Losing the PSYOP war

One of the top UK think tanks came out with in interesting piece that mentions shortcomings in PSYOP capabilities:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/internatio...003164,00.html

This is an old, old story. I think "Contra Cross" is one of very few books that discusses what life is like for a deplyed PSYOP soldier. In it, I note that back at Ft. Bragg, in terms of prestige, the poor PSYOP troops were down there with the mythical "mess kit repair company."

I go on to discuss how, when we did finally figure out that PSYOP might be an important element in the Central American war, we did what we always do: we threw money and technology at the problem. Our enemies focused not on the media, but on the message, and were much more effective than we were. See http://www.contracross.com

Hi Bill,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bill Meara

I go on to discuss how, when we did finally figure out that PSYOP might be an important element in the Central American war, we did what we always do: we threw money and technology at the problem. Our enemies focused not on the media, but on the message, and were much more effective than we were. See http://www.contracross.com

---

I think that right now there is a double problem: one operational and one ideological. Operationally, most of the PSYOPs and IO seems to be focusing on obsolete, broadcast media rather than on the particular media used by a given audience (e.g. the newer interactive media or the older "oral culture" media). At the ideological level, there is very little sophistication or cultural appropriateness in the message.

If McLuhan was correct in his little aphorism of the "medium is the massage" (that's the original, not the later popularized version), then the campaign is failing on all fronts. Throwing money and technology at a problem may work in some settings, but this is too complex a problem for it to be appropriate. Without a solid, salable ideology it doesn't matter which media are used.

Marc

Hi Marc,

I agree, but in that regard I think we have an inherent, severe disadvantage. The "cultural imperialism" the Islamists object to isn't typified by a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Mecca. It's abortion "rights," feminism, gay rights, the exclusion of God from civil life, etc. I think that once those are tied, by Islamist propaganda, to democracy, free markets, capitalism, etc., we face a tough uphill struggle to craft an effective message. Especially when it would have to be done under the intense scrutiny and outright opposition of the left. (I find it ironic that the people most opposed to the current war seem to be those most committed to the aspects of the West that seem a strong part of what motivates Islamists.)

Hi Marc,

Quote:

---

broadcast media rather than on the particular media used by a given audience (e.g. the newer interactive media or the older "oral culture" media). At the ideological level, there is very little sophistication or cultural appropriateness in the message.

---

We encountered the same problems in then Zäire. 5th group had come in with its own CA and Psyops. Some, much like the agency's folks, could even listen to local broadcasting in Lingala (but they would never grasp the local meanings, nor could they communicate in Lingala when the situation dictated). When they decided on the target audience for this mission, they also overlooked those "oral culture" folks who from an ideological sense, would not be the least bit impressed or even pay attention.

To some extent, we experience this operational vs ideological scenario even here in Estonia. It's more divided by age rather than ideological or cultural aspects, but rings the same tone.

We would later collate the info and carefully compare it against our target audience, coming up with a broader approach to our end goal.

Regards, Stan

Hi JW,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

I agree, but in that regard I think we have an inherent, severe disadvantage. The "cultural imperialism" the Islamists object to isn't typified by a Kentucky Fried Chicken in Mecca. It's abortion "rights," feminism, gay rights, the exclusion of God from civil life, etc. I think that once those are tied, by Islamist propaganda, to democracy, free markets, capitalism, etc., we face a tough uphill struggle to craft an effective message.

---

I agree. In many ways, the tying of TNC global "culture", i.e. McDonald's everywhere, into the basic political philosophy that is the basis of the modern, Western democratic state has been a major mistake. The ideological message that we should be selling is TNC neutral - individual rights and responsibilities, a "social contract" within a democratic framework, individual freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, and a , broadly construed, "capitalist" system (there hasn't been a real capitalist system, a la Adam Smith, since the 1850's or so).

Do we face a tough, uphill struggle? Sure, so what? First, if it was easy, then every culture would have done it. Second, and more immediate, maybe the people who are getting paid outrageous amounts of money to do it should think about actually dong their job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

Especially when it would have to be done under the intense scrutiny and outright opposition of the left. (I find it ironic that the people most opposed to the current war seem to be those most committed to the aspects of the West that seem a strong part of what motivates Islamists.)

---

Absolutely bang on! And please, don't get me started on your left wing :D! Honestly, when I was much younger, I used to hang around up at Parliament Hill. I had the privilege of spending a number of lunches and afternoons talking with people like Stanley Knowles and other "old time" CCF members from the old Social Justice stream. Now there were Left Wingers who took their policies and beliefs seriously!

Most of today's left wing, especially the American crowd of neo-Marxists I've run into, are, to quote my grandmother, a bunch of "Parlour Pinks"! They have the guts to complain, while sipping their drinks in posh hotels, but they won't get their butts out on the streets to actually help people who need it, let alone put their lives on the line for those beliefs! (Sorry, major soapbox!)

Marc

Hi Stan,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

We encountered the same problems in then Zäire. 5th group had come in with its own CA and Psyops. Some, much like the agency's folks, could even listen to local broadcasting in Lingala (but they would never grasp the local meanings, nor could they communicate in Lingala when the situation dictated). When they decided on the target audience for this mission, they also overlooked those "oral culture" folks who from an ideological sense, would not be the least bit impressed or even pay attention.

---

It is a classic problem :). Even without the language barrier problem, there is still the problem of identifying the demographic slice with the best ROI and the appropriate way of targeting that group. On of the examples that comes to mind is "peer marketing". This is where a company will hire a bunch of teenagers to a) listen to what teens are saying and report back, and b) show off "their" (i.e. their companies / employers) products. It uses word of mouth, rumour and F2F media technologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

To some extent, we experience this operational vs ideological scenario even here in Estonia. It's more divided by age rather than ideological or cultural aspects, but rings the same tone.

We would later collate the info and carefully compare it against our target audience, coming up with a broader approach to our end goal.

---

That's the more normal scenario, Stan. Age always makes a difference :D. The best way to handle it, is to work on the assumption that medium usage tends to be age segmented, and ideological/cultural stuff tends to be role segmented. Ideally, your ideological message is based in a solid philosophical exposition that can the be tailored for each target segment (yeah.... too much time doing market research :eek:).

Marc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Hi JW,



I agree. In many ways, the tying of TNC global "culture", i.e. McDonald's everywhere, into the basic political philosophy that is the basis of the modern, Western democratic state has been a major mistake. The ideological message that we should be selling is TNC neutral - individual rights and responsibilities, a "social contract" within a democratic framework, individual freedoms, including freedom of religion, speech, the press, and a , broadly construed, "capitalist" system (there hasn't been a real capitalist system, a la Adam Smith, since the 1850's or so).

Do we face a tough, uphill struggle? Sure, so what? First, if it was easy, then every culture would have done it. Second, and more immediate, maybe the people who are getting paid outrageous amounts of money to do it should think about actually dong their job.



Absolutely bang on! And please, don't get me started on your left wing :D! Honestly, when I was much younger, I used to hang around up at Parliament Hill. I had the privilege of spending a number of lunches and afternoons talking with people like Stanley Knowles and other "old time" CCF members from the old Social Justice stream. Now there were Left Wingers who took their policies and beliefs seriously!

Most of today's left wing, especially the American crowd of neo-Marxists I've run into, are, to quote my grandmother, a bunch of "Parlour Pinks"! They have the guts to complain, while sipping their drinks in posh hotels, but they won't get their butts out on the streets to actually help people who need it, let alone put their lives on the line for those beliefs! (Sorry, major soapbox!)

Marc

---

I think it might be a healthy exercise to consider that we, the West, HAVE been attacking Islam for some time now. OUR Weapon of Mass Destruction is the internet and mass media, and Joe Jihad objects more to Britney Spears than US support of Israel. If you consider how this impacts their culture, their Point of View is very understandable.

And the stark, no #### necessity for us to be prepared to fight them to the death, because "sweet-talking" them into accepting porn, "alternative lifestyles" and abortion doesn't seem to be very realistic at this point in time.

As an aside, Marc, as I said earlier, my wife and I support several worthy causes and often run into "American Leftists" who try to convince us to stop directly supporting these causes and start lobbying for someone else to pay for them through the gov't dole.

Quote:

---

I think it might be a healthy exercise to consider that we, the West, HAVE been attacking Islam for some time now. OUR Weapon of Mass Destruction is the internet and mass media, and Joe Jihad objects more to Britney Spears than US support of Israel. If you consider how this impacts their culture, their Point of View is very understandable.

---

I'm interested in what leads you to this belief. Most of what I have read from Sageman, OBL's manifesto, etc. leads me to believe that Islamists object mainly to what they perceive as military/political domination of the Muslim world by nefarious Jewish/Western interests, leading to atrocities against defenseless Muslims, i.e. Israeli occupation in Palestine, Russia invasion of Chechnya, Serb attacks on Bosnia and Kosovo, Western sanctions vs Iraq, now U.S. occupation of Iraq, etc.

Hi Folks,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I think it might be a healthy exercise to consider that we, the West, HAVE been attacking Islam for some time now. OUR Weapon of Mass Destruction is the internet and mass media, and Joe Jihad objects more to Britney Spears than US support of Israel. If you consider how this impacts their culture, their Point of View is very understandable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tequila

I'm interested in what leads you to this belief. Most of what I have read from Sageman, OBL's manifesto, etc. leads me to believe that Islamists object mainly to what they perceive as military/political domination of the Muslim world by nefarious Jewish/Western interests, leading to atrocities against defenseless Muslims, i.e. Israeli occupation in Palestine, Russia invasion of Chechnya, Serb attacks on Bosnia and Kosovo, Western sanctions vs Iraq, now U.S. occupation of Iraq, etc.

---

I think there area couple of points that may serve to clarify things. First, there's the concept of "historical time" or "historical depth" within a culture. The "Wests'" assault on Islam goes back to the Crusades. Of course, they never talk about Islam's assault on the West...:eek: (I always approved of Charles Martel). This concept refers, in part, back to how a culture deals with its collective memory - what it chooses to remember and what it chooses to forget. Islam remembers the Crusades and tends to forget its original assaults on "Western" nations (e.g. Byzantium, the Visigoth kingdom of Spain, France, etc.).

A second concept is the distinction between current rhetoric and mythic pattern rhetoric. The distinction becomes really clear when you analyze how a current event is being structured - the content is current, but the pattern comes out of their oral history.

120mm raises a really valid point re: Britney Spears. You're absolutely right that this is a "cultural attack" but that is at he core of it - it is a cultural not a religious attack. Furthermore, it also highlights particular cultural weaknesses (on both sides, BTW :wry:). If you look at the popular history of Western nations, you will see exactly the same type of conflict. Think about Prohibition and the Temperance movement in the US, the Suffragette campaigns, and he fights over individual control of morality vs. collective control over morality. For slightly kinetic examples, think about the Union movements, the Luddite movement in the UK, the French Revolution and the Liberal Revolutions of 1848 in Europe.

The point I'm trying to make here is that cultures are constantly "negotiated"; they are not "pristine". What the Islamists are doing is drawing on a Golden Age model of a pristine culture of Islam hat never existed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

And the stark, no #### necessity for us to be prepared to fight them to the death, because "sweet-talking" them into accepting porn, "alternative lifestyles" and abortion doesn't seem to be very realistic at this point in time.

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

As an aside, Marc, as I said earlier, my wife and I support several worthy causes and often run into "American Leftists" who try to convince us to stop directly supporting these causes and start lobbying for someone else to pay for them through the gov't dole.

---

Well, after all, it is important to keep the unemployment rate low, and the best way to do that is to employ bureaucrats who can't even dig ditches :eek:. Yeah, I refuse to support any collectivist "charities" unless I get a look at their books. If they have more than 12% overhead, I won't support them.

Marc

As in all things, motiviations come in layers, not always consistent. I'll submit some thoughts. If I screw it up, I trust someone will correct me.

First, 120mm hit the nail on the head. A large percentage of the information carried by mass media is corrosive, if not outright destructive, to the Middle East (ME) traditional way of life. Consider the effect in Saudi Arabia of the portrayal of female doctors treating male patients in a US or European drama. Or the sympathetic portrayal of homosexuality in most (all) television. Or the portrayal of abortion. All of this has a subtly (or not) corrosive effect on traditional values: "You might not engage in these behaviors, but you must feel shame if you don't approve of them."

Second, add in the British betrayal of Arab interest after WWI: the partitioning of the Middle East, the history of the Palastinian Mandate, the establishment of the state of Israel, and Western support for Isael through multiple wars. Regardless of what we in the West might think, say or do, that support is seen as choosing Jews at the expense of Arabs, not as "atonement" for and preventing another Holocaust. (I suspect that the Holocaust deniers in the ME are so vocal is equal parts "We don't want it to have happened because it justifies the creation of Israel" and "It didn't go far enough, so it wasn't the desired Holocaust.")

Third, throw in the military actions tequila brings up. We may understand them in terms of nation states acting to protect or advance their interest. To many Moslems, all that is seen is a historical enemy, Christian in culture, attacking a Moslem state.

I think that all three of these confirm a belief that the world of Islam is under attack by a Christian west. To the typical Moslem, whose education and socio-economic opportunities are severely limited, they provide THE explanation for his misery.

To paraphrase Tip O'Neal: "All politics is personal." Put yourself in the position of a father watching his children suffer from malnutrition or an easily treated disease, add in highly effective propoganda blaming the West, reinforced by WESTERN political leaders blaming the West. Would you pick up a gun?

The problem we face now is countering that propaganda.

Evening Marc and others!

It's very apparent 3 years later (perhaps this implies a false impression), that pounding them to death and conventional warfare is not working out, they only seem to be multiplying (that in itself is strange, since sex doesn't become them :confused: ).

So, from your point of view (no, not a trick question, just a me wondering), if we just huddled in and never went out (make them come to us, so to speak) what would be the likely outcome ? Collateral damage would certainly be less (well for them, since it would be our base being attacked).

I'm a soldier (err was) and it's far easier to defend a correctly chosen position (assuming you have that) than per se, to attack a fortified position coupled with your lack of knowledge of your adversary's will to die.

Afterall, they have observed our tactics and now perhaps have a slightly upper hand until such time as we change our tactics, and then they merely start again. Why is it, we don't watch their CSS units and take them out. Not soldiers, rather loggies with fuel, et al. We already saw it in action....it works and rather easy. Truck drivers are not the Infantry :wry:

120 has a very good point.
Not selling porn (we know they are not permitted to watch porn and drink alcohol :eek: ), but I think where it most suits them, they indeed pay much attention to media and often use said medium for their own twisted reasons.

Time to turn the tables and "exit strategy".

Let me know if this got a tad ambiguous :D

Regards, Stan

Hi Stan,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

Let me know if this got a tad ambiguous

---

Ambiguous?!? Never :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

It's very apparent 3 years later (perhaps this implies a false impression), that pounding them to death and conventional warfare is not working out, they only seem to be multiplying (that in itself is strange, since sex doesn't become them :confused: ).

So, from your point of view (no, not a trick question, just a me wondering), if we just huddled in and never went out (make them come to us, so to speak) what would be the likely outcome ? Collateral damage would certainly be less (well for them, since it would be our base being attacked).

---

Honestly? I think it wold be suicidal. No, let me rephrase that, I think it has been suicidal. Look at it this way, Stan. That is exactly the tactic that was used by the Crusader States towards their end. The tactic for defeating it is quite well know - pull them out of their fortifications, cut 'em off from water (supplies) and then kill/capture them (14th century Battle of Doryleum). The modern analog would be to get the Democrats to pull the supply plug.

While defense tends to be a stronger tactical position, it is often a weaker strategic position. That's part of the problem - we are on the defensive in the Information War and in the Ideology War.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

120 has a very good point.
Not selling porn (we know they are not permitted to watch porn and drink alcohol :eek: ), but I think where it most suits them, they indeed pay much attention to media and often use said medium for their own twisted reasons.

Time to turn the tables and "exit strategy".

---

Sure they do :D. Why not, they are getting so much support from large arts of the media?

Marc

Thanks Marc !
There is, BTW more on Anthropology stirring around in another thread and I anxiously wait and watch your replies :)

I brought this up because as a young sergeant in a training environment waiting evenings for the aggressors to come (our instructors). I was running a Nike Herc launch platform in the middle of White Sands with two 60K generators connected in parallel (a lot of noise). They had a routine to get us out and about. Pull the fuel lines on the generators and wait.

I would later change the scenario (against my platoon leader's decisions) and move the fuel canisters but connect to fuel lines elsewhere (considered a fire hazard !). I got 'em on the last night :D

Simple, yes. But in some cases it is rather simple to watch your apponents and learn. Isn't that what they're doing ?

Regards, Stan

Hi Stan,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

Thanks Marc !
There is, BTW more on Anthropology stirring around in another thread and I anxiously wait and watch your replies :)

---

Which one????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan Reber

I brought this up because as a young sergeant in a training environment waiting evenings for the aggressors to come (our instructors). I was running a Nike Herc launch platform in the middle of White Sands with two 60K generators connected in parallel (a lot of noise). They had a routine to get us out and about. Pull the fuel lines on the generators and wait.

I would later change the scenario (against my platoon leader's decisions) and move the fuel canisters but connect to fuel lines elsewhere (considered a fire hazard !). I got 'em on the last night :D

Simple, yes. But in some cases it is rather simple to watch your apponents and learn. Isn't that what they're doing ?

---

No worries with that, but that's a tactical defense. I really think that, at least in he information war, we have to be much more pro-active (no, I don't mean sending the BayWatch cast on a world tour :D). That's really where we are going to win or loose this in the long run.

Marc

While I am not a fan, I feel compelled to defend her right to be herself and not be subjected to the Saudi sex police subjecting her to lashes and a prison term. Isn't the real problem the cultural insensitivity of those who object to her act rather than ignoring it. We should also remember that the sex cop attitude is not monolithic even in Saudi Arabia where the wealthy leave to enjoy debauchery in the west. I am reminded of the young Iraqi who greeted the original liberation with the immortal words "Democracy, whickey, sexy!"

I will add one more anecdotal note. On my blog I have been critical of the "Saudi sex cops" and their punishment of women who were raped. What is interesting is how many hits I get on these post from all over the Middle East and particularly in Saudi Arabia when they Google the phrase "Saudi sex."

Marc,
You already began responding to advisors with PhDs !

Quote:

---

"Saudi sex cops"

---

Good Evening Merv !
You'll be happy to know that the Chadians did the very same 12 years ago when US reporters would return with C5 aircraft (the French fighters almost shot us down) and report on Chadians watching USA Porno films in their tents. Go figure !

Regards, Stan

Looked at from the strategic and operational level, we tend toward schizophrenia when it comes to IO in general and PSYOP in particular. The "split" in our IO and PSYOP efforts comes in our audience selection (or confusion).

Much of what we do is greatly influenced because it is targeted toward the greater "us" and not the greater "them." Consider the debate over kinetic versus non-kinetic. Tactically we seem to get the message that we cannot "kill" an insurgency in OIF or OIF. And because that is a contained environment, we can tailor our ROE and our operations to sustain such an approach.

But when it comes to the strategic and the operational, our two personalities show up very quickly. Consider the issues of rendition and strike operations; do the risks outweigh the gains? In considering such operations which IO/PSYOP audience are we really playing to?

Too often I believe we are playing to the greater "us" in that we have an audience we need to satisfy that we are indeed doing something; we internally derive a short term positive boost. It serves the greater "us" well in the short to mid-term. Does it serve the "greater them" or better put does it serve portraying and promotong our interests to the "greater them"?

Overall I would say we have not accepted we are fighting a global insurgency centered on ideology as its most obvious feature. It is not per se a "relgious war" as some would portray it; it is a cultural war. Our political culture (if there is an "our") has too many components for religion to serve as a primary motivation.

As for our enemies--by that I mean the central core of AQ salafists and wahabists--their very focus on that extreme form of Islam makes them aliens in their own lands.

The cultures and sub-cultures we are dealing with are no more amenable to salafist thought than they are to democracy as we practice it. They are our "targets" or objective. Understanding that and using it should be in our IO and PSYOP tool kit.

How we "target: that objective is critical. And our approach to it has to be strategic and long term. Here our internal IO and PSYOP campaign on ourselves gets in the way. We talk long war but we often seek immediate gratification.

Dr. Joe Nye writes on "soft power" and its role in foreign policy. I agree with much of what he has to say; you have brought up some of it on this thread in speaking of television. Music is another example; we can make jokes about Bono of U2 but he has served our greater interests well because rightly or wrongly he is seen globally as a symbol of Western conscience.

Now I sense that I am rambling...:eek:

More later
Tom

Hi Tom,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Looked at from the strategic and operational level, we tend toward schizophrenia when it comes to IO in general and PSYOP in particular. The "split" in our IO and PSYOP efforts comes in our audience selection (or confusion).

Much of what we do is greatly influenced because it is targeted toward the greater "us" and not the greater "them."....

But when it comes to the strategic and the operational, our two personalities show up very quickly. Consider the issues of rendition and strike operations; do the risks outweigh the gains? In considering such operations which IO/PSYOP audience are we really playing to?

---

I think that is a really good point. One of the assumptions behind a working democracy is the idea of an "informed citizenry". Increasingly, this has come to mean a citizenry that is told what to think, rather than giving citizens the tools required to think. This is one of the arguments that the extreme globalist movement is making that has enough truth to it so that some of their other arguments appear, on the surface, as plausible. Unfortunately, it is also a tactic used by too many politicians :(.

I have felt for quite some time now that the IO/PSYOPs being conducted on our own citizens needs to be modified from a rhetoric of "rights" to a rhetoric of "rights and responsibilities".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

Too often I believe we are playing to the greater "us" in that we have an audience we need to satisfy that we are indeed doing something; we internally derive a short term positive boost. It serves the greater "us" well in the short to mid-term. Does it serve the "greater them" or better put does it serve portraying and promotong our interests to the "greater them"?

Overall I would say we have not accepted we are fighting a global insurgency centered on ideology as its most obvious feature. It is not per se a "relgious war" as some would portray it; it is a cultural war. Our political culture (if there is an "our") has too many components for religion to serve as a primary motivation.

---

Honestly, I would have to say that there has been too much of a disconnect - the rhetoric used internally is inconsistent with the rhetoric used externally. I think that this disconnect has been used by a lot of people all over the world as a way of discrediting the entire global counter-insurgency. It is, for example, too easy for someone making minimum wage working at McDonalds to see the Iraq war as a war for the VPs buddies in the oil industry to gain control over Iraqi oil (BTW, that was one scenario floated by the anti-glabalization movement).

As to it being a cultural war and not a religious war, I agree totally - at least as far as the total global war is concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Odom

As for our enemies--by that I mean the central core of AQ salafists and wahabists--their very focus on that extreme form of Islam makes them aliens in their own lands.

The cultures and sub-cultures we are dealing with are no more amenable to salafist thought than they are to democracy as we practice it. They are our "targets" or objective. Understanding that and using it should be in our IO and PSYOP tool kit.

How we "target: that objective is critical. And our approach to it has to be strategic and long term. Here our internal IO and PSYOP campaign on ourselves gets in the way. We talk long war but we often seek immediate gratification.

---

Again, I agree with you on that. If you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the Anglo culture complex, Burke, Hume, Locke, et al., they are also opposed by groups in the West. Think back to the early Federalists at the start of the US. Where I see us as having a great difficulty is in preaching individual freedom / responsibility and then, if the results don't match a preconceived template, refusing to accept those results.

Marc

In another thread about gangs in the military we were exchanging links to “information” as we frequently do in the SWJ Council. One of the links was to a paranoid blog that predicted the coming culture war, thus everyone needed to prepare for war, etc. We all know the type, build a bomb shelter, get your guns boys, them other folks is coming… The site, like so many others, points to a relatively new phenomenon, which is internet facilitated networks of like minded people. Communities are no longer refined to geographical areas, and on line communities in some cases may be stronger than communities defined by geography. This really came to the forefront for me during my son’s high school graduation last year, and the people sitting to the left and right of us (prior to the ceremony starting) were on their cell phones in rather intense conversations. My wife and I obviously didn’t exist in their world, we never had a chance to say hello. We were in their physical space, but not their community. Then it hit me that all this information technology has disconnected us at the local level, and instead allowed us to plug in to the global community where we see fit. To top it off the principle’s opening remarks for the graduation quoted Thomas Friedman’s book “The World is Flat”.

What does have to do with psychological operations? In general people with strong points of view do not pursue dissenting points of view on the internet or on the numerous cable news stations they can “choose” from. They simply search for information that supports their point of view. Hey this guy thinks the way I do, he sure is smart, and all the links on his site link to other smart folks like me. Doesn’t matter if you’re on the far left or far right or a religious zealot or animal rights activist, you’ll find your community on the internet. It is niche marketing, but with an ugly twist, because these blogs for bias and unbalanced, the option to select the information you want and the angle you want that information presented in (the spin) is in effect dumbing down society, and I believe further fragmenting it.

This phenomenon is being used unintentionally and intentionally to prepare the battlefield by shaping perceptions of the populace by various groups (almost all, if not all are non State actors). These websites, blogs, niche news stations, talk radio, etc. shape perceptions of select audiences (many in the audience simply opt in, you don't even have to reach out to them, and you put links on your site that link to like minded sites to further pull the audience into your collective group think not unlike a cult). What is interesting is that this is a distributed community, so no telling what group your neighbor is in. Idiots no longer have to put white sheets on and go out and burn crosses, they can do it on line.

This PSYOP of effect of training people to perceive the world in a certain way is “strategic” and critical for undermining governments or other groups. Once the audience has been trained, when a certain event happens it can be turned into a catalyst for action. One example is the FBI raid on WACO, which led Tim McVeigh's attack on Federal Building (a lone wolf or small pack of wolves). Another example, painting a perception of globalism as threat to numerous interests, then using the World Trade Talks as a catalyst to rally mass action in Seattle. Another example, use the photos from Abu Ghrab on numerous media outlets and websites to build up a base of hate against the U.S., that may have led to numerous actions. The attack on the Madrid Subway was largely spurned by the internet. The list goes on and on. This is where we’re losing the PSYOP war. We’re still focused on dropping leaflets and making local broadcasts (which still have a function), but we’re not going to shape the numerous niche markets out globally unless we inject our messages in the right mediums.

Hi Bill,

In a word - "Yup". I've been researching this phenomenon since 1986, and there is a lot of material on it - Castells' The Rise of Network Society comes to mind (if you can overlook his rather simplistic Structural Marxist theoretical base). I wrote a book chapter on this in The Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate back in 2000 arguing that the "search for meaning" is now operating in a Hunter-Gatherer mode with the rise of communities of interest, communities of practice and contingent communities, and an article using some of the same ideas in the practice of establishing strategic alliances in business (warning, that one's really theoretical:wry:).

I think there were some really good posts in the Tactical Blogging thread that Rob started a while back that were trying to grapple with the issue of broadcast IO/PSYOPs vs ground level / interactive IO/PSYOPs.

Marc