US plans to 'fight the net'

[zer"0"]

Interesting read from a recently declassified Pentagon file.

Amazing arrogance on display here by the Pentagon.

 

Discuss.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

 

By Adam Brookes

BBC Pentagon correspondent

 

A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.

 

Bloggers beware.

 

As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.

 

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.

 

The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.

 

Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.

 

 

 

 

The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

 

The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.

 

Propaganda

 

The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.

 

All these are engaged in information operations.

 

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

 

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.

 

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.

 

The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

 

"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

 

Credibility problem

 

Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.

 

 

 

 

 

Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.

 

And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.

 

But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.

 

The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.

 

It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.

 

It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".

 

It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.

 

'Fight the net'

 

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.

 

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.

 

"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.

 

The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.

 

The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.

 

"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

 

US digital ambition

 

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

 

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

 

Consider that for a moment.

 

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

 

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

 

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

 

And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

 

Published: 2006/01/27 18:05:49 GMT

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Al Gore is gonna be pissed off!

[Diamond]

I'm sure US is not the only country having such concerns.

 

As for the article, it is full of pretentious crap if you ask me. "information operations"... "electronic warfare"... "declassified"... "digital revolution"...

[Marka Ragnos]

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

 

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

 

Consider that for a moment.

 

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

 

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

 

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

 

And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.

 

Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4655196.stm

 

Published: 2006/01/27 18:05:49 GMT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

sounds like snay pliskin.

[SteveThaiBinh]

The slogan 'fight the net' is silly, but the internet is already a battleground of ideas and a vehicle for attacks on US interests. It would be surprising if the US military weren't exploring these kinds of issues, and up to a point, I'm glad of it. I don't really fancy having the internet crashed by some extreme anti-capitalists or whatever.

 

The problem of overseas propaganda being picked up by US media organisations is interesting - I wonder how often this happens. Does the media run its stories by the Pentagon to check they're not based on propaganda? Does the military have an indirect say in what gets reported? We know they've been planting positive news stories in the Iraq media - are they doing the same in the US? Then again, why would they, when Fox does it for them?

[Jorian Drake]

And again US has another idea how to gain controll over the world

[Moose]

Sounds like a communist regime is taking over the U.S. Well, good luck with that.

[Judge Hades]

In a perfect world all information would be free, but it is not a perfect world. Information is power and those who controls the flow and can manipulate it will have the power. The United States of America isn't about democracy. It isn't about freedom. It is about accumulating power. Then again there is no such thing as a benign government.

[Moose]

God you have a talent for stating the obvious whilst trying to be profound.

[DeathScepter]

there are those whom are stating the obivious while being profound for the sake to sound profound.

 

There are those that state the obivious for the sake of telling the stupid people of the world.

 

 

There is no perfect government but the USA government is one of the better ones.

[~Di]

This is an Op Ed piece... read "commentary". The guy is entitled to his opinion, his speculation, and his conclusions, but none of that is fact, nor is it even presented in a journalistic fashion. I'm not ready to opine that the USA is turning communist because of one BBC commentator's rather jaundiced opinion as he pulls out-of-context sentences to which he personally attributes his own belief as to motivation, intent and conclusion.

[Darque]

Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he sees himself your master.

[Gabrielle]

Master of puppets.

 

Big Brother will rule over you all.

[kumquatq3]

So like, J.J Abrams thinks he's my master?

[SteveThaiBinh]

This is an Op Ed piece... read "commentary".  The guy is entitled to his opinion, his speculation, and his conclusions, but none of that is fact, nor is it even presented in a journalistic fashion.  I'm not ready to opine that the USA is turning communist because of one BBC commentator's rather jaundiced opinion as he pulls out-of-context sentences to which he personally attributes his own belief as to motivation, intent and conclusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see no significant bias and nothing that suggests a 'jaundiced opinion' on the part of the writer. Which of the quotes are out of context?

[kumquatq3]

The right has the power in America

 

The writer thinks the US is becoming communist

 

 

Do I need to pull out a political chart or is that enough to show a 'jaundiced opinion'

[SteveThaiBinh]

The right has the power in America

So?

The writer thinks the US is becoming communist

What in the world? Show me where he says this.

 

It doesn't look like the writer is pursuing his own agenda or has jaundiced opinions. Most of the article merely reports the key content of the source document, with largely non-hostile comment.

[Walsingham]

Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he sees himself your master.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

X-Files?

 

The US military has been obssessed with all forms of media since Vietnam. I shouldn't worry particularly. They haven't been able to control even centralised forms like broadcast media. Let alone the net. They have, however, taken to blogging as a means of telling their stories. And when you nuzzle up to the teats of screaming lefty journalists I recommend you have an equal sip from those.

[Moose]

You thought I was trying to be profound? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see, so it was an intentional insult to the intellect of the board. Glad we cleared that up.

[Moose]

Spam.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Interesting how someone using a Deus Ex avatar is posting a link to a conspiracy, or something that could lead to one.

[Commissar]

Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he sees himself your master.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

X-Files?

 

The US military has been obssessed with all forms of media since Vietnam. I shouldn't worry particularly. They haven't been able to control even centralised forms like broadcast media. Let alone the net. They have, however, taken to blogging as a means of telling their stories. And when you nuzzle up to the teats of screaming lefty journalists I recommend you have an equal sip from those.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The vast majority of the military bloggers aren't doing so with the approval of the Department of Defense. They could get, and some have gotten, thoroughly ****kicked for doing it, too.

[~Di]

This is an Op Ed piece... read "commentary".  The guy is entitled to his opinion, his speculation, and his conclusions, but none of that is fact, nor is it even presented in a journalistic fashion.  I'm not ready to opine that the USA is turning communist because of one BBC commentator's rather jaundiced opinion as he pulls out-of-context sentences to which he personally attributes his own belief as to motivation, intent and conclusion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see no significant bias and nothing that suggests a 'jaundiced opinion' on the part of the writer. Which of the quotes are out of context?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All of them are out of context, since the report itself has not been printed, only selected portions of the report to which the writer has attributed his own conclusions.

 

It is an Op Ed piece; a commentary. It is not hard news.

[SteveThaiBinh]

All of them are out of context, since the report itself has not been printed, only selected portions of the report to which the writer has attributed his own conclusions.

 

It is an Op Ed piece; a commentary.  It is not hard news.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To take something out of context is more than just to lift it from the sentences surrounding it, it is to alter the meaning in doing so. The article links to the original Pentagon report, and though I only read the executive summary, I don't think the quotes are truly taken out of context.

 

If this is an op-ed piece, what is the argument the writer is trying to make? I don't get the feeling he's either for or against the policies suggested in the report, merely that he finds much of it fascinating or surprising.

[Gabrielle]

The Truth is out there.