Subject: IW Mailing List iw/951211
Moderator's Notes:
Note 1:	The response to the wargame was not adequate to warrant holding
	a formal game with list members this week, however, we will
	continue to add people who express interest to the list
	of eventual players and start a game if and when we reach a
	viable threshold.
Note 2:	The list has now grown to more than 300 people from more than
	20 countries, but only about 50 people have ever posted anything
	of interest to the list.  That means that 250 people are only
	listening in - not good.  Unless the 250 people who have been
	keeping silent become more active participants, we will have to
	turn on the "kill people who haven't contributed in the last 4
	weeks" policy.  The eyes of the list are upon you (O) (O)
---------------------------------------------                u
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 22:35:44 -0500			   \___/

My concept on IW is as follows:

IW is an old, new and developing science.  History has show us how the
strategic use of tactical information changes the balance of power in
conflict.  The use of information continues to date, to be a pivotal
resource of global conflicts militarilly, industrially and economically. 
Information has ascended itself to a place above common valuable assets
such as gold and currency.  Our tomorrow, will lean to a balance of good
or bad, depending on who holds information and what they do with it. 
Information has become a commodity and is now resource on the open
market, which has inducted a new industry, Industrial Espionage. 
Date:  Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:28:00 -0500 
From: "garland (b.g.) sharratt" 

My interest is a business/commercial one: having read too much science
fiction, I forsee a day when some corporations may begin to inflict IW
against each other, as one more way of competing. 
From: bncqraq@is000913.BELL-ATL.COM (Morris)
Subject: Information Warfare in all its varied forms
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 08:58:28 -0500 (EST)

The world is turning to a information based economy.  What better
avenue to wage warfare?  Granted that the last resort of diplomacy
will be the gun, but there are many steps to be taken before the last
one.  Even then, control of information will be critical.
Date: 11 Dec 95 07:49:00 -0800
From: STIBBARDS_JAMES@ (company identification witheld by request)

My idea of what IW is: (please don't publish my company name if you
include this in a summary/quote.  thanks). 

The tactics and strategies of warfare as applied to the disciple of
information creation, storage, and transfer.  As opposed to more classic
warfare objectives which usually included control of portions of real
estate (real or idealogical), information warfare can have as it's
objective the control of information itself - today's major asset. 
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 11:32:01 -0500
From: Jerry Sands 

I am very skeptical about Information Warfare and whether it really
exists.  I certainly acknowledge the existence of viruses, worms, and
other malicious code, which could be deliberately planted or sent to a
company, business, agency.  However, some of the articles on this (IW)
subject are just science fiction and nonsense.  Is there really such a
thing as information warfare or is it just unrestricted fantasy? ...
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 12:18 EST
From: Michael Wilson <>
Subject: RE: IW Mailing List iw/951210

I thought I would reply to a comment made by Jim (James F.) Dunnigan
about how IW seems to the age old practice of war as deception simply
resurfacing under a new guise. 

First, let me recommend Jim's new book (with Albert A.  Nofi, published
by William Morrow and Co., titled _Victory and Deceit, dirty tricks at
war_) as a comprehensive piece on the history of the practice.  I plan
on using my copy to philosophically balance my bookcase, VaD at one end,
_Book of Virtues_ on the other (possibly with _War in the Shadows_ in
between).  Second, let me recommend Jim's other work; if you don't know
JFD, he was the original modern master of open source work, before much
of the current babble that has arisen.  _Strategy & Tactics_, Jim's old
home, was much beloved by me, not to mention various NATO and Warsaw
Pact groups who thought it gave better numbers than their own estimates;
simulations fostered under him varied from -Harpoon-, the excellent
submarine game that served as a basis for _Hunt for Red October_, to
having an 'accurate' estimate of how far a hobbit could march. 

On that note of respect, let me disagree ever so slightly.  Deception
does indeed form the basis for much of war; as we become more aware of
the infosphere as a component of the battle domain, I fully expect
deception operations to rise to the occasion, at least until a good
mechanism is in place to reconcile 'real' and 'supposed' reality. 
Meanwhile, taking the arbitrage of perception and the objective world
shall remain great sport. 

IW is more than just deception, by my own way of thinking at least.  To
take a small step back from the world of 'boys and toys,' I consider one
of the past masters of information warfare to be Gandhi.  He certainly
'fought' one hell of a battle to gain self-rule for his people, possibly
the most successful one in history on a purely per capita basis.  During
the course of his long struggle, deception was not one of his tools--in
fact, if he had ever tried to deceive, it would have destroyed the
tremendous symbolic value he had to friend and foe alike.  [Any comments
on the inherent deception of socialist thought may be made, but Gandhi
himself -was- a true believer.]

Truth may not set you free, but it makes a damned fine weapon under the
right circumstance.  Is that deceit as well, or just conceit on my part?
From: fc (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen)
Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/951210
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 12:33:49 -0500 (EST)

> Date: Sun, 10 Dec 1995 12:21:42 -0500 (EST)
> From: Robert Steele 
> Subject: Short Warning Issue
> 	John Peterson of the Arlington Institute has made the point that
> the Department of Defense is structured to make war somewhere out
> "there", away from the home base, and that little has changed today. 
> Now, however, we are faced with what some call the "hot peace" or the
> violent peace, and find that some of our most important threats are here
> at home (what the JCS J-6 calls "sanctuary lost"). 

I think a lot of the reason for this is that historically, the US has
been physically distant from many of the World's wars.  In a territorial
war, the US would be a hard target from almost anywhere in the World
(except Canada which is our strong ally).

Some of the things that differentiate IW from other forms of war are that:

	- Territory in the sense of parcels of land may become meaningless.
	- Time of day, weather, and other environmental factors work very
		differently in IW than in other forms of war.
	- Distance and location are far less of a factor than in other
		forms of war.

The list goes on, but the point is that IW has a lot of different
properties from war directed toward land, space, physical territory,
etc.  To put it in the (approximate) words of Ron Knecht: if we want to
be in the information warfare game, we have to reorganize and reorient
ourselves across the board. 

> 	Now we find ourselves facing enemies that come in single person
> units, wear no uniforms, emit no electronic signatures, and can in a
> single day pick a target, acquire an electronic access path or
> electronic weapon, do the deed, and vanish.  This has two implications:
> 	1) It means that the lack of time puts most of the intelligence
> 	community on the sidelines with respect to warning in this
> 	arena; and
> 	2) We need to develop an entirely new construct of civic
> 	intelligence in which short-warning threats are recognized and
> 	reported by citizens acting as VOLUNTARY sensors. 

I think it has a lot more implications, but I also think the point is
overstated.  The fact is that organized groups are far more likely to
succeed in IW than individuals.  These groups have all of the same
properties of many other groups, and our intelligence capability is far
better able to deal with groups than individuals.  In fact, I would go
as far as saying that to completely elliminate individuals' abilities to
wage IW would require removing all of our individual freedom - or in
other words: If Mr.  Steele's point were really true, we would have to
lose the real war (for freedom, justice, etc.) to win the information
war.  I don't buy that.

> 	This also suggests that self-healing electronic systems and
> CIVIL intelligence and defense become much more important in the 21st
> century--yet the Department of Defense wants nothing to do with the
> civil sector's defenses, and the rest of the U.S.  government does not
> have the funding or doctrine or general capability to teach the civil
> sector how to create a "home guard". 

I think that this conclusion based on those assumptions is a bit of an
over-reach.  I think that by using creativity and intellect, we can do a
lot better than to make civilian info-sec a DoD function.

-> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL
Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 95 09:18:51 PST
From: ssalgaller@CCGATE.HAC.COM

My area of interest is restriction of access to information.

We are supposed to be a Nation "of, by and for the People".  Instead we
find out that our Government has been feeding radioactive oatmeal to
mentally retarded children in New England, AND the public has been kept
in the dark for decades !

Business, too, has been busy suppressing the truth; the full list of
what's in a cigarette, for example. 

Warfare is both getting what you want accomplished, AND denying the
"enemy" information to act.  A quote from a 1975 documentary on
assassinations in America says:

	"Their aim is not to disrupt movements 'left' or 'right'; their
	aim is to make sure you do not act at all.  And as long as you
	do not act, and they move, however slowly, they win."
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:25:19 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Steele 
Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/951210

The slide I use for IW, drawing on ideas of others, is

	Hard vs. Soft Kill
	Reversible vs. Irreversible
	Major Impact vs. Minor Impact
	Detectible vs. Undetectible
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 09:50:13 -0700 (MST)
From: Istvan von Keszi 
Subject: Re: PM in Bosnia
 [Moderator's note: shortened for brevity, but I think it makes an
	interesting point on IW]

Dr. Cohen wrote:

> Subject: PM in Bosnia

Coincidentally, I saw this footage of the flag burning, or at least
parts of it.  It was the "grainyness" of this footage that made me
comment on satellite resolution [...  in a] previous email. 

But I actually _saw_ the footage differently, than you did ... 

> Today, Serbs stamped on an American flag for CNN cameras as part of
> their IW campaign relating to the Bosnians getting control of Sarajevo.

Err, how about this ...  today, US covert operations orchestrated an
"American flag stamping" as part of their preliminary efforts to build
US domestic support for the Bosnia peacemaking mission. 

> The Serbs thought the city should be split, but since the Serbs couldn't
> win it in the negotiations, they decided to try to win it via IW.

US covert forces continue to believe that all non-American "foreigners"
behave identically with the behavior demonstrated by Iranian Shiite
extremists during the badly orchestrated Pahlavi meltdown. 

There is simply an American "way", and an "other" way, in the official
handbook.  Luckily, most American citizens hold to this belief as well,
so the amateurish US IW attempt will achieve at least a 90% gullibility
penetration at home, while probably exceeding 65% worldwide. 

I don't know if that's a _success_ ...  or not. 

> Now, if CNN would only report it properly (and if I could only spell
> properly):

I have to agree with you Fred.  If _only_ ...  

Fred, these juvenile attempts at IW are absolutely transparent.  Those
that they would try to convince, are either the gullible, who will
believe anything, or the informed, who have established filters which
flag anomalies like this "flag burning" report.  They know that this is
not even remotely plausible.  It's certainly not within the
pre-established bounds of Serbian conduct, and in that sense, Serbian
"flag burning" just can't be assimilated by the informed. 

Regular CNN viewers, already know the Serbian data "flow".  They're
familiar with it.  They know the Serbian style.  When they're presented
with something like this -- something that is characteristically
uncharacteristic -- they simply don't believe it. 

The official handbook -- used by the forces which orchestrated this
event -- always expects people to think that everyone in the world has
ready access to US flags and goes around "flag burning" like some
Vietnam war protesters. 

The premise in this circumstance is unbelievable.  Where on earth would
someone find an American flag to stamp on or burn in Sarajevo? In
Teheran, it was easy.  The US flags were at the embassy and came from
there.  But in Sarajevo??

Anything which was there, any US flag, would have long ago been torn
into bandages, and used to treat the wounded.  Sarajevo hospitals,
haven't even had gauze or water.  Anything which had any utility for any
purpose would have already been utilized in some fashion for something. 

Personally, I'm waiting for round two, the script that calls for the
Pillsbury doughboy "burning in effigy" of a papier-mache caricature of
President Clinton.  Another script that has been run so many times, that
it's a cliche.  Watch the US President puff up like a marshmallow that's
held a little too close to the campfire. 

Insertions into the data stream like these show up like a flare in a
night sky.  The Pentagon might as well have issued a "press release"
with attached film footage and broadcast it as an info-mercial. 

All that has been accomplished (ironically), by this attempt is that the
US has once again given away its position, and shown its hand.  People
will now "doubt" CNN reports.  CNN looses its reliability as a primary
source and CNN looses its credibility.  A situation that is not much
different than what happened during Desert Storm, when everyone switched
over to the BBC world service, or whatever other channel was plausible. 

(I guess it also shows that Jane Fonda isn't able to influence Ted
Turner through "other means" when it comes to the use of CNN for IW, but
that's neither here nor there.)

Amongst a true super-set of the informed however, there is a far greater
danger, one which hasn't been voiced. 

This "flag-burning" incident could allow someone to make the claim that
the US is not neutral vis-a-vis Serbs.  It's a stepping-stone to a true,
tactical geo-political landmine.  Some quarters will view the blatant
American propaganda attempt at discrediting Bosnian Serbs as a
demonstration that the US does not wish to have the Slavic Serbs on an
equal footing with the Muslims, and Croats. 

Something which, some would suggest is confirmed by placing command in

This US preference which could be viewed as a preference against all
Slavic peoples, including Russia. 

It's not good to make mistakes like this and express this type of
"preference" against one of the primary players.  Especially when you
haven't even yet had the pleasure of a treaty signing. 

Like I said ...  I saw the same footage ...  but a different world view. 


Actually, the point of using "children" is another one that US forces
should not raise in Eastern European circles.  Another hidden landmine,
especially if it is advanced by the US. 

Saturday evening, I had the pleasure of attending a Moravian restaurant. 
Following dinner, I had some very interesting conversations.  Some of
them centred around this exact issue -- the US targetting of children
during US WW II bombing runs. 

It is "common knowledge" in Eastern Europe that the US bombed with
"toys" for children to find.  Toys which were booby trapped -- filled
with explosives.  Exploding dolls and exploding pens. 

Unfortunately, this is still part of the "living record" and mythology
over there, so the "high ground" on children is not available because of
the living memory of WW II activities. 

It really is a horrible situation, Fred, because many will see this as a
continuation of old conflicts. 

Let's recall some hard to swallow Bosnian facts.  Facts which not only
make the "reports" all questionable, but facts that might help shed some
light as well. 

First, it is next to impossible to differentiate between Serbs, Croats,
and Muslims, and other ethnics in Sarajevo, let alone all of those from
mixed marriages.  (1 in 4, I believe.) And "deception" and
misrepresentation IS the name of the game over there.  ALL of their
games: Serb, Muslim, and Croat. 

In this theatre, they have no compunction against killing their own --
as they have -- simply to throw the "blame" and "media attention" onto
the enemy.  A process of tearing at allegiances, and serving up curves,
and of involving super-powers.  (ala Archduke Ferdinand.)

The Serb campaign, and to a lesser extent the Muslim, and the
tear-jerker Croat, usually have demonstrated _serious_ historical
scripting and execution "creativity". 

Recall, (or maybe not) that the Serbs not all that long ago, captured
UNPROFOR soldiers -- Canadians -- and "chained and cuffed" them to
posts, utilizing them as human shields, and showing them off to cameras
as impotent creatures bound and tied.  The only thing they didn't do is
have them hog-tied on the ground, squealing. 

(This demonstration and photo-op wasn't to CNN, btw, but to print, which
actually has far superior domestic penetration.and effectiveness because
of its frozen imagery.  i.e.  the front-page photograph.)

This is typical Serbian tactics. 

The zone the US is going into is not some civilian protest arena, it's a
hardened war zone in an area that is a historic international
flashpoint.  War is a way of life here.  It's nothing "new".  Serbian
military bonds, as an example, are formed on the basis of shared rapes. 
Rape as policy.  Not only as a human "subjugation" technique, but as a
form of psychological IW. 

The Serbs want their opposition to know -- the Muslims and the Croats --
that their women, their wives, sisters, and mothers.  Even their
grandmothers and their four year old daughters -- all of them will carry
the seed of the Serb deep within their bellies. 

(And the Serbs are no different in these tactics, than their Croat and
Muslim counterparts.)

Now what would have happened if this was used against peacemakers??

I wonder what the reaction will be when a female US soldier, is captured
and [raped] by some Bosnian forces.  Do you think that the US forces
will be able to maintain discipline and neutrality -- both at home and
in the field -- as they must, in that instance? Or not. 

Information warfare?? We'll be seeing oodles of it, very soon, me