invoked from network); 25 Feb 2002 05:30:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Feb 2002 05:30:23 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.72.152) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Feb 2002 05:30:22 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g1P5UOZ16731 for iwar@onelist.com; Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:30:24 -0800
Message-Id: <200202250530.g1P5UOZ16731@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
X-Mailer: don't even ask
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:30:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Defining.Propaganda,.Illegal.Deception]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Christian Science Monitor
February 22, 2002
Defining Propaganda, Illegal Deception
Rumsfeld denies reports of Pentagon plan to spread disinformation to foreign
media.
By Ann Scott Tyson, Special to The Christian Science Monitor 
WASHINGTON - In the mid-1990s, the US military in Bosnia-Herzegovina was
looking for a way to break into the domestic television market in order to
promote the NATO-led peacekeeping effort among the local population. 
The solution: A Trojan Horse in the form of NBA broadcasting and the
bikini-laden show Bay Watch. The popular programming was sandwiched with
military messages in support of peacekeeping troops.
Over the past decade, the use of such "information operations" to sway
opinion and deceive adversaries has become an integral part of virtually all
US military actions around the world, as strategists increasingly view
"information superiority" as the key to keeping peace and winning wars.
Such operations run the gamut - from "white" media campaigns based strictly
on truth to "grey" disinformation where sources are left unclear to "black"
deception efforts aimed at fooling an enemy.
In the buildup to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, for example, the military
floated bottles stuffed with leaflets showing Marine emblems and Harrier
jets onto the coast of northern Kuwait.The bottles were part of a
psychological operation, or "psyop" linked with military exercises - widely
reported on - aimed at fooling Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein into believing
that the US would attack to the north.
Ethics of info-warfare 
Yet the priority the US military places on shaping opinion as a crucial tool
of 21st century warfare has raised ethical questions over how it fights the
battle for "hearts and minds" -- and whom it targets.
Meanwhile, the military's own ongoing debate over exactly how to define
"information operations" - which could include a vast range of actions -
creates a risk that lines between legitimate propaganda and illegal
deception could be blurred.
This week, a controversy erupted over reports that the Pentagon's new Office
of Strategic Influence planned to spread false information to foreign media
and officials as part of a broader propaganda effort to support the war on
terrorism.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld immediately denied that the office,
created in November and headed by Air Force Brig. Gen. Simon "Pete" Worden,
would deliberately spread lies.
"The Pentagon is not issuing disinformation to the foreign press or any
other press," he said Wednesday. A Pentagon statement reiterated that
according to defense department policy: "Under no circumstances will the
office [OSI] or its contractors knowingly or deliberately disseminate false
information to the American or foreign media or publics."
Experts in military information campaigns agreed that lying - unless it is
to deceive an enemy - is unwise and carries the risk of backfiring and
undermining US military credibility.
"It's safer if you tell the truth," says Col. Charles Borchini (Ret.), a
veteran Army PSYOPS commander now at the Potomac Institute for Policy
Studies in Arlington, Va. "Telling the truth is very advantageous to you,
because ... you don't want to get into a situation where people don't
believe you."
The debate over OSI, both inside and outside the Pentagon, reflects the
difficulties the military bureaucracy is having in crafting a clear policy
for information operations in a rapidly changing, high-tech world, experts
say.
Bigger, faster ideas 
"We have a machine-age bureaucracy trying to deal with information-age
problems and it is just not flexible enough to do it," says Chuck de Caro,
the author of a book series on cyberwar who lectures at the National Defense
University.
"You need bigger, better, faster ideas," he says. "You don't have to lie or
be deceitful, you just have to do it better than the other guy."
The Pentagon admits that OSI is itself a fledgling organization.
"The role of OSI has not been defined yet," says Cmdr. Randy Sandoz, a
Pentagon spokesman. "It's basically a work in progress." He adds that OSI
staff are "trying to find out what they want to do."
Still, military experts say that the aim of "information operations" - to
prevent wars and save lives - is a valid one.
"The larger strategic impact of the 'information revolution' has driven the
creation of the Office of Strategic Influence," says Dan Kuehl of the
National Defense University's School of Information Warfare. "It's not just
changing the way armies fight, but also how states or political groups
interact with each other - if you use it effectively, maybe you won't have
to fight."
Since the onset of the war on terrorism, the Pentagon has warned of the need
to counter the growing problem of enemy disinformation.
"Disinformation is an ugly, difficult word, because no one likes to be
fooled," a senior Pentagon official said last October. "But it's something
that is a weapon in the arsenal of our adversary, and it is used with
deliberate intent to plant information, again, with the hope of achieving
either a political or diplomatic or morale effect, or a military effect. And
again, now with the Internet, it can be very difficult to track and detect."

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Sponsored by VeriSign - The Value of Trust
Secure all your Web servers now - with a proven 5-part
strategy. The FREE Server Security Guide shows you how.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/iWSNbC/VdiDAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2002-12-31 02:15:03 PST