Counter-narratives and Info Ops: Debating Jihadi YouTube Videos

[Erich G. Simmers]

Why discourse? This isn't a debate. You don't have a discourse with drug dealers do you?

Why not just do what harms them most within the constraints of the policy? Break their will. Make their life misery. Harass them.

Are they worth it and can you can change the law to allow it is another question.

It seems as though you are assuming that the discourse is an "enemy-centric" one. Moreover, you seem to be assuming that the enemy tp be engaged is a monolithic, irreconcilable one. Not only are you engaging a discourse with friendly and neutral populations, you are also engaging elements of the enemy whose motives for joining the insurgency may be as varied as following the family tradition of fighting the Soviets, leveraging their own political ambitions, a source of income, or a genuine politico-religious calling. Or they may be a violent psychopath. In all of the above cases, we are going to have to engage the larger discourse which all of these actors (friendly, neutral, or enemy) are participating.

In this sense, I would argue it is very much a debate. Even at the most tactical level, there is a discourse that occurs in the battlespace between all elements of the population including those sympathetic, neutral, and hostile to American interests. If, as one example, the Taliban posits that they offer law and order in the face of American imperialism, then there is an absolute need to counter that message in words and deeds. This discourse will occur whether we engage or not--and not simply on a tactical level but also a strategic one. The Taliban makes their case to both a local and global audience. If we don't make an effort to control this discourse, then our enemies will.

After all, what is the goal of this harassment you mentioned? How close are we to breaking their will? Frankly, Al Qaeda has done a much better job harassing us than we have them. Those "printer" bombs shipped from Yemen were cheaper than the man-hours to operate a Reaper and the Hellfire dropped on some terrorist safe haven, and they have a more disruptive affect on our social and political system. Everyone who passes through domestic airline security is reminded of their global reach. Billions are spent reacting (and overreacting) to yesterday's threats. Whose will is closer to breaking? Of course, I am not speaking of warfighters' will but the larger, more diffuse American political will.

There are not enough missiles, bullets, and warfighters to kill everyone willing to do violence to the United States. More importantly, the threat of violence has done very little to deter any number of state and non-state actors whose very existence often depends on an antagonism with this country. Counterintuitively, I would argue it is cheaper and easier to erode their political base through a combination of words and action. This is particularly true in terms of engaging the populations in which insurgent groups receive support.

To return to the "cyber" element of this discussion, it is very difficult to disrupt an enemy's message via the Internet for reasons I have already stated. Isn't the point of counterterrorism to disrupt terrorist networks? What if that network is the Internet, a resilient, distributed global system designed to withstand nuclear attack and upon which the United State is increasingly dependent? We can't simply pull the plug. Our enemies are leveraging this system whether it be WikiLeaks' subversion, distributing bomb-making materials, or communicating a broader political message. Why not counter the message where we can? If we are going to mix in offensive action taking down sites and info ops, there is a need for a change in mindset.

On the U. S. Naval Institute Blog, poster "galrahn" had a great piece on this called "24th Air Force Defeated in Modern Information War" point to the failures of the American military and civilian reaction to "cyber" information operations. It is very much worth reading.

OK, but that assumes the person you are engaging with will make a rational choice, based on facts or argument. My experience is that folks almost never do that
....which is why I see very little utility in debating issues that people are trying to settle via violence.

While I am not one to argue for the universal rationality of human beings, it is reductive to argue that all groups fight within--for example--Afghanistan are not making rational choices. What of the Afghan family who sends one son to fight with the ANA and another to fight with the Taliban to hedge their bets against all possible outcomes? What about the Afghan who turns to the Taliban because the central government is too corrupt? These choices seem hyper-rational to me. By denying any rationality, you are ignoring a tactical and strategic imperative in my humble opinion.

[Fuchs]

I misread
"Counter-narratives and Info Ops: Debating Jihadi YouTube Videos "
as
"Counter-narratives and Info Ops: Defeating Jihadi YouTube Videos "
and it reminded me of the G.I.Joe action figure "hostage".
That was probably (the blueprint for) a great info war coup.

[anonamatic]

Thank you for your thoughts. I suspect we are not far apart in terms of ideas about controlling information, IO, etc.



"Erich," please.

I am a little torn myself on this distinction. I will admit that everyone has a tendency to see incremental change as something radical new. However, globalization (in particular the Internet) has enabled "superempowered" individuals (see John Robb, et. al.).

For example, consider that Dove World Outreach Church that planned to burn the Qu'ran, which was set to happen literally down the road from my office at University of Florida. The cost to entry was very little: YouTube, Facebook, etc. From that little church, they reached millions and were able threatened our position in Afghanistan and the Muslim world significantly enough to warrant comment from GEN Petraeus and the highest levels of the Obama administration. Outrage and threats of violence came from all over the world, and some of my students were frightened enough to talk about leaving Gainesville.

I'm familiar with the concept, it's somewhat easier to find examples of it than actually act in that manner. However it's entirely possible to do it depending on ones goals, methods, level of effort, & timing.

A single bad actor can match, if not exceed, the "information operations" capability of the United States. Look at Julian Assange. He is not some unique individual; thousands upon thousands have his skills. All the law enforcement and intelligence agencies in the world combined lack the resources to monitor everyone who could replace him should he go to jail. More importantly, these people are amateurs.

This fact is exactly why it is a mistake to say "this is just IO, same as always." Whatever overlap in theory and doctrine, there needs to be a different mindset acknowledging that globalization has enabled bad actors in ways that very few have a full understanding.

I've known Julian since 1991 and am one of his peers in most respects. I diverge in opinion with both the harm he's done to the US, and to a lot of the strategy he's used with Wikileaks too. We've argued about it over the years, but up until he went completely off the rails with the Manning material I at least thought he was trying to head in the right direction. That direction changed a great deal. In prior discussions about potentially harmful leaks he'd asserted that he'd at least consider higher levels of discretion than he's since taken. He has something of a blind spot to consequences sadly enough in my opinion, and unfortunately has a bit too much `moth to a flame' instincts going on for anyones good.

That said, the whole `collateral murder' presentation was very propagandistic as well as openly deceitful. It took me a while to be able to do a thorough analysis without going to the site directly, but eventually it all ended up fully quoted elsewhere. The damage and dishonesty with that, as well as with the spin on the other stolen materials, well it's just damnable evil to me, more so because I know all about the more odious aspects of Julian's personality that others have observed.

Your observation that there is a great deal of the amateur to go with this is very accurate. It's true in the case of Wikileaks, but also in other instances where globalized IO has come from unexpected quarters. The impacts of these things are very hard to quantify. Information pressure, characterized by differences from whatever repressive dogma that's served as conventional wisdom in regions where leaders treat citizenry badly is quite the common complaint of quasi-failed states. The Taliban hopes rather vainly that if maybe they burn all those schools they can somehow keep that pesky internet away, and it's just not going to work for them. The result is there's them, and other piles of repressive nuts in nasty parts of the world who're all hating life more than they have in the past.

Information pressure means that when crazy bandit gangs roam the Sudan, it not only makes news, but more people can actually find the place on a map. More people have maps too, there's an ocean of information out there, as well as ideas that are new to people to go with the new devices.

There is a relationship too. One of the things I've done to try to get some grasp on this has been just using Google. Not to find stuff, but to compare by example the number of news articles about North Korea to that of those mentioning Wikileaks. It's also useful to compare conflict coverage since there's a pile of places in the world with various sized wars going on. I use googlefight.com for some things, others I use counts on news articles, and I also look at trends. They have some very nice tools for that, and it's interesting to see in some cases that nearly 100% of the internet search traffic coming from some rather distasteful locations in the world have been occupied by people looking for US Cable material. Tunisia at least is having a revolution thankfully rather than other potentially nastier outcomes.

It's safe to say the press does not understand IO or IW to a level that's worth valuing in a majority of instances. They don't understand that, or any of the myriad of other aspects of these issues. I think that contributes to the confusion & makes these issues a bit harder to work on than they otherwise might be.

[AdamG]

Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born radical cleric with ties to al-Qaeda, is using his online magazine, Inspire, to urge jihadists to steal “booty”—money and property—from people or institutions that don’t believe in his holy war. And it’s not really theft, he adds, explaining that ill-gotten wealth is really just fuel for jihad. “The reasoning behind comparing booty to hunting and wood gathering is because the property which exists in the hands of the disbelievers is not considered to be rightfully theirs,” writes al-Awlaki

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...dists-to-steal