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.