Subject: IW Mailing List iw/951222
From: "Marcus J. Ranum" 
Subject: Re: IW Mailing List iw/951222
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 20:27:04 -0500 (EST)

fc (Dr. Frederick B. Cohen) writes:
> If you aren't interested, why do you participate in this list?

	Because in my line of work it's important to keep tabs on what's
going on in the field.  That includes new research, new technologies,
and intellectual fads like "IW." Also, as an amateur military historian,
and someone who has been interested in the art of war since the day he
first got beaten up by his big sister, I can't help trying to understand
"IW" with respect to other classical military/political thinking. 

>In terms of being a subset of strategy, I am confused by the statement. 

I mistyped; it was late.  I meant to say "tactics." In the grand scheme
of things, a strategic goal might be:

	"Obtain air superiority in the desert theatre."

The tactics (implementation details) would probably include tactical air
operations, as well as operations against enemy command and control
systems. Somewhere buried in the notion of "tactical operations" are
what is being lumped into "IW."

But tactical operations against enemy command and control are nothing
new.  During the crusades, Saladin's army included falconeers, to
intercept the crusaders' homing pigeons during sieges such as the ones
at Acre and Krak des Chevaliers.  I'm sure that there was probably some
falconeer in Saladin's troops who was pushing for a bigger budget to
further explore "Information Warfare" even in those days.  Perhaps the
Templars had their own team working on "Defensive Information Warfare"
trying to breed stealth homing pigeons. 

From the articles I've read on "IW" it seems that it's a cover term for
state sponsored terrorism, guerilla warfare, and attacking
command/control.  None of those are new ideas.  It seems the only
innovation "IW" brings to the table is the notion that computers are
involved.  How earthshattering.  Yawn.