PDA

View Full Version : How do you change the perception?


RTK
03-28-2007, 10:50 AM
I base my words on stuff I read and saw in many, many testimonies, articles, and movies by veterans themselves. You are asking for proofs... If we have "proof" there wouldn't be cover-ups. What I can tell you is to remind you how Military tried to cover other cases (you heard same stories like all of us) and you know how they tried or they did cover that up.

From damaging Babylon, theft of Iraqi gold and museum artifacts, to the Tillman case, British soldier and American pilots case, Haditha case, Abu Gharib case, Samara case... There is more and I think you heard about all those killings and rapes of civilians by "mistakes" or by orders of free fire. Contractors are without any control or blame, Military is free of responsibility to the International or Iraqi courts...

Regarding "we would simply flatten this country and be done with it" I firmly believe that decade long sanctions that killed 500,000 kids, OIF I and "Highway of Death", and now this coming in frame of "flattening country" but not so obvious so more people will not fight back and with preserving territorial integrity to preserve sucking the oil out.

I am finding very noble of you that you are not one of those soldiers (and I know there are minority) since U.S. Military have long and pretty much good history of noble causes, but this war is not one of them. I agree with you that you stand up for what you believe and I didn’t want to insult you or ANY other real and decent soldier. I was trying to point out some wrong steps that can (and they did) backfire on whole idea of bringing peace and democracy in that parts of Word.

My sensitivity on civilian deaths, rapes and maimed kids toke better of me. My bad. I will try to control my words.


This post, taken from another thread, is a perfect example of a snapshot look from the point of view of the world. How do you combat that? How do you break the impression that the US Military is a secretive organization that is hellbent on covering its tracks on everything bad that happens? How do you make people understand that The US is not in Iraq for oil?

In short, what's your proposed IO campaign?

goesh
03-28-2007, 12:32 PM
You don't and can't make people understand the points you have set forth. The hand that carries the sword will always be regarded with some degree of trepidation, even in free, advanced societies. The judicious and controled use of force is simply alien to many people and frightening to them, arousing irrational suspicions and fears. High recruiting standards, high expectations and high standards of training combined with hard but consistent discipline is the only way to maintain a steady course that keeps the undeserved suspicion, fear and antagonism at bay. There is no other way. When the criticism gets harsh, then too the discipline must get harsh and the training even harder. That's a fundamental law of physics - for every action, there is an equal, opposite reaction.

In the Post by SWJED on General MaCaffrey's report, Gen. M. makes the following statement in his report: "The American people hold that the US armed forces are the most trusted institution in our society". That translates to one and one thing only: the sole duty of career Officers and NCOs is to make their men the best they can be. When the military is needed, they are loved, when not, they viewed with distrust and even anger. We are on the backside of a war in which politicians yet again made some serious tactical blunders and the military is paying the price. Your only consolation is knowing that you and your brethren stand between We The People and some very real, lethal forces that want us, our children and our way of life dead.

tequila
03-28-2007, 01:05 PM
In other words: OORAH! KILL! :D

RTK
03-28-2007, 01:24 PM
I guess I'll expand upon the initial question on a broader front. If you were an IO officer/NCO in Iraq/Afghanistan right now, how would you go forth with your mission and how would you focus your efforts?

Tom Odom
03-28-2007, 01:40 PM
This post, taken from another thread, is a perfect example of a snapshot look from the point of view of the world. How do you combat that? How do you break the impression that the US Military is a secretive organization that is hellbent on covering its tracks on everything bad that happens? How do you make people understand that The US is not in Iraq for oil?

In short, what's your proposed IO campaign?

Ryan,

Great question!

First of all we have to come to terms with what type war we are fighting and develop a coherent message to the world.

We have not done that and we have paid a severe price for it. Our national leaders have in the past 6 years offered some of the worst, least thought through, play ground-like statements that may play well with some internal audiences but fell flat on the international stage.

We are engaged in a multi-tiered strategic counter-insurgency against radical Muslim ideology. Our allies in that COIN fight are those inside the Muslim community who speak out against the zealots. Our goal is to win the Muslim majority to our side. We are dealing with this struggle at multiple levels: OEF began as a tactical fight that has become regional with Pakistan as a critical stage. We added Iraq to that tactical fight and now OIF is very much a regional conflict with strategic implications. We are engaged in COIN support in the Phiiliipines and we are engaged in COIN preemption on the Horn of Africa.

Our national IO does not connect the campaigns. And we have surrendered much our national credibilty in the process. Rendition and Gitmo may have provided valuable intel; the operative question strategically is at what cost to our overall COIN effort? If the tactical gains in intelligence actually extended the war's duration then we are taking one step forward and falling five feet backwards.

We seem to have completely walked away from what Dr. Joe Nye calls soft power, the message inherent in US guarantees on personal freedom and sanctity of life. I sent Rwandan officers to the US on training in military justice at time when Rwandan jails were bursting with genocidal killers. Their instructors reported back to me on how they did. On one trip, the group visited a military prison and as they prepared to leave, they asked the tour guide, "You mean we should not beat our prisoners?" In the aftermath of the Abu Gharaib fiasco, that question to me is especially significant. I wonder if given the present circumstances how those Rwandans would have viewed their training. One of those students by the way became the Rwandan Ambassador to the United States.

We have also struggled to get our act together on the ground. Ryan your regiment became almost an icon for what right looked like. Others did less well. We are doing much better but the struggle is not over and probably never will be. We continue to have difficulty assessing the effects of our actions and often the effects of our reactions to our own actions.

What do I mean by that? Well consider the issue of the Marine SO unit sent home from OEF; we have discussed it here. Was it a knee jerk reaction or was it justified? Those questions are relevant only to a US audience. As for OEF, the Afghan reaction is what counts and we seem to have complicated the aftermath with efforts to control the media. In another case, one with less coverage, a US commander in delivering compensation for 3 children killed in an air attack, made remarks about how much more caring the US was than the Russians had been. That may be something that could be said internally but it is not a message we need to deliver to the Afghan people.

Again great question and one that I try to get at in an article on the issue of collateral damage in COIN.

Best

Tom

Bill Moore
03-28-2007, 01:56 PM
First, I don't think any NCO or officer below 3 stars has a full understanding of why we're in Iraq, we just have our opinions. We went there allegedly to find WMD, and it wasn't there. Strike one in the IO battle. We went there to sever the non-existent link between Saddam and the Al Qaeda, strike two. Then we had the normal, none the less serious, crimes and mistakes that were the result of imperfect men (all of us) in combat. Several of them were in the headlines for months (several strikes, but the game goes on).

It is hard for leaders to speak with a credible voice after they sacrificed their integrity in front of the world. Furthermore, our national leaders used securing our oil interests in speeches previously, though never stated it as the primary reason, yet the association of our VP with Halliburton and the President with the oil industry isn't helpful. It doesn't have to be true, just believable. Anyway whether our people like it or not, oil security is important to the world's economy, not just ours. However, we can't say that publicly to an audience that taught to think within a politically correct box.

Revisit your points, and then put them in perspective. First they are your opinion, not fact. Second, your opinion is competing against a number of other opinions. Unfortunately if you refer back to the first paragraph your (our) opinion isn't looking good in the best commercial contest. The others have supporting arguments that are in the headlines daily. It sort of puts us in a position where people wonder what the heck we're talking about.

How to over come it? To be frank I have by doubts that we can under the current administration, and unfortunately with the unreasonable pressure from Congress to pull out soon, our only option may be to get our credibility back under this administration.

One option we have, and to date have done a terrible job with, is making the bugger stick somewhere else. Our soldiers are not intentionally killing civilians; as a matter of FACT they are risking their lives to save Iraqi civilians. People get this, but they need to hear it more.

They also need to hear (much more often) that the a--holes we're fighting do not have a plan for Iraq, they are only seeking self power, and they are resorting to terribly vicious means to achieve it. We need to show front and center on the headlines (for weeks at a time) when a suicide bomber intentionally puts children in his car so he can by pass check points to get to a position where he can kill more children. We need the names of the children, conduct interviews with the family members, for change put the enemy on the defensive. And perhaps (just an idea) interview the suicide bomber's family (concurrently with family members of those killed) to gradually kill the social acceptance of this tactic.

The biggest challenge in the IO war though is convincing the home audience that the sacrifice is worth it. With relatively very little effort we can put the bad guys on the defensive on the moral front (will we do it? I don't know), but equally important is showing we have a "viable" plan and we're making progress. If we can't show that, then it is unrealistic to expect support for continued operations, because you're then asking the American people to invest their blood and dollars into hope, not a plan.

kaur
03-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Economist wrote in last edition story "How it all went wrong in Iraq." Blair has said sorry. Can US say "I'm sorry" and repair mistakes that have been done? It's terrible effort I suppose.

http://www.economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8881663

slapout9
03-28-2007, 02:16 PM
One option we have, and to date have done a terrible job with, is making the bugger stick somewhere else. Our soldiers are not intentionally killing civilians; as a matter of FACT they are risking their lives to save Iraqi civilians. People get this, but they need to hear it more.

They also need to hear (much more often) that the a--holes we're fighting do not have a plan for Iraq, they are only seeking self power, and they are resorting to terribly vicious means to achieve it. We need to show front and center on the headlines (for weeks at a time) when a suicide bomber intentionally puts children in his car so he can by pass check points to get to a position where he can kill more children. We need the names of the children, conduct interviews with the family members, for change put the enemy on the defensive. And perhaps (just an idea) interview the suicide bomber's family (concurrently with family members of those killed) to gradually kill the social acceptance of this tactic.



This is critical, during the Malayan Campaign the Brits never called it a war they called it an emergency! Every chance we get we should reduce these acts to that of common MURDERS not inflate them to TERRORIST, which to them may be freedom fighters or protecting their religion. They should never be viewed as soldiers in any way just criminals and they should be wanted and hunted for killing people in the manner that Bill suggest!

goesh
03-28-2007, 02:38 PM
How's that for an ironic twist in the propoganda war, when anti-US forces are accused of acting like nazis? Actions speak louder than words and phamplets and jingoism. In the marginally secure areas of Iraq outside Baghdad, I would put people to work cleaning up rubble and doing other manual labor type work, said projects to be run totally by the US military - recruited, supervised and paid by the CAP unit with operational responsibility in the area. Some historians claim the CCCs (civilian conservation corps) and the WPA (work projects administration) implemented in the 1930s during the great depression were nothing more than stop-gaps for staving off revolution, considering the extremely high unemployment rates in the nation at the time. My father was in the CCCs and the camp he was in was run by an Army Cpt. It can be done again. You've got essentially 3rd world muslim peasants that are hard pressed financially with no decent jobs and they damn sure aren't going to put their faith in any fancy words coming from the Americans or their own government. At the specific, troop level implementation of IO, a number of things can be done and it centers on direct contact, interaction with the people where actions speak louder than words. When shaking hands with Iraqis, quit squeezing their hands in the typical American fashion. A strong grip from a strange infidel essetially is a gesture of control and domination. You give them your hand in a gesture of friendship, the ol' dead fish handshake, you don't take control of their hand. Whenever speaking with them, look at their moving lips and quit staring into their eyes. Locking onto eyes as WE usually do signifies possible doubt and suspicion to most 3rd worlders. When conversing, get on their level always. Don't stand looking down at them. If they are sitting, squat down and remove the helmet if it's safe to do so and remove sunglasses too. Defer to the oldest male if possible and totally ignore all females and any interaction with them unless they are in some official capacity. Lastly, quite fooling around and playing with the kids, quit making pets of them and giving them anything and playing soccer with them, etc. How would you feel if some extremely powerful, totally strange and alien force came into your neighborhood, set up camp then mostly interacted with your children? Spend time with the adults, not the kids. I know troops have a soft spot in their hearts for kids and it gives them some interaction with innocence and purity in a brutal environment but it is doing no good, not in a 3rd world muslim environment. We are compulsive talkers and we think we need to be able to speak in order to be a friend and do some visiting with somebody and that probably inhibits simply being in the presence of people whom we can't communicate with. Simply being with them is giving of yourself to them. Spend time with the adults when possible, even if you can't communicate. It shows you are not afraid of them and want to be with them. I'll never forget the time I was at my friend Alfred's house. He is a traditonal Metis Indian and he was excited because his Uncle Tony was coming for a visit. Then Alfred said the strangest thing, he said, " He (uncle Tony) never says a word."

In afghan, buy the opium from the farmers directly and burn it, with the troops upwind of course from the burn site. Why would it matter to any dirt farmer who buys his opium at a fair market price? What is the mark-up percentage from the dirt farmer to the street? 20,000%? It's probably more. Talk about doing the world some good and if you want to find out who your real enemies are in Afghan, implement this civil affairs tactic.

Uboat509
03-28-2007, 03:06 PM
Many of the type of arguments that started this thread are built on a kind of circular logic. There is no evidence of mass war crimes being committed ergo there must be a masive cover-up. There is a massive cover-up ergo there must be mass war crimes being committed. It all starts with someone who wants to believe this stuff and then builds on myths and rumors from there to what we have now. Isolated incidences are treated not as isolated incidences but as evidence of the larger cover-up. The "logic" goes that if it has happened once in in one part up Iraq and been reported on (eg Abu Ghraib) then it must have happened in many times in many parts of Iraq and gone unreported. It is a series of negatives used to prove each other. I agree with Bill Moore about focusing on the victims but I also think that we need to increase the number of embeds. The military has historically been somewhat reluctant to trust the media and has not been overly fond of embeds for a variaty of reasons, both good and bad. The problem is, that the news is going to get out no matter what. It is going to come one of three ways, 1)from and embed who is there has someone there who can show him the larger picture and make him understand what he is looking at so he can make a ballanced, fair report, 2)from a reporter who is there but is not embeded, doesn't see the whole picture doesn't really understand what he is looking at and ends up writing a terribly inaccurate unballenced report or 3)from a reporter who wasn't even there is reporting the myths and rumors as fact. For my money, I will take option 1 every time. Shut down the myths and rumors or at least push them back to the fringe where they belong.

SFC W

marct
03-28-2007, 03:28 PM
Hi Bill,

The biggest challenge in the IO war though is convincing the home audience that the sacrifice is worth it. With relatively very little effort we can put the bad guys on the defensive on the moral front (will we do it? I don't know), but equally important is showing we have a "viable" plan and we're making progress. If we can't show that, then it is unrealistic to expect support for continued operations, because you're then asking the American people to invest their blood and dollars into hope, not a plan.

Honestly, I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, the "home audience" is a critical target for the reason you state, but it isn't the biggest IO challenge.

First off, this is a multi-party IO war (I prefer the term "symbolic war" - more on that in a couple of months when I get the time to write it up). And, as with the fight in Iraq, the "sides" are amorphous:

A broadly centrist / left of centre political ideology that operates strongly in Europe and, to a lessor degree, in North America.
A broadly individualist political ideology that operates moderately strongly in North America, Britain, Oz, India, etc.
A highly reactionary revitalization movement within Islam, broadly descended from the Muslim Brotherhood.
A moderate (for Islam) secularizing / reformation movement within Islam.
A sometime capricious, highly self-centered and self-referential, loosely "political" but, actually economic, ideology that infuses many corporate organizations.Second, the IO war is not taking place in a geographically limited space but, thanks to inexpensive global communications technologies, is taking place world wide in "information space". It is a perfect example of what Barry Wellman calls "glocalization" - "Think Globally, Act Locally" and its corollary, "The Local is the Global".

Third, the US can not win the GWOT without large amounts of support from other nations, especially in the form of economic "support" (loosely construed). Without that support, the US could find itself stuck in a situation of an economic warm war with both China and the EU that would, basically, cause a massive recession in the US economy (look at the trade and production figures for China, the US and the EU as well as foreign cash reserve figures).

What all of this admittedly somewhat round about argument means is that the actual IO war that counts is one that attempts to construct an alliance between actors 1, 2 and 4 that moderates the glocal perceptions of actor 5 against actor 3. The area of operations must be glocal (global and local), not geographically based.

Marc

Merv Benson
03-28-2007, 03:56 PM
Can anyone give me the name of the General in charge of the IO campaign? Our enemy has said that half the war is taking place in the media battle space, but we appear to have no one in charge of waging war in that battle space. Making someone responsible would be a start.

tequila
03-28-2007, 04:30 PM
There is no one in charge of this, not really. The closest thing is probably Karen Hughes (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/53692.htm).

RTK
03-28-2007, 04:50 PM
There is no one in charge of this, not really. The closest thing is probably Karen Hughes (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/53692.htm).

There is a specified effects coordinator (usually a field artillery officer). I just don't know who it is.

goesh
03-28-2007, 05:02 PM
The Senate and House aren't buying into COIN. Pratereus is left scrambling for tactical innovation with a logistical melt down looming over his shoulder. The concept of an armed peace corps has the proverbial rug just about pulled out from under its feet, most regretably so. When WMD weren't found and the IEDs started up, any IO we had or could have had was useless. No amount of IO/propoganda can counter IEDs, just like the image of the punji stakes in Viet Nam got burned into civilian minds - on our side it left us asking the question of how do you counter such primitive thinking that works and on their side, the message was the exact opposite: simplicity backed with ideology defeats complexity without an ideology. Gen. MaCaffrey made the statement that the US military is the most trusted of institutions but so too are their feet held closest to the fire. Right today, a trooper could pull 10 babies from a burning orphanage in Iraq and it would not make the headlines. That is not a failure of IO or lack of it, it's a reflection of the reality on the ground. I would suggest no IO we can generate is going to have much impact on the hearts and minds of the Islamic world. The WOT hinges on success in Iraq and if you want to see successful IO, wait until al jazeera flashes pictures and commentary of US forces crossing back into Kuwait. Who could forget the images of the Soviets scooting out of Afghanistan or US forces dumping choppers off carriers and flying off the roof of the Embassy with the remnants of the American presence on board? I think all thought and energy should be directed to innovation and adaptation on the ground in Iraq.

Jones_RE
03-28-2007, 05:12 PM
Suppose Osama bin Laden risked his life to save little children from a burning building. Would anyone in the U.S. care? We might give him a little credit, but we're not going to change sides for him. Frankly, I think the man could cure cancer and we'd still try to blow him up.

The other side views us the same way. The US military is not going to win a lot of converts in the muslim world or in western Europe. It does not matter how much garbage gets picked up, how many schools and hospitals are built or how many babies are delivered. We are their enemies. That is an emotional decision as much (or more) as a rational one. Only by addressing people's feelings can we change that status. Right now we are using logic against emotion - think about which one usually wins out.

kaur
03-28-2007, 06:03 PM
marct said:
Third, the US can not win the GWOT without large amounts of support from other nations, especially in the form of economic "support" (loosely construed).

This is what Rand's "Beginners Guide to Nation-building" says more generally under "Institutional Frameworks and Consultative Forums" page 25 from this link - http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG557.pdf

The framework contains Iran, Saudis, Iran etc. Last "Foreign Policy" talks about winners in Iraqi war - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3704
Those states-nations are mentioned as winners. Rand's theory plus FP article makes me very pessimistic :(

Here is also price tag for war - http://www.foreignpolicy.com/Ning/archive/archive/159/pn-159.pdf

Sarajevo071
03-28-2007, 09:00 PM
Oh, my, what did I start now!? :eek: Am I supposed to say something on all this or it’s better to stay silent on my end!? I don’t want any hate mails… :o

jcustis
03-28-2007, 09:06 PM
Suppose Osama bin Laden risked his life to save little children from a burning building. Would anyone in the U.S. care? We might give him a little credit, but we're not going to change sides for him. Frankly, I think the man could cure cancer and we'd still try to blow him up.

The other side views us the same way. The US military is not going to win a lot of converts in the muslim world or in western Europe. It does not matter how much garbage gets picked up, how many schools and hospitals are built or how many babies are delivered. We are their enemies. That is an emotional decision as much (or more) as a rational one. Only by addressing people's feelings can we change that status. Right now we are using logic against emotion - think about which one usually wins out.

I concur wholeheartedly.

RTK
03-28-2007, 10:18 PM
Oh, my, what did I start now!? :eek: Am I supposed to say something on all this or it’s better to stay silent on my end!? I don’t want any hate mails… :o

:) No worries. It was a good segway into a question I wasn't quite sure of how to present. You just gave me the best introduction.

Bill Moore
03-29-2007, 12:32 AM
Marct, I understand your points and full heartedly agree that we have to address multiple audiences in the international community, but where I disagree to some extent is the priority of effort. The reason I think that the American audience is the most important at this point in time (and at this point in time only) is the strong opposition to the war in Iraq. If the American people tell us its over with, then it is over with, we pull out (it won't happen overnight, but quicker than what some might think). Furthermore the constant battling sends an important and dangerous message to the international audiences, and that is we're on our last legs in Iraq.

I think we have to win the American people's support for this war foremost, so we can stay engaged to win the long term IO fight with the international audiences. If we pull out, I don't "think" anyone else will step up to the plate. Furthermore, we'll be politically paralyzed for years and we won't get involved in conflicts that we should, ones that are actually in our national interest. We made Iraq a part of our national interests, and the Administration needs to admit to the American people they made serious mistakes (stop the nonsense, no one is buying it), and then from a position of credability inform the American why we have to stay in the fight. I think with the right leadership the national mood can be changed. Perhaps it is fantasy at this point, I'm a realist and accept that, but we need a vocal majority support to carry on the fight.

For those who think Al Qaeda wouldn't like us if we pulled 10 Muslim kids out of a burning school, you're right, but that isn't the point. The audience is not AQ and those who have a burning hate for us, the audience is the very large moderate Muslim base that isn't sure what is happening in Iraq, especially those who are sitting on the fence. Yes, they would like us more if we pulled their kids out of the fire.

Merv Benson
03-29-2007, 02:08 AM
I am in pretty much agreement with Bill on the importance of getting support at home or we want get the chance to get it over there.

In that regard the latest Gallop Poll is not encouraging. Only 29 percent think the surge has improved the situation in Iraq. This is with many media reports that say things have improved. It is like the rest of the country has shut down on the subject.

There were a fare number who claimed that things were worse and they are definitely not persuadable. They are in the group who seriously want to lose so that we will be inhibited from using force in the future. There is a good size groups of "independents" who are still in the middle on the surge and that is were a good IO operation might do some good. The willfully ignorant on the left are probably not going to change their mind even with an enemy surrender agreement.

The polls still do not ask the key question, "Do you want to lose?" The answer to that question would give a better idea of how persuadable people are.

marct
03-29-2007, 02:45 AM
Hi Folks,

Marct, I understand your points and full heartedly agree that we have to address multiple audiences in the international community, but where I disagree to some extent is the priority of effort. The reason I think that the American audience is the most important at this point in time (and at this point in time only) is the strong opposition to the war in Iraq. If the American people tell us its over with, then it is over with, we pull out (it won't happen overnight, but quicker than what some might think). Furthermore the constant battling sends an important and dangerous message to the international audiences, and that is we're on our last legs in Iraq.

I am in pretty much agreement with Bill on the importance of getting support at home or we want get the chance to get it over there.

I certainly agree that it is crucial, and your points are well taken. What bothers me about the rhetoric currently being used is that it concentrates on "building support" for Iraq, without aiming at the ideology that dismisses any war venture (e.g. the radical left that is more at home blaming the West for all evil).

Let's face it, the rhetorical dominance of the points that the war should never have taken place are winning out over the plain fact that the origins of the war are irrelevant in the current operational reality. I'm probably going to start getting hate mail now but I'm one of those people who say that the war in Iraq never should have happened. Still and all, as far as I'm concerned, it did happen - that's a fact and a reality we live in and with, even though Canada isn't in that particular war.

Bill and Merv, I'm part of that crowd of ideological individualists that exists outside of the US, that generally supports the GWOT while, at the same time, not hesitating to question the validity (or motives) of any particular US Administration policy.

I think we have to win the American people's support for this war foremost, so we can stay engaged to win the long term IO fight with the international audiences. If we pull out, I don't "think" anyone else will step up to the plate.

Bill, I really hate to say this (it goes against all of my Canadian nationalist instincts ;)), but you are absolutely right. At the same time, I'd like to point out the role of "volunteers" in previous wars - the Spanish Civil War, the SS (okay, unpopular as all get out, but still a good example), and he mujahadeen. If we are in a truly international war, we need to take this seriously.

For those who think Al Qaeda wouldn't like us if we pulled 10 Muslim kids out of a burning school, you're right, but that isn't the point. The audience is not AQ and those who have a burning hate for us, the audience is the very large moderate Muslim base that isn't sure what is happening in Iraq, especially those who are sitting on the fence. Yes, they would like us more if we pulled their kids out of the fire.

Agreed.

In that regard the latest Gallop Poll is not encouraging. Only 29 percent think the surge has improved the situation in Iraq. This is with many media reports that say things have improved. It is like the rest of the country has shut down on the subject.

Merv, it takes a while for opinions to shift. I'm certainly not optimistic about a major opinion shift as long as the IO campaign is still cast as in partisan political terms.

The polls still do not ask the key question, "Do you want to lose?" The answer to that question would give a better idea of how persuadable people are.

Hmmmm. I would think that the key question is more, "What effects do you think a pullout would have?"

Marc

Hawkwood
03-29-2007, 06:07 AM
One of the real issues of the war in the post nuclear world (and one made again recently by Doug MacGregor) is that the idea of fighting until total victory is defunct. The lack of achievable or morally acceptable total victory and the dynamics of global media, econonmics and morality demand that fighting and negotiation occur simultaneously with the aim of achieving the preferred political outcome through increments.

Now before everyone jumps all over me about 'you can't negotiate with AQ or terrorists because they are......' I agree - but remember it was us (Rummy esp) who declared all opponents of the occupation terrorists thus making it very hard to tell the difference between AQinI, the local Baath Officials, the local tribe or the local version of Don Corleone. It was us that forced them to the common tactical objective of killing our troops despite their divergent Strategic and operational objectives because we weren't capable of negotiation only intimidation and force. We weren't capable intially of knowing there was a difference. It was also us that told Iraq and Syria 'you bastards are next' making their only choice to be to bring us down by stealth -what choice did we leave them - if Iraq had been easy the neo-cons would be now neck deep in Iran.

Thankfully Gen Petraeus and his blue eyed boys have finaly begun to fight and negotiate in an attempt to identify, split and isolate the groups so that the real problems can be destroyed and the real stakeholders can be bought into the fold. This is the only way to stregthen and grow your local support base while draining away the support for the real enemy it is also the only way to get accurate targeting information, and it looks like it may be working.

Unfortunatley it is probably to late - our strategic base at home is collapsing and through the ham fisted approaches of 2003-2006 we have now made some irreconcilable enemies out of people intially predisposed to us. These guys will now simply wait us out until the politics caves us in. We are also now going to have to make much more significant concessions to some groups than we would have had to in 2004/5 because we are in a much weaker postion. Such is missed opportunity.

While I hate sporting analogies the real problem has been the American style of operational theory - we run plays and when they fail expect it to be 2nd and 10 or 3rd and ten, when in this business failure always makes it 2nd and 20 or third and 40 and as everyone knows only fools don't punt on 4th and fifty - but we are going to run it out of the end zone with the 1st round draft pick as QB but with the same offensive line which is getting pretty tired.

You fight and negotiate - negotiate and fight doing so with the outcome firmly in mind or you will end up taking what you can or end up with fields of salt.

120mm
03-29-2007, 10:31 AM
I think the best tool for counteracting the left-leaning biased individuals who "oppose all war" is to wage "war" without all the fanfare and trumpets blowing. Then, you take advantage of the incredibly huge American apathy toward anything outside of their house.

Our latest actions in Somalia are a good example of how it "should be done".

Who cares if the hippie freaks beat a drum outside the White House. Frankly, the American public despises them, and at best, doesn't care.

goesh
03-29-2007, 11:46 AM
Oh, my, what did I start now!? :eek: Am I supposed to say something on all this or it’s better to stay silent on my end!? I don’t want any hate mails… :o


I would imagine when the Pilgrims landed word quickly spread that they were there to take slaves, burn crops and roast babies for lunch. I look at the plethora of responses, input, ideas, thoughts, strategies, hunches, professional and amateur assessment on this thread and all I really see is something that is somehow proactively unified, that did not disintegrate despite a strong continuum of dichotomous input - kind of like a rolling ball with alot of strings sort of sticking out that just keeps moving on despite the obstacles in its path.

RTK
03-29-2007, 01:02 PM
While I hate sporting analogies the real problem has been the American style of operational theory - we run plays and when they fail expect it to be 2nd and 10 or 3rd and ten, when in this business failure always makes it 2nd and 20 or third and 40 and as everyone knows only fools don't punt on 4th and fifty - but we are going to run it out of the end zone with the 1st round draft pick as QB but with the same offensive line which is getting pretty tired.



That may be the longest football analogy on SWJ ever. :D

Tom Odom
03-29-2007, 03:12 PM
Marct, I understand your points and full heartedly agree that we have to address multiple audiences in the international community, but where I disagree to some extent is the priority of effort. The reason I think that the American audience is the most important at this point in time (and at this point in time only) is the strong opposition to the war in Iraq. If the American people tell us its over with, then it is over with, we pull out (it won't happen overnight, but quicker than what some might think). Furthermore the constant battling sends an important and dangerous message to the international audiences, and that is we're on our last legs in Iraq.


I just posted this On the How to Win in Iraq and How to Lose (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2499)thread. It relates to what we are discussing here.
What happened was this: while the French military had been concentrating on fighting the insurgency in the streets and mountains in Algeria, an intellectual and cultural insurgency at home, led by the French left and the media, had been scoring its own succession of victories.

In its haste to defeat the FLN, the French army had left a crucial hostage to political fortune. Military commanders had authorized army interrogators to use certain forms of torture to extract information from suspected terrorist detainees. This is not the place to debate the merits or demerits of torture in counterinsurgency operations--for the record, Galula himself considered it counterproductive. Nor was French opinion particularly sensitive to brutality per se; the FLN's own use of torture and outright butchery--Arab loyalists routinely had their tongues and testicles cut off and their eyes gouged out--had aroused little or no outrage. But, as with the incidents at Abu Ghraib 50 years later, news of the army practice gave domestic opponents of the war a weapon with which to discredit the entire enterprise.

Led by Jean-Paul Sartre, a campaign of denunciation got under way in which French forces were accused of being the equivalent of Nazis--an especially freighted charge coming only a decade and a half after World War II and the German occupation of France. Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre's companion, went so far as to say that the sight of a French army uniform had "the same effect on me that swastikas once did." Although many of the antiwar agitators were communists or leftist fellow travelers, their petitions and demonstrations included enough authentic heroes of the Resistance and eminent liberals like Francois Mauriac to bestow upon the movement a credible public image. The constant message it conveyed was that the true authors of violence in Algeria were not the FLN at all but the French, and that only when the latter departed would Algerians be able to sort out their destiny for themselves.

The French military and political leadership was completely blindsided by the attack. No amount of justification of the selective use of torture, not even the cancellation of the original authorization, could halt the criticism or stem the loss of public support for the war. Even as the FLN took to setting off bombs in France itself, leftist Catholic priests continued to raise funds for it, while those like Albert Camus who harbored doubts about the wisdom of handing victory to the terrorists were derided and silenced. The consensus that had informed French politics as late as 1956--namely, that abandoning Algeria was "unthinkable and unmentionable"--fell apart.

Divisions over Algeria doomed France's Fourth Republic. For its successor, the price of political survival was handing over Algeria to a totalitarian band that had lost the war on the battlefield but managed to win a stunning victory in France itself. The result was the massive flight of Algerian whites and, at home, a bloodbath as FLN terrorists put to death tens of thousands of Muslim Algerians who had been loyal to the French regime. Soldiers who had fought alongside the French were forced to swallow their medals before they were shot.

Merv Benson
03-29-2007, 05:04 PM
Marc said:

Hmmmm. I would think that the key question is more, "What effects do you think a pullout would have?"

The problem with this is that those who wish our defeat believe that they can benefit politically and prevent the use of force in the future, so the more horrible the consequences, the more it plays into their political agenda. They are never going to take responsibility for the consequences, but will instead blame it on those who wanted to defeat the enemy to begin with.

Then you have the delusional who believe that forcing a retreat will end the war. The reality is that it will only give the enemy a better base of operation for prosecuting the war as well as more resources, not the mention the boost to his IO campaign.

I think that leaves you with about 30 percent who want win and think we are making progress and another 20 percent who are undecided about the war or the consequences of losing. You can still get to 51 percent who do not want to lose, but I am not sure how many of them can articulate the consequences of failure.

Maximus
03-29-2007, 09:18 PM
Great discussion. Not sure having a General in charge of IO would be the ultimate difference maker. Osama and/or Zawahiri aren't in charge of Al Qaeda's IO campaign. They certainly provide guidance every now and then and add to it, but ultimately it's a bottom-up process. We can learn a lot from the way our enemies approach IO. Just think about what the Iranians have done with the British sailors. Release the female sailor, show them all eating, clean, happy. While most in the U.K. and U.S. are pissed about this incident, the Iranians hit a jackpot with the Muslim world (and probably many other audiences as well) by how they've handled the British sailors.

Have posted comments below elsewhere and would appreciate any feedback. Here goes...



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e6b_1175160756

Please view link above (not a fan of the title, but the video itself is great).

It's all too common for us in uniform, myself included, to get frustrated with the mass media for rarely showing anything but the negative and/or kinetic side of the Iraq war (i.e., firefights, IED attacks, burning cars, etc.). Unfortunately, we normally don't help ourselves in this regard. If you click on the Iraq icon at liveleak.com, 99% of the videos are either ones posted by someone that wears a US military uniform showing a fight of some kind or by the insurgents and/or terrorists doing the same.

The link above shows the exact opposite: pictures of Marines, Sailors and Soldiers doing their best to bring hope for a better life to the Iraqi people. If the media's not going to tell our side--or the positive side--of the war then we had better do so if we don't want the will of the American people to collapse on us, especially now that we're seeing many positive developments throughout the country (for example, see "Good News in Al Anbar?" in the April Marine Corps Gazette).

During my time in Iraq, I would have never thought of videotaping events such as: my Marines helping to re-build a school, medical clinic, vet clinic; playing soccer with kids and adults; riding around on donkeys and bicycles; being invited to eat with tribal leaders as well as many average families; MEDCAPs; DENTCAPs; etc. Yet, this is exactly what I should have done (it would have been great if I had the ability to hide Iraqis' faces on request though). I remember writing home about all the good in Iraq and my family having a hard time believing me because of what they read and saw on the "news". Even during the high-intensity fighting in Najaf, my platoon still had friendly interactions with thousands of Iraqis. Knowing that most of us are visual learners, I should have known better. At the very least I should have thought to videotape these interactions and send them home. I failed to understand my role then as a "strategic" lieutenant.

All this said, in former CIA Director, William Colby's book Lost Victory, he frequently mentions his frustration with the media for not writing about the success of the pacification efforts in Vietnam. In one part he talks about how pleasantly surprised he was when a reporter, after touring the Delta region with him in 1969, wrote a story titled "They Just Might Make It" about how the South Vietnamese had taken significant strides since Tet in eliminating the Communist insurgency. In the next paragraph, Colby expresses his frustration with another reporter, who instead of writing a similar story after a tour with Colby, said there wasn't anything dramatic (i.e., rocket or mortar attacks) to write about. Colby responded to this by asking why not write a story about all the families in the village that a year earlier had no home, were separated from loved ones, starving, unemployed, and under constant insurgent threat. The reporter acknowledged the point but still didn't write a "positive" story about it because of lack of “dramatics.”

Here's what I don't understand though: in the 21st Century IO War, the media and the insurgents and the terrorists have a critical vulnerability that we can easily exploit. This vulnerability is that, unlike in Vietnam in 1969, almost every platoon in Iraq has access to the internet, a digital camera and a video camera. Imagine what would happen if instead of or in addition to Marines/Soldiers posting stories about IED attacks and firefights, liveleak.com, youtube.com and similar websites were flooded with postings of the hundreds of "positive" interactions that American squads/platoons have with the Iraqi people on a daily basis.

It's time for us to embrace the Information Age and to get into the fight for the will of the American people and that of the rest of the world.

Leaders need to make this happen.

jcustis
03-29-2007, 10:28 PM
Here's what I don't understand though: in the 21st Century IO War, the media and the insurgents and the terrorists have a critical vulnerability that we can easily exploit. This vulnerability is that, unlike in Vietnam in 1969, almost every platoon in Iraq has access to the internet, a digital camera and a video camera. Imagine what would happen if instead of or in addition to Marines/Soldiers posting stories about IED attacks and firefights, liveleak.com, youtube.com and similar websites were flooded with postings of the hundreds of "positive" interactions that American squads/platoons have with the Iraqi people on a daily basis.

There is a networking thread which discusses this subject to some degree. It may be RTK's or 120mm's, but my brain is fried right now.

Merv Benson
03-29-2007, 10:41 PM
The latest Fox News (http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2007/03/poll-finds-only-18-percent-thinks.html)poll does have some reason for encouragement.

The Fox News poll found that 69 percent say that the decision on when to leave should be made by the commanders. Only 18 percent said Congress should decide when troops should leave. This suggest that the Democrats are really out of touch with their recent vote.

On the specific question of the house vote 44 percent said it was correct and good, while 45 percent said it was dangerous and bad. These results seem inconsistent with above finding, but they also suggest that the President may be able to persuade more that the Democrat;s decision is wrong.

Here is the full poll (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032907_foxnewspoll.pdf).

120mm
04-06-2007, 09:01 AM
This thread took me about a week to digest, and yesterday, while assembling a "do it yourself" cabinet from the local IKEA store, I had (maybe) an epiphany. Perhaps (probably) we are doing this Small Wars thing the wrong way. Perhaps we need to approach it like the political parties approach a political campaign. Do we need a "McCarville-esque" "general" running the operation?

It's just a stray thought, but I'm wondering what the council members think about it.

marct
04-06-2007, 01:44 PM
Hi 120mm,

Perhaps (probably) we are doing this Small Wars thing the wrong way. Perhaps we need to approach it like the political parties approach a political campaign. Do we need a "McCarville-esque" "general" running the operation?

One of the biggest problems that Western Civilization has is that we have lost what Mao called the idea of "the People's War". To be more accurate, it has become "secularized" in he sense that we "fight" our "People's Wars" in the political arena and eschew them when it comes close to non-internal, non-"political" violence. Basically, in the modern West, and especially in Canada and the US, our "People's Wars" are what the Sociologists call "Social Movements".

This really shouldn't surprise anyone who looks at their historical development since the 1960's. Most of the New Left movement that dominated the social movements scene from the mid-'60's on was organized along Maoist principles, as were many of the groups in the Women's movement (e.g. the Consciousness Raising groups of the late 1960's were based on the Maoist idea of "Speaking Anger"). Radical organizers such as Saul Alinski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_Alinsky) frequently drew their tactics from Mao as well as other left wing organizers (e.g. Ho Chi Minh, Lenin, Trotsky, etc.).

In general, the only other group that has adopted a "People's War" strategy at the political level has been the neo-con movement. Fortunately, at least from my point of view, the neo-cons didn't bother to read any of the theoretical work on the subject, so they were really creating their tactics on an ad hoc basis. And, this time speaking from personal experience in the Canadian political scene, some of the early the neo-cons here were so ill-read that they thought that quotes from Mao were actually made by Hitler! (okay, that was a sidebar rant.....)

Back to your question, 120mm - and my answer is "yes and no". In both Canada and the US, I think that we need to redeploy the concept of a People's War as Social Movement but, this time, in support of our basic core values including informed discussion. Trying to organize along the lines of political parties is probably a bad idea, both here and in the US. In Canada, we have enough parties already, although I really wish the Rhinoceros Party would start again. In the US, it is too expensive to try to go up against the two entrenched parties - better to play SF with a social movement strategy and let a new party develop on its own (probably a centrist coalition party).

Marc

Cori
04-06-2007, 02:16 PM
I don't think there's enough discussion here of the fact that any IO campaign has to be understood in large part as a response to an ongoing enemy campaign. Part of that campaign is based on an amazingly savvy use of all the latest communications and information technologies -- the Internet may be first among equals, but it takes a package of technologies to produce, for ex, a YouTube clip, and the production values on those things are getting higher and higher.

But I'd make the argument that much of what's done is in part based on their evaluation of its likely impact in the media/information realm. The violence in Iraq is heavily centered in areas the press has access to OR they go ahead and film it themselves, making those clips available to anyone with an Internet connection. Those clips therefore serve a dual function for them, working one way for audiences who seek them out directly on the Internet and another way for American audiences who view them when they're integrated into mainstream media news stories.

So any IO campaign can't be conducted in a vacumn -- it has to be constructed as a response to an ongoing enemy campaign. And as has been noted here, part of the difficulty in responding is that that campaign is being conducted at an extremely decentralized leveled. All it takes is for every small cell conducting any individual act of violence to take along a videographer, and for that guy with a camera to cooperate with a guy with a laptop to get those images edited and uploaded. Done. No need to have themes, messages, or final product sent anywhere else for approval.

marct
04-06-2007, 02:22 PM
Hi Cori,

Welcome! Good points, to :D... We've actually been discussing similar points in this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2516). It's probably worthwhile for you to pop over and make a contribution to that one as well.

Marc

Cori
04-06-2007, 02:39 PM
I hope you'll bear w/me -- I've never done this before, so I'm going to have to learn as I go along . . .

marct
04-06-2007, 02:44 PM
I hope you'll bear w/me -- I've never done this before, so I'm going to have to learn as I go along . . .

No worries, mate :D. Many of the threads cross-link and it can be a real problem finding your way around them until you get used to it. That said, there are some realy good ideas and top notch people posting here.

Marc

Ender
04-07-2007, 12:50 AM
The other side views us the same way. The US military is not going to win a lot of converts in the muslim world or in western Europe. It does not matter how much garbage gets picked up, how many schools and hospitals are built or how many babies are delivered. We are their enemies. That is an emotional decision as much (or more) as a rational one. Only by addressing people's feelings can we change that status. Right now we are using logic against emotion - think about which one usually wins out.

There is no "other side." "They" are more fractured than we are and we will gain converts in Iraq and Europe and we are gaining them every day. The problem isn't that we aren't converting them, my beef is that we are not doing so in droves like we should be. I say this because we are RIGHT on this one, they are murderers Sarajevo, we are not. (I stress "they" because it is their policy to murder innocents and I stress "we" because while you may choose to focus on the exceptions or anomalies of "us," our policy does not condone such behavior- mildly self righteous tone intended) We honestly want them to have the best for them and theirs so we can come back and fight for the best for us and ours. Iraq is a brutal place, make no mistake, but the brutality is equally spread (by this I mean, there are no true "innocents" here, not Sunni, Shia or Kurd) and the massive measure of iron present in the average Iraqi's spine does mitigate their capacity for compassion. It is dangerous to start categorizing or lumping a multi-faceted threat (a gross numerical minority who are largely imports into or deviants of the system they "fight" for) with all of the other "bystanders" (a statistical majortiy who are just as curious to see how this is going to play out as we are) and see them all as "our enemy." In my opinion it is exactly that type of comment and generalistic logic that perpetuates this mess. There is no THEM any more than there is an US. They are as unified, or even less so, than we are in the States. If we argue in these loosely inaccurate terms we will act on their inaccurate meanings and frankly Inaccuracy's effects at this stage of the game are too lethal to be taken lightly.

Something that is not stressed enough is the difference between a moderate Muslim and a radical. We are not are war with the entire Muslim world and neither is the entire Muslim world at war with us. We are at war with a splinter of that faith, specifically a radical, fundamentalist, militant and Islamist fraction of the Muslim (culturally, not morally or religiously) faith and the less over generalization we employ here in picking sides for who are friends and who are "enemies," the easier it will be to educate others outside of SWC.

P.S. There is a great deal of logic "here" but make no mistake, there is plenty of emotion as well. We are all cracking this nut and no one adapts faster than we do. Combine the power of calculation with precisely controlled emotions and it won't matter how much heart "they" have.

Ender
04-07-2007, 01:41 AM
I offer my finest example of the logic currently being employed against Uncle "Sam."

http://boe.berk.k12.wv.us/217/dr.htm

What exactly is there not to like with us? We want something we already know is good for someone who does not. :D

goesh
04-25-2007, 12:28 PM
The People want an enemy crushed, like what happened to the Germans and Japanese. The meat and bones of COIN isn't going to sell on the home front, no way. It's sort of a 'we're paying out the nose for you to be there so show us dead enemy' type thing. I think there is a very subtle, unspoken fear over the idea that to understand an enemy, one must be able to assume some of their beliefs and values. Mom and Pop back home don't want to have to be able to think like a jihadist - they only want you to eradicate the threat. That's what jumped into my mind.

Rank amateur
09-06-2007, 09:40 PM
Mom and Pop back home don't want to have to be able to think like a jihadist - they only want you to eradicate the threat. That's what jumped into my mind.

Which is another way of saying that if a politician honestly said, "Here's what we need to do to change perceptions," Mom and Pop wouldn't vote for him. If you're a glass half full type of person, you can consider it job security.

BILL
12-27-2007, 03:06 AM
Al Qaeda and the Insurgent groups have in excess of 4000 web sites,
Forums, groups etc.
They have convinced their key demographic that continual losses is a good thing, Martyrs.
They are waging a virtual information war.
Their are two basic views, the "Western News" and " terrorists".
Their brand has placed them on a level with News.
And it is a world wide brand, the 'recognition value' any CEO would be happy to have.
I'm not afraid of what the terrorists say, I can't stop or control that on the Internet. I am afraid of not answering their lies.
A lie posted often enough
in enough places
and over a long enough period of time
IS BELIEVED TO BE THE TRUTH...

Our experience posting on blogs where Insurgents are, is they have a different knowledge, some of it is even false.
One of the big differences between an Westerner and some from the M.E. is their "world history" view.
They know and learn a different history than the West does.

The number of Islamofacsists posting on the net far out number the Wests postings in regard to the conflict, USA should be targeting the same demographic as the terrorist do, countering the lies.

This is a battle for the hearts and minds and in many cases the USA is MIA, not even posting in the indigenous languages, the terrorist are.

Its hard to win a hearts and minds when USA isn't even posting in their language.

The Internet is the future battle ground for the hearts and minds, and the balance beam that will determine if our Grandchildren are still fighting the same war.

Currently there is a forest fire of lies going on and very little water in sight.

Bill

tequila
12-27-2007, 11:04 AM
The internet is a rapidly growing and useful tool of propaganda, I think we can all agree on that. However, we must remember that overall internet penetration in the ME is around 17% (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats5.htm) and that the vast majority of people never sign on to a jihadi website, which must constantly change IPs and addresses to avoid shutdown or banning.

Anyone who logs onto a jihadi propaganda website is usually someone who is either seeking out the message already displayed within. These websites can feed and accelerate radicalization, but they are not the key battlefield.

BILL
12-27-2007, 10:32 PM
The internet is a rapidly growing and useful tool of propaganda, I think we can all agree on that. However, we must remember that overall internet penetration in the ME is around 17% (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats5.htm) ( thats 33,510,500 in the ME, educated, pc savvy, younger, money, the key terrorist demographic, THATS 920.2 % growth 2000 to 2007, CLICK THE LINK ABOVE .. Bill) and that the vast majority of people never sign on to a jihadi website, which must constantly change IPs and addresses to avoid shutdown or banning.

They don't constantly change Ip's adr, that happens when they are shut down. They they have to change service providers. Many have been at the same adr for years many in USA....Bill
Current terrorist web sites. (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/current-terrorist-web-sites.html)


Anyone who logs onto a jihadi propaganda website is usually someone who is either seeking out the message already displayed within. These websites can feed and accelerate radicalization, but they are not the key battlefield.

Our experience has been that the new jahiddies are being recruited from this demographic, killing off all the insurgents, won't end the GWOT as long as they recruit new thru the Internet.

al Qaeda is on the 3rd or 4 level of cadre now due to casualties and arrests. The Internet is the indoctrination of kids.

Jihad Boy Scouts: (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2006/11/jihad-boy-scouts.html)



The Internet is also the vector for home grown terrorist world wide, the spontaneous kind, and the incubator for future generations.

If it wasn't for the Internet Biny would be like so many other forgotten insurgents/criminals.

While the Internet is not the Key to the current Battle field it is crucial to the recruiting of future generations of terrorists.

Cut off the recruits and there is a natural death to these organizations by battle field attrition.

Bill

JeffC
12-27-2007, 11:36 PM
[B]Our experience has been that the new jahiddies are being recruited from this demographic, killing off all the insurgents, won't end the GWOT as long as they recruit new thru the Internet.

Hi Bill, I see you're a new member. Welcome to the jungle. As someone who's written extensively about al Qaeda's use of the Internet, I'm curious as to the nature of your own experience (you mention "Our experience" in your opening sentence). Are you involved with an organization that logs content from those sites, or are you sufficiently fluent in Arabic to penetrate those forums as a wannabe Jihadist?




While the Internet is not the Key to the current Battle field it is crucial to the recruiting of future generations of terrorists. Cut off the recruits and there is a natural death to these organizations by battle field attrition.

This is an issue that is being addressed in various ways (i.e., Internet Haganah has one way of going about it). Do you have a proposal for how to accomplish cutting off al Qaeda's recruiting mechanism via the Internet?

BILL
12-28-2007, 12:39 AM
"Do you have a proposal for how to accomplish cutting off al Qaeda's recruiting mechanism via the Internet?"
YES:
We have had operatives working for 1.5 years.

From my Boss:

As an anthropologist I wanted to do something in the GWOT,
I re-oriented an old blog "Internet Anthropologist" (http://warintel.blogspot.com/) , Platform #1
and an Operative joined a Forum, Infovlad: where the terrorist videos are exchanged, Platform #2

A standby web site for when we need volunteers. Click to join AIcyber-Corps, fight internet terrorism (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AIcyber-Corps/join).
A second recruiting social web site. Built, and loaded (http://warintel.ning.com/). on Standby.

And started applying my training. Applied anthropology, Social Change Engines ( SCE ), Gurellia Anthropology ( GA ) and our Paradigm Intel Engine,
PIE ( Data from closed cell and used info for troop family support (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/09/usa-just-misses-binny-807.html) ).
Context is the force and the Internet is the medium. Participant Observation.

Some of my research:
My "Terrorism Toolbar" (http://iaterror.ourtoolbar.com/) ( 108 links, for OSINT and OPs ) and "CI Toolbar"; over 200,000 downloads.( its been checked by NSA )
My data bases (http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessage?topicID =16.topic), ( over 3,000 terrorist web sites, Public info ) Data from News, blogs and the web.
Intel Wiki (http://warintel.wetpaint.com/) ( 500 pages+ Confidential Intel, evidence ).
"Order of the Squid" (http://cigars.bravepages.com/head/squid223.htm) Secure, encrypted web page for 'Troops', command and control.
1590 posts in Infovlad
and 1,093 Posts to the Blog, about 10% over lap with Infovad.

The effort is labor intensive, and requires equal amounts of action, reading and thinking TIME.


So far al Qaeda's use of the Internet has been reactionary.
USA cuts them off, Phones, so they switch to what ever else is
available. So in a sense their next move the Internet should not have been a surprise.

USA's use of the Internet is defensive, it is a paradigm they and we are still working out.

We put our own concept of the Internet paradigm, the "cyber warrior"
into cyber space. "Info War", version.

Any one with a Gov email, can recieve a copy of our white paper, send msg to me in private and we will send you a copy.

Bill

"Anyone who logs onto a jihadi propaganda website is usually someone who is either seeking out the message already displayed within."
Every time a "bad" story comes out the Ummah go to these sites for more information, and they don't have to log in to some of them. The casual visitor, the lurker is one of our key demographics on these sites, we don't think we can impact the hard core, beyond Morale activities.
While the lurkers, who out number the posters about 4 to 1, are not hard core yet, and are influencable.

.

JeffC
12-28-2007, 01:39 AM
YES:
We have had operatives working for 1.5 years.

If I understand your answer, Bill, you're part of a civilian effort and not affiliated with any official government agency. So when you use terms like "operative", "Confidential" and "Cyberwarrior", those are terms that you've adopted for your own use, yes?

I've read from various university projects that the total number of Jihadist websites are on the rise. Perhaps attempting to halt their use of the Internet isn't really a workable proposition?

jcustis
12-28-2007, 01:47 AM
I think tequila is tracking on a more appropriate reality. We should probably be more concerned with curtailing DVD and CD duplication capability. Given the ease of reproduction, stemming the flow isn't the best proposition though, either. :wry:

JeffC
12-28-2007, 02:02 AM
The internet is a rapidly growing and useful tool of propaganda, I think we can all agree on that. However, we must remember that overall internet penetration in the ME is around 17% (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats5.htm) and that the vast majority of people never sign on to a jihadi website, which must constantly change IPs and addresses to avoid shutdown or banning.

Anyone who logs onto a jihadi propaganda website is usually someone who is either seeking out the message already displayed within. These websites can feed and accelerate radicalization, but they are not the key battlefield.

Agreed. In a way it's similar to our own political blogs. Rightwing readers go to sites like Townhall.com while Leftwing readers gravitate to sites like Moveon.org. And commenters from alternate camps aren't welcome.

BILL
12-28-2007, 02:40 AM
I've read from various university projects that the total number of Jihadist websites are on the rise. Perhaps attempting to halt their use of the Internet isn't really a workable proposition?[/quote]

Trying to stop their use of the Internet is a non-starter.

Answering their lies is do-able and give the Ummah an alternate "true" view.

Point being it is much eaiser to recruit someone that only has one side of the facts, spin, religious bastardized interpretations.

Question is how to slow, stop turn recruiting down/off.

How do you reach the hearts and minds?
YOu talk to them.
You tell the truth, in terms they understand and will believe,

"Blessed be al Qa'ida and Arab Mujahideen" (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2006/10/blessed-be-al-qaida-and-arab.html)

suicide bombers dance, for al Qaeda (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/al-qaeda-uses-suicide-bombers-for-media.html)

Either USA is in this "INFO WAR" or we loose by default,
the result is generations of Insurgents for our Grandchildren to deal with.
The alternate is to deed the Internet to them.


b
Comment:"Agreed. In a way it's similar to our own political blogs. Rightwing readers go to sites like Townhall.com while Leftwing readers gravitate to sites like Moveon.org. And commenters from alternate camps aren't welcome.( but are tolerated and can influence fence sitters. Bill )"

But townhall and moveon don't plot terrorism, the Insurgent sites DO.
And even in our own political system there is a correlation between the Internet and votes.
On their sites the correlation is between the Internet and deaths.

.

BILL
12-28-2007, 04:53 AM
Jeffc:
"If I understand your answer, Bill, you're part of a civilian effort and not affiliated with any official government agency. So when you use terms like "operative", "Confidential" and "Cyberwarrior", those are terms that you've adopted for your own use, yes?"

Am part of a civilian effort, I havn't spoken about Gov. affiliations.

""operative", "Confidential" and "Cyberwarrior", those are terms that you've adopted for your own use, yes?"

I use the terms in their common usage, and I have adopted these as I have adopted the rest of the English language. I wasn't aware of any exclusivity related to the terms, I hope I haven't offended.

Bill
..
.

JeffC
12-28-2007, 02:46 PM
Jeffc:
"If I understand your answer, Bill, you're part of a civilian effort and not affiliated with any official government agency. So when you use terms like "operative", "Confidential" and "Cyberwarrior", those are terms that you've adopted for your own use, yes?"

Am part of a civilian effort, I havn't spoken about Gov. affiliations.

""operative", "Confidential" and "Cyberwarrior", those are terms that you've adopted for your own use, yes?"

I use the terms in their common usage, and I have adopted these as I have adopted the rest of the English language. I wasn't aware of any exclusivity related to the terms, I hope I haven't offended.

Bill
..
.

No offense whatsoever, Bill. I was just looking for clarification since those terms are more often used in an official capacity. And thanks for taking the time to answer.

MattC86
12-28-2007, 03:42 PM
I think tequila is tracking on a more appropriate reality. We should probably be more concerned with curtailing DVD and CD duplication capability. Given the ease of reproduction, stemming the flow isn't the best proposition though, either. :wry:

Curtailing capability? Are we thinking of the same thing? Because given that all relatively new laptops can burn CDs, and many can burn DVDs, I'm not entirely sure how we can curtail the duplication technologies.

Maybe it's naive, but time has shown that without extreme repression antithetical to the purposes and ideals of the United States, suppressing the dissemination of thoughts and ideas is impossible.

I liked the conclusion of Hammes' The Sling and the Stone where he declares that, essentially (don't have the book in front of me) once we figure out how to advance our message, our victory is inevitable, because a national message of hope, progress, and freedom will eventually prove irresistible.

Again, that may sound naive, but I fervently believe in that. We must focus on what we're saying and doing to counter our enemies, not on spending time and effort on an extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible) quest to suppress the enemy's propaganda.

Matt

selil
12-28-2007, 04:05 PM
A high preformance CD/DVD duplicator can be bought for $1000 and produce 15 CD/DVDs every three minutes. The one I bought uses all open source software and having purchased it I think I could likely build it for $300 or maybe less.

jcustis
12-28-2007, 05:43 PM
In terms of actually being able to affect the reproduction angle, yes, it about pointless to attack it that way.

Beating the message with a better message is the desired endstate. I was using CDs/DVDs as an example of the medium where the opposing message gets out there the quickest and across the widest target area. Jihadist websites on the internet do not make for a "the sky is falling" situation. Now, if there is communication and coordination going on through those websites, then that's a different story. Websites alone do not make for much of an IO effect in my mind.

selil
12-28-2007, 06:41 PM
My experience is that you can not use a one way communication to create change or adaption in an adversary. You must insert yourself into the dialog to create those changes. In the United States we see that in how companies get news reports about their products, how books are sold on the "circuit" and reviews, and other examples of dialog. A website, or video does not create dialog it only creates a short term heightened awareness in the target. A great professor said good advertising uses good learning techniques. See, hear, do are the impetus of education and any information operation or advertising program.

BILL
12-28-2007, 11:43 PM
My experience is that you can not use a one way communication to create change or adaption in an adversary. You must insert yourself into the dialog to create those changes. In the United States we see that in how companies get news reports about their products, how books are sold on the "circuit" and reviews, and other examples of dialog. A website, or video does not create dialog it only creates a short term heightened awareness in the target. A great professor said good advertising uses good learning techniques. See, hear, do are the impetus of education and any information operation or advertising program.

There is a multi-Billion industry that is wrong then, advertising relys on one way communication.
The thing you mention are not dialog with viewers, but a discussion much like one has in forums.
And the Terrorist have found this to be a very effective way to recruit.

Bill

JeffC
12-29-2007, 12:06 AM
There is a multi-Billion industry that is wrong then, advertising relys on one way communication.
The thing you mention are not dialog with viewers, but a discussion much like one has in forums.
And the Terrorist have found this to be a very effective way to recruit.

Bill

Why do you think that an effort to add an opposing viewpoint inside a religious extremist forum would be successful? Is there any evidence that demonstrates it to be a successful effort?

Personally, as someone who's visited a variety of religious forums (everything from born-again Christian Fundamentalists to Satanists) over the years, I've never seen an outsiders message yield anything but a flame war. And those are just folks with strong religious beliefs. Now slide it further over to the "extreme" end of the scale where these people will kill in the name of their religion, and I have to wonder how effective any alternate message could possibly be?

BILL
12-29-2007, 02:17 AM
Why do you think that an effort to add an opposing viewpoint inside a religious extremist forum would be successful? Is there any evidence that demonstrates it to be a successful effort?

Personally, as someone who's visited a variety of religious forums (everything from born-again Christian Fundamentalists to Satanists) over the years, I've never seen an outsiders message yield anything but a flame war. And those are just folks with strong religious beliefs. Now slide it further over to the "extreme" end of the scale where these people will kill in the name of their religion, and I have to wonder how effective any alternate message could possibly be?

I discussed this in a previous post,
let me copy it :
"Every time a "bad" story comes out the Ummah go to these sites for more information, and they don't have to log in to some of them. The casual visitor, the lurker is one of our key demographics on these sites, we don't think we can impact the hard core, beyond Morale activities.
While the lurkers, who out number the posters about 4 to 1, are not hard core yet, and are influencable."

The examples I presented.
"Blessed be al Qa'ida and Arab Mujahideen" (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2006/10/blessed-be-al-qaida-and-arab.html)

suicide bombers dance, for al Qaeda (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/al-qaeda-uses-suicide-bombers-for-media.html)


B

.

selil
12-29-2007, 03:25 AM
Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

Ron Humphrey
12-29-2007, 03:32 AM
Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

remind me not to read your posts too much because my supply of advil is running exceedingly low:wry:

selil
12-29-2007, 03:43 AM
remind me not to read your posts too much because my supply of advil is running exceedingly low:wry:

I was exercising my thesaurus and I think I broke it.

BILL
12-29-2007, 04:25 AM
selil (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/member.php?u=468) let me get my dictionary out digram some of those sentences and I'll work up a reply. I have a huge supply of Advil.

Thanks for the Direction.

Bill
I've built my work on deductive reasoning, and presented examples without the bridging steps, assuming they would be self apparent.
They are NOT.
The deductive reasoning is based on first hand experience, participant observation,
which is a quick way to develop hypothesis and test them.

I'm not adhering to standards of clarity or argument within the ontology.

To damn many trees, I'll work on it.

JeffC
12-29-2007, 04:32 AM
Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

Yeah, what you said!:D

BILL
12-29-2007, 09:12 PM
Selil: "In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science."

I tend to agree with you, "violation of about every independent research board rule I know of", and we looked at a disclosure notice:

" We will be performing participant observation on this forum and across the Internet in an attempt to influence Terrorists, insurgents and fellow travelers. The methods employed may include propaganda ( truth ), spin, ridicule, psyops, paradigm Intelligence, applied anthropology, proprietary Technology and covert activities to implement social change, our work could lead to the arrest and or killing of terrorist.
Your discussions on this board could lead to your death if you are a terrorist."

Of course that notice in and of its self would be used as psyops.

As a former military service person ( ARMY, G7 ) , I would kill al Qaeda my self given the chance.
And I'm sure that violates more academic proscriptions.

USA is at war, we have made certain decisions regarding disclosure and will live with them.
This decision was not made lightly.

I sincerely apologize if this offends you academically,
But the disclosure seems contrary to our objectives.

We are not in the "pursuit of science", we are using that science in the pursuit of terrorists.
"has a tendency to taint the science", our objective is to form the point of a spear in the "softwar" utilizing that science.

I do appreciate your warning.

I live with my sin.

Bill and Team

.

Surferbeetle
12-29-2007, 09:55 PM
The phrase "By Sword, Deed, and Word" is a pithy one that bears reflecting upon. Tempest in a teacup also comes to mind...

My experience in Iraq is that there is a very strong (much much stronger than the internet) spoken information network. 'Information' was passed rapidly among friends and acquaintances, and like the childhood game of 'telephone' things would get garbled from time to time. Concrete things like access to water or electricity or the freedom to go to the market or visit friends with minimal security worries, and jobs were things that would get quickly passed along the spoken information network. Perhaps this information network accounts for some share of the successes we are seeming to have with the US & Iraqi surge ( http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/the_awakening_al_qae.php )

Here in the west, in the land of abundance, we like to gather around the electronic campfire and talk, and perhaps as a result of this cultural tick, we have a distorted view of the internet's importance. This is not to negate the importance of C2I to any organization or indeed the continually rising power of the internet. As an old grunt who has been around the block once or twice however it always seems that in order to really influence things one needs to have boots on the ground in order to get things done. Handbills, paper or electronic, are not enough.

BILL
12-29-2007, 11:16 PM
Exclusive:
http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/exclusive-bin-landen-on-ventlator.html

Bill

JeffC
12-29-2007, 11:49 PM
Hey BILL;

Selil went to great lengths to address several points about your reply, all of which you seem to have missed. So in the interests of clarity, and of re-focusing this discussion, here's my take on what you might want to address in Selil's post to you in order to bring this conversation back around to the topic of this thread. (Sam, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting any of these):

1. When questioned about something that you've posted, provide additional clarifying information. Don't simply repeat what you've already said.
2. Avoid using polarizing language.
3. Instead of pulling from biased (i.e. "tainted) sources, look for objective sources to make your point.
4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations.

If you look at your reply to Selil, you failed to address all of those points, choosing instead to focus on one example that Selil used (an IO run by Fred Cohen), and even then your answer relied on polarizing language and false assumptions for the sake of some perceived emotional appeal.

Bottom line - we all love good discussions and/or debates. But in order for that to happen, both parties have to make an effort to understand what the other party is saying, and follow some basic "Rules of Engagement", such as the ones recommended to you by Selil.

Ken White
12-30-2007, 01:34 AM
Selil: "In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science."
. . .
I do appreciate your warning.

I live with my sin.

Bill and Team

Glad you're here but as a couple of folks have pointed out to you, a decent and civil discussion requires at least two coherent participants.

It would be really helpful if you could avoid the riddles and just say what you mean. Can't speak for the others but I'm a little slow and don't really understand the points you seem to wish to make.

Thanks,

Ken

BILL
12-30-2007, 02:03 AM
JeffC:
I'm addressing the points one at a time, as time allows.
I clarified our data collection methods and our reasoning/logic
in regards to board rules.

I'm going to need some practice with non-polarizing language.

I'm collecting evidence for C4IT in 3rd world nations.

Bill

Hey BILL;

Selil went to great lengths to address several points about your reply, all of which you seem to have missed. So in the interests of clarity, and of re-focusing this discussion, here's my take on what you might want to address in Selil's post to you in order to bring this conversation back around to the topic of this thread. (Sam, please correct me if I'm misinterpreting any of these):

1. When questioned about something that you've posted, provide additional clarifying information. Don't simply repeat what you've already said.

2. Avoid using polarizing language.

3. Instead of pulling from biased (i.e. "tainted) sources, look for objective sources to make your point.

4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations.

If you look at your reply to Selil, you failed to address all of those points, choosing instead to focus on one example that Selil used (an IO run by Fred Cohen), and even then your answer relied on polarizing language and false assumptions for the sake of some perceived emotional appeal.



Bottom line - we all love good discussions and/or debates. But in order for that to happen, both parties have to make an effort to understand what the other party is saying, and follow some basic "Rules of Engagement", such as the ones recommended to you by Selil.

BILL
12-30-2007, 04:18 AM
Glad you're here but as a couple of folks have pointed out to you, a decent and civil discussion requires at least two coherent participants.

It would be really helpful if you could avoid the riddles and just say what you mean. Can't speak for the others but I'm a little slow and don't really understand the points you seem to wish to make.

Thanks,

Ken

In the social sciences, in field work there are certain protocols for the protection of indigenous populations and board reviews for standards.

One of these protocols can be a notice/disclosure of intent/purpose and method.

Our work on the Insurgent forums might not pass a board review.
A "SIN" for practitioners.

Bill

Rex Brynen
12-30-2007, 04:21 AM
It would be really helpful if you could avoid the riddles and just say what you mean. Can't speak for the others but I'm a little slow and don't really understand the points you seem to wish to make.


I'll admit, I'm in much the same position... (nor can I make much sense of the website or "database" that you've pointed us too, BILL).

BILL
12-30-2007, 04:58 AM
It is a data base of terror related info including terrorist web sites, code, graphs, forums, yahoo groups etc.
We believe it is the largest list of terrorist related sites on the Internet.
Page 1 (http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessageRange?to picID=16.topic&start=1&stop=20)
Page 2 (http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessageRange?to picID=16.topic&start=21&stop=38http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessageRange?to picID=16.topic&start=21&stop=38)

It is used mostly ( according to our logs ) for data mining, and Google searches.

Consider how we are asked to use the search function on this forum,
see Forum Organization,( the same concept applies to the data base ). (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/faq.php?faq=small_wars_council_faq#faq_forums)

Lot of data sorted and organized by user's search engine, The search engine will know where everything is, user just requests the info.
There is no formal organization.
The Google Toolbar (http://toolbar.google.com/) , for the browser, for example has a function to search only the site one is on.
This could be used to search the 'data base' for any info one wants.

Bill

I'll admit, I'm in much the same position... (nor can I make much sense of the website or "database" that you've pointed us too, BILL).

Ron Humphrey
12-30-2007, 05:01 AM
I'll admit, I'm in much the same position... (nor can I make much sense of the website or "database" that you've pointed us too, BILL).

BILL,

I have always found that perception is in many cases as you have stated somewhat succinctly, reality to those who choose it. And that in general any thing viewed, heard, related often enough to an audience tends to gain a more legitimate appearance despite its true validity or absolute BSedness( Yes I made that up More fun than reading a thesaurus).

This being the case however does ground truth, or real reality ever change.
No

Any efforts at approaching propaganda, training or otherwise should be focused on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth because there and there alone is the ultimate proactive cure to their ilk found. Being reactive in a reverse psychology kind of way is effective(within its required realm) which in war should be within direct interaction with or against an enemy.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the pattern of "besting" them at their own game then in the end you lose because you are now playing their game.

Part of what has always separated America from other parts of the world is that we push the limits of allowing freedom to where you almost lose them but we always catch ourselves at some point and manage to bring it back to a working democracy. When and if you begin to play by their ( the bad guys) rules than that is lost and you may not come back.

It doesn't take a messenger proclaiming the dangers of a crack house in the neighborhood for folks to know its there and figure they want something done about it. It just takes an 800 number for them to call to get something done about it.

Sometimes simple is better, But than again that might just be me:wry:

BILL
12-30-2007, 05:16 AM
I strongly agree, B.

BILL,

I have always found that perception is in many cases as you have stated somewhat succinctly, reality to those who choose it. And that in general any thing viewed, heard, related often enough to an audience tends to gain a more legitimate appearance despite its true validity or absolute BSedness( Yes I made that up More fun than reading a thesaurus).

This being the case however does ground truth, or real reality ever change.
No

Any efforts at approaching propaganda, training or otherwise should be focused on the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth because there and there alone is the ultimate proactive cure to their ilk found. Being reactive in a reverse psychology kind of way is effective(within its required realm) which in war should be within direct interaction with or against an enemy.

Truth is a very powerful weapon, and I think it is one of the most powerful anti-propaganda methods deployed.B.

If we allow ourselves to fall into the pattern of "besting" them at their own game then in the end you lose because you are now playing their game.

I agree.B.

Part of what has always separated America from other parts of the world is that we push the limits of allowing freedom to where you almost lose them but we always catch ourselves at some point and manage to bring it back to a working democracy. When and if you begin to play by their ( the bad guys) rules than that is lost and you may not come back.

It doesn't take a messenger proclaiming the dangers of a crack house in the neighborhood for folks to know its there and figure they want something done about it. It just takes an 800 number for them to call to get something done about it.

Sometimes simple is better, But than again that might just be me:wry:

Rex Brynen
12-30-2007, 05:37 AM
It is a data base of terror related info including terrorist web sites, code, graphs, forums, yahoo groups etc.
We believe it is the largest list of terrorist related sites on the Internet.
Page 1 (http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessageRange?to picID=16.topic&start=1&stop=20)
Page 2 (http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessageRange?to picID=16.topic&start=21&stop=38http://p092.ezboard.com/ffraudevidencelocker50744frm71.showMessageRange?to picID=16.topic&start=21&stop=38)

Much of the "database", however, seems to be a series of unattributed cut-and-pastes from a 2004 series of MEMRI reports on Islamist websites. The original material is found here:

Islamist Websites and Their Hosts Part I: Islamist Terror Organizations (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3104)

Islamist Websites and their Hosts, Part II: Clerics (http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=archives&Area=sr&ID=SR3504)

Much of the rest also seems to be (attributed) cut-and-pastes from various other think-tanks, etc. I don't see any database functions at all, or even any internal organization.

Am I missing something?

BILL
12-30-2007, 06:05 AM
All of it should be attributed.
and we have been collecting since 2004,

In one location.

Bill

Tom OC
12-30-2007, 06:34 PM
One of the issues that has been overlooked on this thread is lawfare, not so much in the asymmetrical sense of using international law for moral advantage, but in the OPLAW sense of how much and how many lawyers are now a part of military operations and decision making. As a criminal justice professor, I have had my eye on this phenomena for awhile and feel skeptical about it, wondering if an increase in thinking like a lawyer will have any beneficial effects. I don't know if all making all things lawyerly would make for good IO. The media, too, are important. Chris Harmon writes in his 2e of Terrorism Today that domestic terrorism is more newspaper-dependent and talks about some interesting issues involving the right to free press. I think the free press issue is the thing to look at, if indeed a fully free press proscribes or prescribes cyber-warrior activity and/or indeed if it even helps to consolidate democracy. Without a theory of free press, all one seems to have are playgrounds for pundits.

JeffC
12-30-2007, 08:18 PM
One of the issues that has been overlooked on this thread is lawfare, not so much in the asymmetrical sense of using international law for moral advantage, but in the OPLAW sense of how much and how many lawyers are now a part of military operations and decision making. As a criminal justice professor, I have had my eye on this phenomena for awhile and feel skeptical about it, wondering if an increase in thinking like a lawyer will have any beneficial effects.

I guess you could add me to the skeptical column, Tom. I would, however, support a program that involved exporting lawyers to third world nations, considering that the U.S. has a hefty surplus of them. :D

BILL
12-30-2007, 09:50 PM
TWO DIFFERENT THEATERS

The phrase "By Sword, Deed, and Word" is a pithy one that bears reflecting upon. Tempest in a teacup also comes to mind...
THE INTERNET IS A PRETTY LARGE TEA CUP...
My experience in Iraq is that there is a very strong (much much stronger than the internet) spoken information network. 'Information' was passed rapidly among friends and acquaintances, and like the childhood game of 'telephone' things would get garbled from time to time. Concrete things like access to water or electricity or the freedom to go to the market or visit friends with minimal security worries, and jobs were things that would get quickly passed along the spoken information network. Perhaps this information network accounts for some share of the successes we are seeming to have with the US & Iraqi surge ( http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/12/the_awakening_al_qae.php )

I agree, but they are two differnet theaters, which do influence each other.
Boots on the ground are critical.
So are boots on the Internet, the terrorist are leading there by default.

Here in the west, in the land of abundance, we like to gather around the electronic campfire and talk, and perhaps as a result of this cultural tick, we have a distorted view of the internet's importance. This is not to negate the importance of C2I to any organization or indeed the continually rising power of the internet. As an old grunt who has been around the block once or twice however it always seems that in order to really influence things one needs to have boots on the ground in order to get things done. Handbills, paper or electronic, are not enough.

You make a good point 'the influence of the Internet on home folk', and their view of the war. USA could be in a leadership position on the Info war on the net if the will exists. Currently USA does not set the Internet Info paradigm, the terrorist do. 4,000 sites, vids, magazines, propaganda, Here is an EXCELLENT article (http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2007/06/terror-web-20/)on their use of the net: By Jeffrey Carr.

"distorted view of the internet's importance", Is our view distorted or is al Qaeda's view paying off?

We ignore this venue, Internet Info war, at our own peril.

Bill

BILL
12-30-2007, 10:35 PM
There doesn't seem to be an easy paradigm for 'Law' on the Internet.
The site we refered to as the "data base" was our evidence locker. ( It was hacked and crashed, once much data deleted. )
We tracked Internet Criminals across the Internet, but there are many jurisdictional problems, the police here and abroad are not Internet savvy, and have little interest in prosecuting Internet crime, at least that was our experience.
We tracked some to Spain, watched them on the Internet Cafe's security cams. They were arrested, Posted bail, later fined and no restitution.
And the day after bail were back at their Internet crimes.
We could track them and collect evidence and proof, but prosecutors didn't understand the proofs and had no interest in prosecuting a crime committed in USA from a different nation for a $15,000 theft.
We dropped the service when we couldn't obtain restitutions.

The issues on freedom of speech are not clearly defined, when does free speech cross the line to inciting terrorism?

At this point I think it falls into the porno paradigm, I know it when "I" see it but others may not agree.

A good mechanism for prosecuting Internet crime seems to be lacking.

On an IRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRC) chat board, we were offered 400 American express cards and 3 cards free, we checked the free cards and called the owners and notified them, and called American Express security in Chicago and NY neither were interested in our contacts.

Maybe a special LAWOPS team for terrorism on the Internet would get better results.

Bill




One of the issues that has been overlooked on this thread is lawfare, not so much in the asymmetrical sense of using international law for moral advantage, but in the OPLAW sense of how much and how many lawyers are now a part of military operations and decision making. As a criminal justice professor, I have had my eye on this phenomena for awhile and feel skeptical about it, wondering if an increase in thinking like a lawyer will have any beneficial effects. I don't know if all making all things lawyerly would make for good IO. The media, too, are important. Chris Harmon writes in his 2e of Terrorism Today that domestic terrorism is more newspaper-dependent and talks about some interesting issues involving the right to free press. I think the free press issue is the thing to look at, if indeed a fully free press proscribes or prescribes cyber-warrior activity and/or indeed if it even helps to consolidate democracy. Without a theory of free press, all one seems to have are playgrounds for pundits.

JeffC
12-30-2007, 10:45 PM
TWO DIFFERENT THEATERS

Here is an EXCELLENT article (http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2007/06/terror-web-20/)on their use of the net: By Jeffrey Carr.


Glad you liked my article, Bill! :D You might also like this one on anti-forensic measures adopted by Jihadist websites, published by eSecurityPlanet.com (http://www.esecurityplanet.com/prevention/article.php/3694711).

BILL
12-30-2007, 11:10 PM
I've already read it, Excellent.
Read all your articles listed on your site, good work.
Bill

Glad you liked my article, Bill! :D You might also like this one on anti-forensic measures adopted by Jihadist websites, published by eSecurityPlanet.com (http://www.esecurityplanet.com/prevention/article.php/3694711).

selil
12-30-2007, 11:56 PM
One of the issues with Internet crime is that rather than use current laws on the books and drop the concept of cyber is that different jurisdictions continually try and reinvent the wheel. For example "theft" of anything is pretty much figured out and standardized across, local, state, federal, and international communities. Add "cyber" in front of it and suddenly everybody considers it different. Is it? The method has only changed not the fact of what is happening. The concept of theft remains consistent only the law base changes. In my work with NIJ, NWC3 and others I've seen a substantial misperception in computer mediate crime.

BILL
12-31-2007, 12:23 AM
( 12.27.07, from Arabic forum ) Emphasis mne.
و لما سمعناه من ثناء شيخنا الحبيب حكيم الأمة / الشيخ - ايمن الظواهري – حفظه الله - ، على رجالات الإعلام وحثه لهم على المضي قدماً في طريق جهادهم رغم المخاطر التي تعترضهم وحيث قال نادباً لهم : " فاللهَ أسألُ أن يجعل رجال الإعلام الجهادي سبباً لنشر رسالة الإسلام و التوحيد لكل الدنيا و بث الوعي الصادق بين جموع الأمة و لإحياء روح العزة و الكرامة و التضحية و الفداء و الجهاد و الاستشهاد بين صفوف المسلمين , و أن يوحدوا جهودهم و يرصوا صفوفهم حتى يكونوا قدوة لغيرهم , و أن يحرصوا على تسجيل تراث الأمة الجهادي الذي لولا توفيق الله لهم لأضاعه الأعداء و العملاء " . And when we heard from praise Cheickna Habib Hakim nation / Sheikh - Ayman al-Zawahiri - may God protect him - the media magnates and urged them to move forward in the way of their struggle despite the risks encountered and where he fouling them: "Ask God to make men Information jihadist cause for spreading the message Islam and uniformity of each floor and creating awareness among the masses sincere nation and to revive the spirit of pride and dignity and sacrifice, sacrifice and jihad and martyrdom among Muslims, and to unite their ranks and Ersoa even be an example for others, and should make the registration of the nation's heritage jihadist , which does not reconcile them to God's enemies and losing customers. "

Of course this was posted on the Internet.

Bill

Tom OC
12-31-2007, 02:54 AM
I'm going to venture a proposal for a free press theory accounting for the new media of cyberspace. First of all, I'm focusing upon free press instead of free speech because that's where the real focus ought to be. Terrorism perpetuates itself with press; e.g., things like newsletters, minimanuals, magazines, and the like. Many of the other things terrorists do with the Internet will one day pass, and then we're back to print or print-like publications. I do not believe a libertarian theory of free press will suffice. This theory holds that a unrestrained media will be self-regulating because according to some sociological nonsense about norms being bundled in rights and duties, the right to express yourself as you want will be tempered by the duty to think. I believe an absolutist theory of free press would suffice. This is the kind our founding fathers debated over and admired for its ability to produce the truth. At one time, publishers thought of themselves as seekers of truth, but it all became FARK at some point. In sum, a constitutional amendment tying free press back towards the road of truth might be feasible, and additionally, just as private citizens have made inroads into lawsuits against terrorist organizations for material support, I think inroads should be made against the publishers of libelous and untruthful terrorist statements.

JeffC
12-31-2007, 04:40 AM
In sum, a constitutional amendment tying free press back towards the road of truth might be feasible, and additionally, just as private citizens have made inroads into lawsuits against terrorist organizations for material support, I think inroads should be made against the publishers of libelous and untruthful terrorist statements.

Truth is a relative thing, Tom. Whose truth are you going to protect?

tequila
12-31-2007, 08:18 AM
Yes, I'd like to know which bureaucrat or judge will be in charge of leading us down The Road of Truth. Shouldn't be too hard to find the a public servant with that sort of wisdom and integrity --- much like the whore with the heart of gold, I hear they're a dime a dozen in all the good movies.

marct
12-31-2007, 01:07 PM
there are two key problems with your suggestion. The first, ably skewered by Jeff and Tequila, is the old "What is Truth and who decides" problem. The second is the complete and utter irrelevance of the US constitution to actions taken outside of the US. In the age of the Internet, physical (geographic) borders are increasingly irrelevant as are the legislated systems of morality imposed within those borders. Sam's point about common definitions (e.g. "theft") comes to mind - that one is shared with most social systems, at least in general - and *might* be enforceable, at least in large parts of the globe. Irhabi rants? Not likely :wry:!

BILL
01-01-2008, 06:52 AM
"4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations."

Command and Control:

From forumI don't know either, but I'm betting it is untrue. The text below is said to be part of a statement from some person or group calling itself "Sawt al-Jihad" (possibly just a blogger, or maybe a provacateur of some kind). But I don't know. As yet there is no word from the big boys in al-Qaida or the Taliban. Dadullah himself, on the phone to AP, says he does not believe the claim comes from Mullah Omar.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


الحمد لله رب العالمين والصلاة والسلام على سيدنا محمد وعلى اله وصحبه وسلم وعلى من والاه وعمل بسنته و واتبع هداه، واشهد أن لا اله إلا الله وان سيدنا محمدا عبد الله ورسوله.

أما بعد،،،

إن "منصور داد الله" لا يطيع في إجراءاته أوامرنا نحن "أمير المؤمنين" وينفذ أعمالا لا تتوافق مع أصول الإمارة الإسلامية، لأجل هذا قررنا ما يلي:

عزل "منصور داد الله" من منصبه كقائد عسكري مسؤول وإعفائه فورا من أداء جميع المهام التي كان مكلف بها وعدم إسناد إليه أية وظيفة أو مسئولية في الإمارة الإسلامية، ولا يجب على أي أحد النظر إليه كقائد أو مسئول في الإمارة الإسلامية.

وقرار مقام الإمارة الإسلامية هذا في حق "منصور داد الله" فقط لا غير، وعلى بقية أصدقاء ورفقاء الشهيد "داد الله" مواصلة جهادهم المقدس في حدود الإمارة الإسلامية وعليهم بعد الآن عدم إطاعة "منصور داد الله" كما على أصدقاء وأهل خير الإمارة الإسلامية عدم حفظ الروابط معه.

ينفذ هذا القرار في ساعته وتاريخه وعلى الجميع السمع والطاعة.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

No proves yet when this where truth the Amir Al Mumeneen will release an Audio statement.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The Decision authorities of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan removed Mansoor Dadullah from his position as the commander in charger of the Taliban


In The Name of Allah The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful

I bear witness that No God But Allah, He has no partner and Muhammad is His slave and messenger



All Praise and thanks are due to Allah, the Lord of all that exists and may peace and prayers be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, companions in entirety



Mullah Mansoor Dadullah is not obedience to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in his actions and has carried out activities which were against the rules of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, so the Decision Authorities of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have removed Mansoor Dadullah from his post and he will no longer be serving the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in anyways and no Taliban will obey his orders any more.

This decision only applies to Mansoor Dadullah, all other friends of Mullah Dadullah Shahed will be carrying out their Jihad duties for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, all the sympathizers of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan end their relationship with Mansoor Dadullah.

Ameer Al-Mu'meneen

Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

it has been officially confirmed yesterday in the forums
the reason for the sacking of mansour dadullah are still unclear though

the statement is signed by mullah mohammed omar
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The problem I am having with the question, which is excellent, I've experienced , but gave no consideration to preserving proof.

The question is what we mean by "Cyber warfare activities"
and "in Third world nations."

Cyber warfare, I would include, command and control or Recruiting. As the above conversation shows command and control, even awaiting the verbal command from a web site.

If the web site is in the native language then it can be said they have cyber warfare for that nation.

I am thinking your looking for actual activities of cyber attack in a third world country.

We have that also, in the web site al-jinan, who recruited members to down load an DDos program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack) and perform group attacks on sites.

We took them out:
Al-Jinan.net is BACK. (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/11/al-jinannet-is-back.html)


and burned the leader:
"CYBER ALERT" Islamofascist head ... (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/07/cyber-alert-islamofascist-head-hacker.html)


They were attacking web sites in third world countries.
Their attack list ran maybe 50 sites total?
This is a good example of my confusion in how to answer your Excellent question.
This guy lived in Syria, and ran a web site hosted in the USA ( at one time, I think, almost sure, can't remember, their site was knocked down several times ) and recruited members from SA, PK, Af, even USA, to attack sites world wide, some in third world countries.
"conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations?" I say yes, on many levels, but it is complicated, as we see above.


If I'm missing your point please ask for clarification.

Bill

Tom OC
01-01-2008, 03:54 PM
there are two key problems with your suggestion. The first, ably skewered by Jeff and Tequila, is the old "What is Truth and who decides" problem. The second is the complete and utter irrelevance of the US constitution to actions taken outside of the US. In the age of the Internet, physical (geographic) borders are increasingly irrelevant as are the legislated systems of morality imposed within those borders. Sam's point about common definitions (e.g. "theft") comes to mind - that one is shared with most social systems, at least in general - and *might* be enforceable, at least in large parts of the globe. Irhabi rants? Not likely :wry:!
I'm aware of key problems with my proposal, and its Orwellian overtones, but the main point is to follow a 1st Amendment path to control of the media and not tamper with other freedoms there such as freedom of association, speech, etc. It's agreed that truth, like perception, is relative, but as Mary Mapes' book, Truth and Duty, points out, there are such things as facts and fact-checking which media wonks hype as the "truth to power" ideology. Too often, I think, this phrase is taken as a blank slate to bash anyone in power, but it also betrays the idea that the true definition of truth lies submerged within the journalistic mission, not some Ministry of Truth bureaucracy. I'm not suggesting that the government step in any more than necessary to prosecute liars and distorters, and am actually recommending civil not criminal penalties against the media as a corrective. As far as constitutional universality or dual sovereignty goes, I think it is fair to say that constitutional rights (such as a right to truth which I am proposing) devised in the U.S. do often find their way into international law, and with regard to the diverse cultures argument, I would think "truth" is about as universal as "theft."

marct
01-01-2008, 04:39 PM
Hi Tom,

It's agreed that truth, like perception, is relative, but as Mary Mapes' book, Truth and Duty, points out, there are such things as facts and fact-checking which media wonks hype as the "truth to power" ideology.

Good point. As far as I am concerned, the point of no return is reached when the logic of "I give you the TRUTH, facts are irrelevant" is dominant.

I'm not suggesting that the government step in any more than necessary to prosecute liars and distorters, and am actually recommending civil not criminal penalties against the media as a corrective.

That makes sense to me - I would far rather see civil liability for spreading "untruth" via bogus "facts".

As far as constitutional universality or dual sovereignty goes, I think it is fair to say that constitutional rights (such as a right to truth which I am proposing) devised in the U.S. do often find their way into international law, and with regard to the diverse cultures argument, I would think "truth" is about as universal as "theft."

On your first point, I would have to say "maybe" and,even if it does make it into international law, that frequently is not applied in other countries (Saudi Arabia anyone?). US Constitutional rights are, in the end, only valid within the US' jurisdiction and, even there, historically there have been many cases of organizational avoidance of them.

On "truth" being as universal as "theft" - no way :D! "Theft" is a linguistic term that has a specific referent, while "Truth" does not have a specific referent, being a second order linguistic term (it refers to the observational validity of other referents and/or systems of referents). We can only speak of "Truth" within a system of meaning and/or experience (a classic problem in mysticism BTW).

Where we do have some overlap with "theft" is in the area of a "truth claim" of a specific referent. In effect, we can say that a statement with a concrete referent might be amenable to having its truth claims checked and refuted - e.g. the truth claim of a statement such as "by January 1st, 2008, over 3000 US military personelle had been killed in Iraq". This form of a truth claim can be tested, unlike the truth claim in a statement such as "We went into Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and make life better for Iraqis" (how can you test past motives?), "Democracy is the best political system" (how are you defining "best"?), or "There is no God but God" (how can you formulate a testable hypothesis outside of a specific system?).

BILL
01-03-2008, 05:16 AM
Something I thought might be implied in this Question, or alluded to, is that the al Qaed/Insurgent Internet Jihadist are not a real threat.

"4. You're invited to provide corroborating evidence from objective sources that supports your case that Jihadist Web sites are conducting Cyber warfare activities in 3rd world nations."

If that is an assumption with in the 'Internet Jihadist Paradigm', I would like to try and dissuade you of that hypothesis.

While the Iran Nuclear problem is a serious security problem, we are facing other ( and I believe bigger threat ) serious and more immediate threats.

The technology to take down the Internet world wide is available and deployed. Only the will is missing.

The terrorist are at most 3 years or less from being able to deploy it.

http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/08/cyberwarss-pearl-harbour.html

The article has been vetted by Civilian experts, "spot on"....

The only defense I am aware of is an Independent world wide "intra net (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intranet)",
for the Military, maybe satlite deployed.

There are eneties out there that have attacked the Internet, by accident,
Nine of the internet's 13 "root DNS" servers have been taken out. ( click LONG link above for details )

There are eneties out there that are suspected to have the ability to take out the WWW NOW, RBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Business_Network).

The Internet probally would survive an Nuclear attack its not so sure it would survive an all out DDos attack.

I'm sure your all aware of the effects that would have the world markets and economy.

Gerald
Current "Paradigm Intel" forecasts the Bot nets start spam verbal phone calls,
probably most related to "aural robot sex" ( a new spin on Phone sex, they call you and talk dirty and charge to keep talking to smarter bots, the bots "talk (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/robotic-interrogators-deployed.html)"...( also recruiting suicide bombers and fund raising world wide, for the terrorists )

selil
01-03-2008, 05:40 AM
BILL,

I know I don't know much about this Cyber Warfare stuff. I really wish I had a little more knowledge about computer mediated conflict. I guess what you're saying is that we're about three years away from terrorist entities having the capability to take down the Internet. So what would an attack like that look like? Is it simple violence of oppression or something like that the reason for taking out the Internet? I've heard that there might be some literature out there by Eberschloe, Vernton, Lewis, and others discussing possible "Cyber Pearl Harbor" scenarios. It would be great if we had some military capability like the Air Force or civilian capability to fight cyber terrorism like the NSA. Wouldn't it be great if the Department of Homeland Security promoted something like an emergency support functions for cyber events?

BILL, you know that if the eastern seaboard central switching office for almost all Verizon in New Yorks primary region was destroyed in something like 9/11 the entire Internet might collapse. In fact it might take months to get that facility back up and running. I wonder how long it would take to get the stock exchange back up and running through a primary data hub that had been blown up almost completely?

I wonder what a cyber attack would look like. Maybe if there were millions of bots out there capable of attacking simultaneously it might look like a storm. And when they fired up on December 29th I wonder what the entire effect might be? Gee what if a foreign government like China hacked the pentagon daily and ran all of their communications through Israel, Taiwan, Thailand, and other pseudo friendly nations?

If we only could find experts that had touched hundreds of thousands of sites on the Internet or been involved in building large chunks of the Internet. Maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about risk and less hair on fire fear that something might NOT happen. Don't you think prognastications of specific time frames are going to be difficult to back up when they've been occuring since 1968? Did you know that there is a low speed wireless network capable of handling massive amounts of data and is highly redundant and nobody even realizes it exists. It is the ham radio packet radio network. If a bunch of guys with soldering irons and tin hats built something like that I wonder what the telephone companies and military have built?

Bill, do tell us more.

BILL
01-03-2008, 06:58 AM
I share your sentiments but not your Optimism.


BILL,

I know I don't know much about this Cyber Warfare stuff. I really wish I had a little more knowledge about computer mediated conflict. I guess what you're saying is that we're about three years away from terrorist entities having the capability to take down the Internet. So what would an attack like that look like?

"Server NOT found"
"Service timed Out"
For weeks or months?


Is it simple violence of oppression or something like that the reason for taking out the Internet? I've heard that there might be some literature out there by Eberschloe, Vernton, Lewis, and others discussing possible "Cyber Pearl Harbor" scenarios.

Please share?

It would be great if we had some military capability like the Air Force or civilian capability to fight cyber terrorism like the NSA. Wouldn't it be great if the Department of Homeland Security promoted something like an emergency support functions for cyber events?

My fear is this could be a replay of NYC 911 where the Emergency support functions are in the center of the attack/building. The question becomes how you stop the flood from the bot net? A small hint?

BILL, you know that if the eastern seaboard central switching office for almost all Verizon in New Yorks primary region was destroyed in something like 9/11 the entire Internet might collapse. In fact it might take months to get that facility back up and running. I wonder how long it would take to get the stock exchange back up and running through a primary data hub that had been blown up almost completely?

I understand if its blown up, its all backed up and just has to be reloaded to a Internet connection, but what if the Internet connection is out, the data remains 'backed up'?

I wonder what a cyber attack would look like. Maybe if there were millions of bots out there capable of attacking simultaneously it might look like a storm. And when they fired up on December 29th I wonder what the entire effect might be? Gee what if a foreign government like China hacked the pentagon daily and ran all of their communications through Israel, Taiwan, Thailand, and other pseudo friendly nations?

I understand how to deal with that particular situation, but what do you do if there is no connection. If you are able to counter attack with your own bots on some connections, on their nodes, it just subtracts connections and further pushes towards a total collapse, When restarted will the attack restart?
And the attack can come from anywhere in the world from unprotected, non-updated computers.

If we only could find experts that had touched hundreds of thousands of sites on the Internet or been involved in building large chunks of the Internet. Maybe we could have a reasonable discussion about risk and less hair on fire fear that something might NOT happen.

I'm not an expert, and know the Army built large chunks of it, it seemed worth mentioning in this age of asymmetrical warfare.


Don't you think prognastications of specific time frames are going to be difficult to back up when they've been occuring since 1968?

I based the time frame on how long it would take me to do it.
Given the funding.

Did you know that there is a low speed wireless network capable of handling massive amounts of data and is highly redundant and nobody even realizes it exists.

No I did not know that. A second Internet, not dependent on the first Internet, and without attack vectors from the first Internet?

It is the ham radio packet radio network. If a bunch of guys with soldering irons and tin hats built something like that I wonder what the telephone companies and military have built?

They are part of and tied into and rely on the Internet. The only defense I see or will talk about publicly is an independent "Intra net" a second Internet.

Thanks for the reply, excellent points.
Bill



Bill, do tell us more.

BILL
01-04-2008, 06:16 AM
http://bp1.blogger.com/_U7UfpQNlsGc/R33cFTO9GkI/AAAAAAAABDM/ueW5tHoiyyw/s400/ScreenHunter_02+Jan.+04+02.04.gif (http://bp1.blogger.com/_U7UfpQNlsGc/R33cFTO9GkI/AAAAAAAABDM/ueW5tHoiyyw/s1600-h/ScreenHunter_02+Jan.+04+02.04.gif)


http://bp2.blogger.com/_U7UfpQNlsGc/R33b-jO9GjI/AAAAAAAABDE/rgHMJt1TKzs/s400/ScreenHunter_01+Jan.+04+02.02.gif (http://bp2.blogger.com/_U7UfpQNlsGc/R33b-jO9GjI/AAAAAAAABDE/rgHMJt1TKzs/s1600-h/ScreenHunter_01+Jan.+04+02.02.gif)36 downloads, trainees?

Hacker Trainers name "Kasper"
They are using Rats now, RATs are remote administration programs that have been embedded into an unsuspecting victim's computer. This is the most dangerous of all hacking tools as it allows complete and total control of the infected computer.
And "MultiDropper-NF"

We are pursuing.
From Arabic forum.

B

We tried to report additional Intel on this to the CIA, AND THEIR FORM still isn't working.
We typed in email name and text and copied URLs. all was rejected, note it says in red the Message field won't be cleared, it was.


http://bp0.blogger.com/_U7UfpQNlsGc/R33uzDO9GlI/AAAAAAAABDU/TQxQTbb2H60/s400/ScreenHunter_03+Jan.+04+03.26.gif (http://bp0.blogger.com/_U7UfpQNlsGc/R33uzDO9GlI/AAAAAAAABDU/TQxQTbb2H60/s1600-h/ScreenHunter_03+Jan.+04+03.26.gif)

.

BILL
01-05-2008, 08:01 PM
Islamic Forum devoted to hacking:

Partial contents: ( links removed )

# Section applications programmes encrypted encryption special versions special
# مــــنــــتـــدى اخــــتــــراق الايــــمـــيـــل Forum penetrate email
#

* قـسـم خــــاص لأســئــلـــة الأعــضـــاء واسـتـفـسـاراـتـهـم حـــول الاخـــتـــراق A special section of questions and requests for information about members penetration

# مــــنــــتــــدى اخــــتـــراق الاجـــهـــزة Forum penetrating devices
#

* قـسـم خــــاص لأســئــلـــة الأعــضـــاء واسـتـفـسـاراـتـهـم حـــول الاخـــتـــراق A special section of questions and requests for information about members penetration
* الـبـرامـج الـــمــشـــفــرة والــحـــصـــريــة Encrypted programmes and exclusive

# مــــنـــتــــدى اخـــتـــراق الــمـــواقع والـــمــنـــتـــديـــات Forum penetrate sites and forums
#

* قـسـم خــــاص لأســئــلـــة الأعــضـــاء واسـتـفـسـاراـتـهـم حـــول الاخـــتـــراق A special section of questions and requests for information about members penetration
* ::Local Root Exploit :: :: Local Root Exploit::

# قــســـم أخـــتــــراق شــبــكـــات الــويــرلــــس & LAN Section penetrate networks Aloyrls & LAN
# مــنـــتــدى انـــــجــــازات الـــهـــكر Forum achievements Alhecr
#

* قسم أدوات و اندكسات الاختراق Tools section and penetration Andquisat
* مكتبة الثغرات Library gaps

# مـــنــــتـــــدى اخـــــتــــراق الـــــجــــوال Forum mobile penetration
# مـــنـــتـــدى اخــــتــــراق الـــمحـــادثـــة Forum penetrate conversation
# منتدى تعليم الهكر Education Forum Alhecr
# قسم الدورات الاحترافية Section professional courses
# قسم تعليم الاختراق بالفيديو Education Section breakthrough video
# قسم E-book Section E-book
#

* قسم الطلبات Section applications

# مـــنــــتـــــدى الـــــفـــايــــروســــات Forum VIRUSES


The West has an advantage, in technological abilities, an attempt to close this gap, with forums like this.

Bill

http://www.al5yaal.com/uploads/72aba7963b.bmp

From hacked site: (http://mok1.freehyperspace.com/)


.

Aurelian
01-08-2008, 05:38 PM
I want to dip my toe into this pool in a very limited way. I am a Navy Reserve CPO and have some interest in this field. My take is that perception management is but one part of an overall strategy to bring down the West. They use a distributed open source warefare model that the West will find very difficult to emulate. We seem to be at a point where we cannot go beyond looking to a central authority (Government Agencies like EPA, the Supreme Court, Operations that require deniability, etc) to adjudicate problems, authorize "hunting liscenses" and so forth. This will necissarily make any attempt to create a flexible, dynamic IW effort lugubrious and prone to, at best, defensive measures.

IW including cyber warfare will exist in an area the US has been reluctant to involve itsel in such as plausible deniability, independent and interdependent teams with alot of independence and seizing control through bots of many platforms. This is a threat we currently face and will face more in the future (see Russian Business Network).

I do not think we can manage perception but can manage the strength of the message getting out about what the jihadis really are about, their threat to us and how they manage our perceptions of them. If you take my first statement about open source warfare and apply it to perception management to me combined civilian network and DOD efforts may work. Using the German General Staff concept of "Marching Orders" that of giving general goals to be met and leaving the meeting of them to the teams. However, if we do not get beyond the central authority model I don't think we will have much success. I think the USAF new IW command will fizzle and fizzle badly because of this problem.

I welcome your comments and the opportunity to at least get my muddled thoughts on this subject in some kind of order.

BILL
01-08-2008, 08:58 PM
Excellent analysis:

Yes as I understand it, it requires an order/ok from Bush to take down a server, and that kind of offensive is forming, ON THEIR SIDE, I could be wrong, and hope I am.

There doesn't seem to be any rules for engagement for Gov, MIL, NAV, etc.?

The civilian sector lacks organization, direction and instruction..
AND FUNDING, This effort currently runs us about $12,000 out of pocket, all work is pro-bono.

While it is not my intention to tell anybody how to do this, we wanted to show what the civilians have done and are doing.

A Russian hacking team just announced placing keyloggers on some terrorist PC's. And exposed the Porno visits of the Jaddiees.

Civilians provide deniability but run the risk of prosecution without a letter of Marq, all our limits are governed by, directed by CI paradigm, nothing illegal, of course we have the potential of developing those capabilities, but the risk of prosecution constrains us.

If al Qaeda can manage perception, I think USA is also capable of same.
They have managed to convince the Ummah that all the insurgent DEAD, is GOOD....Martyrs. Dying = winning. ??? The value of OSINT may not be fully appreciated.


Our OSINT picked up the "Arabic Hacker" Trainer.
Some civilian sectors are well versed in OSINT, Competitive Intelligence rely on it.

Off the top of my head, some of the fundamental methods we use, in general.


Basic: Up todate bio info , facts, etc, culled from OSINT and filed.
Analyzing if Target is in deception mode.
These usually will become apparent as a linear, in depth paradigm is developed, and as the incident/action/writing deviates from the paradigm. Lies will appear as a spike on the paradigm model, the question becomes 'is it a paradigm shift' or 'deception'. the test is the future, the News/blogs/forums.Did it happen like the target says or not, paradigm shift indicator if it checks out, or possible deception if its false. The value is you know something different is going on, and can analyze it.
Of course we deal with public reports related to the target.

One can track 'talk' vs 'actions', And develop a pattern. Major changes in the pattern can point to paradigm shifts which can be useful in forecasting.

One can track what they say they are going to do vs what happens ( check the news a month later see if it happened; or the appropriate time frame ). Looking for patterns which can reveal deception, or if 'it ' continues a shift indicator.

Collecting Geographic Intel ( everything about a Geographic area/state/town ) also can reveal links/connections.


Eventually you have a Paradigm for the target, a history, understanding, knowledge of target and idiosyncrasies.

With our paradigm we start to measure action, statements, reports against the paradigm.

We call this Paradigm Intelligence. A long form of inductive reasoning, confirmed by repetition.
Then we we check items against the Paradigm mostly deductive reasoning/logic.

Ontological problem with ' Paradigm Intel ' is its seminal fault "Just because you can forecast actions doesn't mean you understand whats going on." ( Example: Ptolemy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmwAr54L_pM) and his theory of the planets, Earth-centered Ptolemaic system, LOOPING Planets. He could forecast position of the planets, but his understanding of the system was very wrong.)

While you forecast with Paradigm Intel, one can have multiple hypothesis of the cause of the "action at a distance",

Utilizing this method it is possible to get a look inside a closed cell.( This link will give you some background and context (http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/a_quiet_triumph_may_be_brewing.html), On that page click on the "Internet Anthropologist Link, we were able to peak into the USA and Taliban closed cells/Paradigm, both attempting to deceive the other ).

Paradigm Intel is good a developing alternate hypothesis, and testing them.
A useful tool in the arena of forecasting asymmetrical threats in war.

CONTEXT and Cultural familiarity: Can be definitive also.
Patki news services tend to down play number of Taliban or al Qaeda killed and over state the number of Patki troops dead. Often they will state total number deaths, with no break down between insurgent and government troops. And the tend to use the word "dead " rather than "killed". As one denotes facts, dead, while the other denotes actions, killed.Patki news semantics are very exacting and aim for neutrality as they consider all killed on both sides as Pakistanis first and government or insurgents second.
There is a taste of killing your enemy without offending their/our culture.
If the KIA are related to as "Killed" This can be a message the ummah hear that others may miss.
The use of the term "Killed" instead of "dead" is meant to be offensive to the ones killled in this instance.
Coupling OSINT with sub-rosa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_rosa) investigations and social engineering (http://www.google.com/search?q=social+engineering&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___US227) also give an options for checking details.


We set up a baby feed for the "cyber troops", everything they need, and fully customizable, by user on anything. The feeds are supplied by 1,000 spider bots per Trooper, using as many or few as they need, that search the Internet 24/7 and feed it to the troop, so they have a real time ( Internet ) knowledge ( News, blogs,forums,groups,docs,excel, all translated ) of their arena.

Knowledge in depth, historical and current.

And sets up a frame work for a 'social change engine' and propaganda ops.



A Question we had to address was how to run propaganda with out interfering with any 'OFFICIAL' Ops.
We found a solution on a Pakti forum:
Our efforts have been guided by Pakti Intelligence manual .
"Psychological warfare is an art adopted to defeat the enemy's will to fight. It predominantly aims to win the battle before it starts. It is aimed at convincing the enemy that:-
( Our operations have been designed around these three concepts )
a. Your equipment and war assets are obsolete. ck5 shoulder fired rocket, martyr maker (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/09/ck5-shoulder-fired-rocket-martyr-maker.html)
b. You are being commanded by inefficient commanders. new leader of al Qaeda. (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/08/al-qaedas-new-leadership.html)
c. Your basic human rights are being suppressed." suicide bombers dance, for al Qaeda (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/al-qaeda-uses-suicide-bombers-for-media.html)

One person on a forum can affect morale of the Jahiddi community. We have (http://clearinghouse.infovlad.net/showthread.php?t=6688).

This is "our" version of a "Info War" cyber Troop,
And we have been running this for around a Year,

Our concept includes other "cyber troops" that are not 'Info war' oriented but performing other duties.

Its one concept of a Cyber Warrior..

Bill & Gerald

Ken White
01-08-2008, 09:15 PM
If you'd keep your posts a little shorter and concentrate on one topic at a time while not using the various styles and sizes of type, you might encourage more responses. Your posts are sort of hard to follow due to length, mixed subject matter and erratic type fonts.

Take care,
Ken

Aurelian
01-08-2008, 09:18 PM
Thanks for the reply Bill. One correction I would like to make is that the General Staff concept is Saddle Orders not Marching Orders. No coffee no wakee.

selil
01-08-2008, 09:35 PM
Bill your concepts of cyber warfare are about 20 years out of date. Cyber-warfare is a sexed up term to refer to a "terrain". Much like land warfare, or naval warfare, or air warfare. Computers are tools used for good purposes and bad purposes much the same as tanks and trucks. Metaphorical analysis of cyber warfare will only carry you so far and the over use of the term rather than realistic terms only prejudices people against the topic.

There is terrorism, it occurs through a variety of devices and techniques, and some of those devices are communications and computer networks. Information warfare uses computers much like it uses mass media but they are not inextricably linked. Command, control, communication, and coordination using information technology (C4IT) can be simplified as "computer mediated". What is missing from your posts (and I must admit the variety of fonts and incoherence of the posts makes them nearly unreadable) is a basic understanding of commodity computing and computer convergence. These two basic concepts enlighten and inform the conflict scholar about how computers are used and why they are used.

A simple understanding of convergence and commodity tools might help. The ubiquitous refrigerator allowed for fresh foods and longer time in transit for foods. This created a more nutritious and higher value food source for soldiers. Those armies that had access and the resources to use refrigeration had a tactical advantage over their adversaries. Yet we never coined or used the term refrigeration warfare. When high value information technology assets were converged into military supply trains along with refrigeration capability the just in time supply line became a reality for food stuffs. Yet again we did not define war based on just in time inventory or it's convergence with refrigeration.

C4IT is a converging communication paradigm that is both a tactical tool as well as a strategic terrain.

BILL
01-08-2008, 10:05 PM
Thank you for your reply.

Bill your concepts of cyber warfare are about 20 years out of date.

I am glad to hear that, somebody is 20 yrs ahead of us. That pleases me.

Cyber-warfare is a sexed up term to refer to a "terrain".

YES, exactly, we now have the Navy, Air force, Army to handle those "terrains", where are the "cyber forces", In this Terrain USA seems to be MIA.


Much like land warfare, or naval warfare, or air warfare. Computers are tools used for good purposes and bad purposes much the same as tanks and trucks. Metaphorical analysis of cyber warfare will only carry you so far and the over use of the term rather than realistic terms only prejudices people against the topic.

We have tried to demonstrate the practical application of our concept of a "cyber troop", I think the Theory is still being worked out.
They are at war with the USA on the Internet, we reacted.

There is terrorism, it occurs through a variety of devices and techniques, and some of those devices are communications and computer networks. Information warfare uses computers much like it uses mass media but they are not inextricably linked. Command, control, communication, and coordination using information technology (C4IT) can be simplified as "computer mediated". What is missing from your posts (and I must admit the variety of fonts and incoherence of the posts makes them nearly unreadable, some replys have been culled form our Internal docs.I will try and watch it, Thanks) is a basic understanding of commodity computing and computer convergence. These two basic concepts enlighten and inform the conflict scholar about how computers are used and why they are used.

A simple understanding of convergence and commodity tools might help. The ubiquitous refrigerator allowed for fresh foods and longer time in transit for foods. This created a more nutritious and higher value food source for soldiers. Those armies that had access and the resources to use refrigeration had a tactical advantage over their adversaries. Yet we never coined or used the term refrigeration warfare. When high value information technology assets were converged into military supply trains along with refrigeration capability the just in time supply line became a reality for food stuffs. Yet again we did not define war based on just in time inventory or it's convergence with refrigeration.

But we were not fighting on refrigeration trains, we are fighting on the Internet. I think it is a terrain deserving of troops.

C4IT is a converging communication paradigm that is both a tactical tool as well as a strategic terrain. I agree.

USA has run this type of paradigm before, and the result was the Air Force, separated from the Army.
The sooner the USA spins off a "cyber force" the sooner USA will dominate that Terrain also.

All Armed Forces will need to maintain a "cyber" capability dedicated to use of their service.

Bill

jcustis
01-09-2008, 12:56 AM
All Armed Forces will need to maintain a "cyber" capability dedicated to use of their service.

I have read a number of good theories and explanations here at the Council, as well as a number of far-fetched propositions, and that by far is the worst I have seen in some time.

BILL, we have enough of a challenge keeping our equipment and TTPs up to date, and now you expect each of the services to maintain a "cyber" warfare capability? Since you did not define the boundaries of that capability, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean a dedicated element of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who do nothing but focus on youtube-centric warfare with opponents who are conducting assymetric attacks against us (pushing their own internet IO, service denial attacks, and generic hacking).

Why does each service need its own force? Please offer some sort of force laydown to convince me that this is a good thing.

It took the Marine Corps a few years to come into the fold of NMCI, and guess what? It works for crap most of the time and actually restrains our productivity to a degree. Staying current with the technology leaps every six months is not a job I would wish on anybody, especially since the program is guaranteed to teeter on the whim of budget constraints every year.

BILL
01-09-2008, 12:57 AM
The Strategy Page (http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20080106.aspx) describes how China assembled a force few have heard about. In idyllic 1990s, the Chinese Defense Ministry established a research organization called the "NET Force" geared towards conducting information warfare. NET Force was soon joined by an irregular civilian militia; the "Red Hackers Union" (RHU). "Starting in the late 1990s, China assembled what has now become 30,000 Ministry of Public Security employees manning the Golden Shield Project (also known as The Great Firewall of China), and monitor Internet use throughout the country."

Excellent points: Hard Questions.
Here is a start: Not comprehensive but a taste.

I have read a number of good theories and explanations here at the Council, as well as a number of far-fetched propositions, and that by far is the worst I have seen in some time.

BILL, we have enough of a challenge keeping our equipment and TTPs up to date, and now you expect each of the services to maintain a "cyber" warfare capability? Since you did not define the boundaries of that capability, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you mean a dedicated element of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who do nothing but focus on youtube-centric warfare with opponents who are conducting assymetric attacks against us (pushing their own internet IO, service denial attacks, and generic hacking).

Why does each service need its own force? Please offer some sort of force laydown to convince me that this is a good thing.

Consider the reasons you keep TTPs up todate. The same concepts, motives apply.

Also:
This is an arena in your theater of operations, "they" are using to great effect, some guy in a cave, Sets the Internet Paradigm (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/06/al-qaeda-setting-internet-paradigma.html).
And USA does not dominate this terrain.
I think each Force should be represented in each terrain they are being fought in.

Force Protection. Recent example, on Arabic forum posted "his" brother was starting a sniper cell in "X" small Iraq city, we made appropriate notifications the same day the post was made.

Closed cell penetration, forecasting possible.

and
If you win their "hearts and minds" you don't have to shoot them.
And they won't be shooting at you. KIA reduction.

Force Multiplier: In "Jawbreaker" they utilized no OSINT capabilities, and were using 10 year ? outdated maps they found at the American Embassy.

After Bhuttos attack, Pakistan Army was doing PR that "it wasn't them", and going on the defensive, and offering shopping lists of possible perps, while civilian blogs were posting al Qaeda claimed credit and link references.
The P Army could have been on the offensive instead of the defense with a good OSINT arm. Lack of info just made them look suspect.

It took the Marine Corps a few years to come into the fold of NMCI, and guess what? It works for crap most of the time and actually restrains our productivity to a degree.

I feel your right I have seen all the services represented in our Blog logs except for the Marines.

Staying current with the technology leaps every six months is not a job I would wish on anybody,

Great point, I hadn't thought about, we follow a few venture capitalist news letters that list all the new "social tools" and OSINT techniques and applications, although they don't always recognize those uses. The "Baby Feed" includes These news letters and the data they need to stay on top or up to date. We made our Blog 'cell phone friendly' (http://winksite.com/site/site_profile.cfm?susid=20217)
in 30 min. through new site they invested in ( Whole new demographic ).


especially since the program is guaranteed to teeter on the whim of budget constraints every year.

Yes at the start of WWII USA had very limited number of tanks, scary.
It will take time to prove its RIO, ( return on Investment ).
It has already lead to al Qaeda's back door, thru tracking webmasters, arrests, and hard drive recovery's.



I think the 'cyber warroir' gives you a new gun, force, Knowledge vector to guide Kinetic force.
A new terrain to destroy enemy initiatives, counter lies, propaganda, spin, track and target.
Bill

selil
01-09-2008, 04:00 AM
Bill, some discontinuous dissonance as a mirror to rambling rebellion.

The thing is we do have a communications and computer systems agency for dealing with hostile attacks. That is the mission of the NSA along with all other forms of signals intelligence. Second the United States as a land of law has treaties that say we will not attack other nations. You said in an earlier post that you had engaged in cyber-attacks which would be a direct violation of federal law. The Air force is standing up a cyber warfare command which will be interesting for a bunch of other reasons.

Currently hacktivism and petty graffiti attacks are the primary "hacks" that occur. With the exception of a few different attacks like "Titan Rain" and high profile spy ware break outs.

You totally missed the metaphor of ubiquitous communications and commodity computing as a "utility" making it air or water rather than "special". You need C4IT like you need anything else like food. C4IT makes you a better warrior but it isn't the only battlefield or tool. When you realize the Internet exists beyond the http, ftp, protocols and you dig deeper (i'm not talking dark net) the vista of the Internet takes on a deeper and broader view.

How is a predator drone controlled?
What gives a jdam the high accuracy that it known for?
What provides the telemetry for a cruise missile?
How are operational orders transmitted between general staffs and unit commands?

There are only three forms of attack possible (plus two but that is another story) over networks and computer mediated environments.

You'll have to start defining your terms better here.

A point as to etiquette as a user of THIS web forum I'm interested in using THIS web forum. Provide a link in your signature to your blog but stop trying to send us off to your website. I'm not interested in having my IP harvested, my click through behavior analyzed, or my interactions and interests monitored. Further posting large volumes of information from another BLOG here on another forum without permission from the owners of SWC/SWJ is bad news. You are fairly anonymous (your introduction left a lot to be desired) and with anonymity comes distrust. For all I know you are just violating intellectual property laws (good taste at least) and posting somebody else's blog information here as part of some IW campaign.

In any regards I think you're mixing information warfare and cyber warfare. If you start reading something like "In Athena's camp: Preparing for conflict in the information age. (1997). Santa Monica, CA: RAND." and the updated "Networks and netwars: The future of terror, crime, and militancy. (2001). Santa Monica, CA: RAND"that will take you down the information warfare and network centric warfare path you seem to be going. This is more akin to information operations than it is to tactical use of a computer for attack.

Just as a simple example information warfare is about message, and controlling the communication channel. In my laboratory cyber warfare (sic) is about destroying your capability to communicate, intercepting your command and control information, or changing your message without you knowing that we've done so. Those are simplistic examples of the confidentiality, integrity, availability triad which you can read more about from "Maconachy, W. V., Schou, C. D., Ragsdale, D., & Welch, D. (2001). A Model for Information Assurance: An Integrated Approach. Paper presented at the 2001 IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security, US Military Academy, West Point, NY.".

Think about defining your terms a little better within the context of your statements. Within this area of research the disciplines jargon is not fully understood.

BILL
01-09-2008, 05:00 AM
"You said in an earlier post that you had engaged in cyber-attacks which would be a direct violation of federal law."
I've gone out of my way to confirm we do not engage in illegal activities, ie hacking, and certainly have not violated any federal laws,
Thats quite a threating accusation.

Please provide quotes, I don't want any misunderstandings.
Or unnecessary investigations, based on a mis-communication.

Maybe its a misunderstanding of term "cyber attack".
I'd like to clear this up. thanks for checking it out. Others may have taken it that way too.

Don't remember saying that, certainly didn't mean it in that context..
Now I'll read the rest of your post.
Bill, some discontinuous dissonance as a mirror to rambling rebellion.

The thing is we do have a communications and computer systems agency for dealing with hostile attacks. That is the mission of the NSA along with all other forms of signals intelligence. Second the United States as a land of law has treaties that say we will not attack other nations. You said in an earlier post that you had engaged in cyber-attacks which would be a direct violation of federal law. NO , NOT: The Air force is standing up a cyber warfare command which will be interesting for a bunch of other reasons.

Currently hacktivism and petty graffiti attacks are the primary "hacks" that occur. With the exception of a few different attacks like "Titan Rain" and high profile spy ware break outs.

You totally missed the metaphor of ubiquitous communications and commodity computing as a "utility" making it air or water rather than "special". You need C4IT like you need anything else like food. C4IT makes you a better warrior but it isn't the only battlefield or tool. When you realize the Internet exists beyond the http, ftp, protocols and you dig deeper (i'm not talking dark net) the vista of the Internet takes on a deeper and broader view.
I agree.
How is a predator drone controlled?
What gives a jdam the high accuracy that it known for?
What provides the telemetry for a cruise missile?
How are operational orders transmitted between general staffs and unit commands?

There are only three forms of attack possible (plus two but that is another story) over networks and computer mediated environments.

Please define these three, for clarity.

You'll have to start defining your terms better here.

A point as to etiquette as a user of THIS web forum I'm interested in using THIS web forum. Provide a link in your signature to your blog but stop trying to send us off to your website.

The links are for additional info and shorten some of my already long and rambling posts.

I'm not interested in having my IP harvested, my click through behavior analyzed, or my interactions and interests monitored.

I WOULD SUGGEST A PROXY, TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY.

Further posting large volumes of information from another BLOG here on another forum without permission from the owners of SWC/SWJ is bad news. You are fairly anonymous (your introduction left a lot to be desired) and with anonymity comes distrust. For all I know you are just violating intellectual property laws (good taste at least) and posting somebody else's blog information here as part of some IW campaign.

With the anonymity comes some security, abet limited, and your right one should not trust anyone you 'meet' on the web, I'm just asking for consideration of my concepts and feedback. If your concerned you can email the Internet Anthropologist Blog and confirm for your self my permissions, if your so inclined.
contact email is listed as barb.andrews at gmail.com
And thanks for looking out for us.

In any regards I think you're mixing information warfare and cyber warfare. If you start reading something like "In Athena's camp: Preparing for conflict in the information age. (1997). Santa Monica, CA: RAND." and the updated "Networks and netwars: The future of terror, crime, and militancy. (2001). Santa Monica, CA: RAND"that will take you down the information warfare and network centric warfare path you seem to be going. This is more akin to information operations than it is to tactical use of a computer for attack.

I'll read them, thanks

Just as a simple example information warfare is about message, and controlling the communication channel. In my laboratory cyber warfare (sic) is about destroying your capability to communicate, intercepting your command and control information, or changing your message without you knowing that we've done so.

These are more in the realm of official government actions and Generally not appropriate for civilian ops.

Those are simplistic examples of the confidentiality, integrity, availability triad which you can read more about from "Maconachy, W. V., Schou, C. D., Ragsdale, D., & Welch, D. (2001). A Model for Information Assurance: An Integrated Approach. Paper presented at the 2001 IEEE Workshop on Information Assurance and Security, US Military Academy, West Point, NY.".

Thanks

Think about defining your terms a little better within the context of your statements. Within this area of research the disciplines jargon is not fully understood. I agree.

Bill
Congrads on your DHS Fellowship, its nice to have an Expert around.

.

selil
01-09-2008, 01:35 PM
I've gone out of my way to confirm we do not engage in illegal activities, ie hacking, and certainly have not violated any federal laws,
Thats quite a threating accusation.

Please provide quotes, I don't want any misunderstandings.
Or unnecessary investigations, based on a mis-communication.

In this thread your posts #47 and post #100 you make suggestions about operatives taking direct actions against terrorist organizations AND civilians providing denialbility. Perhaps I misread and took that to literally. In my experience direct action equates to the adversary not having the will of ability to act further.

Hacking is a pejorative term that has been bent and blended into uselessness so I'm immediately suspicious at it's use (your post on hacker training this thread #97). If we are talking about message, communication channels, or more succinctly propaganda then that is one discussion. If we are talking about creating kinetic effect (your post #106) through computers that is another discussion. From what you've posted it seems you are mixing the two concepts and they are not the same. It was recently declassified that it is perfectly possible to use computers for kinetic effect and blow up a generator (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/26/power.at.risk/index.html).


Congrads on your DHS Fellowship, its nice to have an Expert around.

Thank you. It's always nice to get outside recognition. Between, Purdue, NSA, DOD, NSF, and now DHS I have effectively paid zero money to realize my personal goal of getting a PhD.

As a faculty member at a regional university (third tier somebody once called it) funding and grantsmanship are little tougher to acquire than at an R1. You won't find it on my BLOG but I have a little over $1.5 million in outside and internal funding over the last four years. I'm especially proud of my Cisco funded security laboratory and virtual network laboratory system.

BILL
01-11-2008, 05:39 PM
We tracked the web master to Kuwait,
He took web page down over night,
then put it back up under someone else's name and changed text,
Then he says its not monitored.

More here: (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2008/01/death-threats-against-bush-hosted-in.html)

Huge campaign to assassinate Bush. (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2008/01/muslimnet-global-campaign-to.html)
Bill

BILL
01-18-2008, 06:27 PM
"Al-Qaida's MySpace": How Suicide Bombers Are Being Recruited Online

By Evan Kohlmann

This morning, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point released the second issue of its Sentinel journal (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/sentinel/CTCSentinel-Vol1Iss2.pdf), including my new piece on "Al-Qaida's MySpace"--which tracks a growing number of case studies in which users on extremist Internet forums such as Al-Ekhlaas have been vanishing off the forums, only to suddenly re-appear later as suicide bombers in the service of Al-Qaida in Iraq. The report includes both testimonials gathered from the forums themselves, and never-before-seen evidence uncovered during the British investigation of "Irhaby 007" (a.k.a. Younis Tsouli). Tsouli's former headquarters on the web--the Muntada al-Ansar forum--was a major center for such online terrorist recruiting. In August 2005, a senior Muntada al-Ansar administrator broke the “good news” to fellow users about a “meeting of Ansar forum members” inside Iraq:....

"This story is fascinating and emotional because it is closely linked to… the Ansar forum… One of our brothers who was a member on the Ansar forum and was originally from a country adjacent to Iraq decided to leave and fight in the cause of Allah. Allah made it possible for him to meet with an additional five brothers from other countries who had all come to fight in the cause of Allah… Later, after talking with one another, they all realized that they were fellow users on the Ansar forum, and that made them very happy. They began crying and their love for Allah increased… I also inform you that one of the brothers who is a member on the Ansar forum will soon rejoin his beloved comrades in the land of jihad and martyrdom, the land of Mesopotamia, and he will also participate in a suicide operation."

SOURCE: (http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/01/alqaidas_myspace_how_suicide_b.php)

100 Jahiddies on Facebook (http://warintel.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-jahidie-vector.html)

Bill

I think this thread demonstrates how we adopted Competitive Intelligence methods over the past year to Counter Intel.
And hope it is usefull, we are user friendly and available.

BILL
01-19-2008, 02:38 AM
New Jahidiie encryption program. (http://clearinghouse.infovlad.net/showthread.php?t=10961)
and
We have the Computer IP forTaliban webmaster, Adil Watanmal (aka Murchal), and location.

B

BILL
03-22-2008, 04:28 PM
Would like your input/thoughts.


Ddan has an interesting post on the subject: here (http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/2008/03/terror-on-internet-conflict-of-interest.html)

What to do with the terrorist web sites?

It is a involoved paradigm, and we are picking our way through the potential mine field.

Some argue to leave them up for the Intel production.
And that some Intel may be lost if they are shut down.

Dan speaks of a tipping point.

I am also looking at a tipping point.
A different tipping point.

Consoider for a moment if ALL terrorist sites were taken down,
one swipe world wide?

That would have a significant impact on recruiting, and generating home grown terrorist, and many other benefits.

Each time a site is shut down, they loose part of their audience,
and loose data and creditability.
Not to mention the security they must build and maintain to set up a new site,
and the psysic energy and the blow to morale, consider loosing your own Blog.
The wasted time setting it back up knowing it will be shut back down again.
and loss of command and control, and com links.
If they email members of the new site then they are also notifying us.
We are hidden in their lists.

We have passwords to most sites, and back doors and mine them for links, urls and members
and copy the entire site before shut down. And are working to make these copies
available to the FEDS, we know they probally have copies already, but in case we take down one that don't have a copy for , we do have the copy. We have the man power to avail our selves
of these capabilities with Company "C". (http://warintel11.wetpaint.com/)

Company "C" allows me to move from Intel collection and reporting to developing actionable Intel for the FEDS, and planning operations and prosecuting the GWOT with in legal limits.
In an area that needs service.

We also give the FEDS prior notice before we take down a site, and are willing to sign secrecy
agreements on any sites they want to remain up.

Of course it can be argued that this drives them to the Dark web.
Which limits their public recruitment and command and control to the Ummah.
And reduces the number of sites.

And we have moles working in many of these dark sites.
If you have a dark site it limits your recruitment and public influence.
And command and control to a very limited cadre.

The estimates we have seen estimate there are 4,000 terrorist web sites.

We recently took down a little known hub for propaganda distribution.
Thousands of vids very little text.

The number of terror sites hosted by American Companys could be drastically cut
by a few prosecutions under current laws, as it stands now their is no down side
to hosting a terror site other than Bad PR when they are caught, and then they
claim they didn't know. . Violation authority cited: (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-24205-filedhttp://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_register&docid=01-24205-filed)
And many hosts just ignore the complaints, currently without
any prosecutions the law is with out teeth.
Company "C" is looking for an Attorney to file complaints (http://warintel11.wetpaint.com/page/Lawyers) against the
hosts for violation the laws, we can supply the complainant and evidence.

Drive them to web sites in terror supporting countrys and
you open the possibility of direct attacks on servers by USA military.
Under the color of law and war.

We think this is a workable solution to the 4,000 terror web sites
and maintain copies of sites for further study.

Bill

Ken White
03-22-2008, 06:53 PM
Some disagree...

LINK (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,340613,00.html)

BILL
03-22-2008, 08:06 PM
The argument seems to be leave the terrorist sites up to collect Intel,
Well the total number have grown to over 4,000. sites.
And the sites are recruiting others and the number of sites continue to grow.

This paradigm will insure the growth of Jahiddie sites, at what point do they put stopping recruitment ahead of intel gathering?

Feels like the cart before the horse.

Watch them grow and collect info???

Bizzar
G

selil
03-23-2008, 01:55 AM
Taking down the "terrorist" websites completely is the metaphorical form of conventional warfare versus small wars type doctrine or counter insurgency. Wholesale disruption of terrorist websites would be denying the insurgent the terrain. When in reality according to counter insurgency you wish to change the perception of the insurgent not embolden them to new or higher levels. You don't want to create an asymmetric arms race that only they can win. It could be argued that destruction of the terrorist communication mechanism actually hurts the effort.

BILL
03-23-2008, 02:48 AM
"It could be argued that destruction of the terrorist communication mechanism actually hurts the effort."
AND
"You don't want to create an asymmetric arms race that only they can win."

Gee Selil you must be playing devils advocate.

I was speechless.
If this is the paradigm then its gone around the Bend, the work product has superseded the Goal.
That seems akin to "giving them bullets so we can see where they are", when they shoot at us.
The hard core are not likely to be converted.

"an asymmetric arms race that only they can win"
I couldn't disagree more.

The only way THEY can win on the WWW is if USA doesn't mount an offensive.

It sounds like it may have been decided USA can't win on the WWW.

Watch Company "C" we will curb them.

Thanks for your comment.


Bill

slapout9
03-23-2008, 02:49 AM
Would like your input/thoughts.




Company "C" is looking for an Attorney to file complaints (http://warintel11.wetpaint.com/page/Lawyers) against the
hosts for violation the laws, we can supply the complainant and evidence.


Bill

[/B][/B]


You might want to try the SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center, they have done some things like this in the past, but it usually against Domestic groups. http://www.splcenter.org/index.jsp

BILL
03-23-2008, 03:20 AM
Excellent Idea
DONE.

Bill