Re: [iwar] Information Warfare & terminology


From: Michael Wilson
From: partners@7pillars.com
To: iwar@egroups.com

Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:06:12 -0800 (PST)


fc  Sat Dec 16 09:07:08 2000
Received: from 207.222.214.225
	by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.1.0)
	for fc@localhost (single-drop); Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:07:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by multi33.netcomi.com for fc
 (with Netcom Interactive pop3d (v1.21.1 1998/05/07) Sat Dec 16 17:02:55 2000)
X-From_: partners@7pillars.com  Sat Dec 16 11:02:24 2000
Received: from hi.egroups.com (hi.egroups.com [208.50.99.211]) by multi33.netcomi.com (8.8.5/8.7.4) with SMTP id LAA30343 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 11:02:23 -0600
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-822-976986394-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com
Received: from [10.1.4.52] by hi.egroups.com with NNFMP; 16 Dec 2000 17:06:34 -0000
X-Sender: partners@7pillars.com
X-Apparently-To: iwar@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_3); 16 Dec 2000 17:06:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 84635 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2000 17:06:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 16 Dec 2000 17:06:33 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO sirius.infonex.com) (216.34.245.2) by mta3 with SMTP; 16 Dec 2000 18:07:28 -0000
Received: from localhost (partners@localhost) by sirius.infonex.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id JAA09653 for ; Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:06:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: sirius.infonex.com: partners owned process doing -bs
X-Sender: partners@sirius.infonex.com
To: iwar@egroups.com
In-Reply-To: <004701c0674a$74ee77c0$0100000a@fox>
Message-ID: 
From: Michael Wilson 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list iwar@egroups.com; contact iwar-owner@egroups.com
Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: 
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 09:06:12 -0800 (PST)
Reply-To: iwar@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [iwar] Information Warfare & terminology
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sorry about not responding earlier, and only being brief now, I'm in a realtime
crunch.

We've worked extensively on how to think about and rapidly communicate
IO-related details (one of the advantages of being an operations-oriented
group).  You can see some of the basics as the Boyd Matrix in this:
http://www.7pillars.com/papers/IntelligenceCourse.pdf

These might also be of help:
http://www.7pillars.com/oodawrfr.gif
http://www.7pillars.com/oodaiwar.gif
(Incidentally, quite a while back, I believe I was the first to discuss what
infrastructural targets were of interest in this sort of warfare; numerous
players either adopted the list or had similar ideas, but nobody ever discussed
the reasoning behind the selection.  That's the difference between those of us
that are practitioners, and the popularizers.  If you use the tools, please a)
give credit to the source, and b) let me know how they work for you, since they
are very useful for us.)

A few words on hacktivism...  We also have been doing 'perception management'
and just plain ol' PSYOP for quite a while (see
http://www.7pillars.com/papers/PerceptionMgt.pdf for more details), and
'jacking someone's website is a poor substitute.  Follow the logic...  any real
PSYOP or perception management campaign requires just that, a campaign, a way
to trigger or justify a perception shifting.  That's a continuous, not a
discrete process--it takes time, and a slow effort of persuasion.  Scattershot
attacks on websites can be used to draw attention to a cause or 'raise
awareness' by getting into the media cycle, but -that- is when perception
management starts: when someone asks themselves why the event occurred.  The
event itself is only useful insofar as it drives attention.  I'm sorry to say
that doesn't seem to be happening here.

If the whole point of operations is to be effective in your action, we're still
at the sideshow stage.  What's next?  Escalation, which is the common approach.
Increase in scale, increase in scope.  That's when it starts to get
interesting.

Michael Wilson
Managing Partner, 7Pillars Partners
A Professional Military & Intelligence Advisory Firm
www.7pillars.com

On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, MAGLAN 1 wrote:

> You have put the finger on .
> - Information Warfare (IW)
> - Information Operation (IO)
> - Information Conflicts (IC)
> - Tactical IO, IW
> - Strategic IO, IW
> - Cyber War
> - Cyber Conflict
> - Cyber Graffiti
>   And the list is much longer....
> 
> Each country has their own definition (US, Japan, Australia, Israel, Canada,
> China, Iraq, Russia....) each national organization have their own
> definition, each of research institute have their own definitions, etc.,
> etc,. . I'm looking for long time for clear and cut definitions (2-10 lines)
> for the above terms.
> You have put the finger on .
> 
> options:
> A: we all keep discuss those issue and terminology over e-mails and over few
> annual conferences.
> B: may be we all getting nearby to the establishment of the World
> Information Warfare Organization (NGO). If naturalist
>     established the World Ducks Organization, why we can't?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Wanja Eric Naef (IWS) 
> To: Iwar@Egroups. Com 
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2000 12:52 AM
> Subject: [iwar] Information Warfare & terminology
> 
> 
> > Well, I looked at the recent emails in this group and asked myself what
> > can we call the 'Middle East Cyber Conflict'.  Cybergraffiti War or
> > more likely Information Operations as Fred points out.
> >
> > Then, I suddenly realised that we might have to distinguish between
> > different
> > levels of IO like in nuclear strategy where one distinguishes between
> > tactical,
> > operational and strategic nuclear weapons which are used for different
> > 'modes' of  warfare.
> >
> > Maybe it is necessary to establish a classification of different levels of
> > IO
> > activities (not just strategic and tactical information operations) in
> order
> > to distinguish different levels of conflicts/warfare.
> >
> > In any discussion/conversation one should establish a terminology (e.g.
> > civilian pilots, ...) to have a common ground when one communicates with
> > someone else.
> >
> > If anyone has got a good idea on how to do that, please let me know as I
> am
> > quite confused when I look at different publications.
> >
> > Just some thoughts.
> >
> > Wanja
> >
> > Wanja Eric Naef
> >
> > Webmaster & Researcher
> > IWS - The Information Warfare Site
> > http://www.iwar.org.uk
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------
> > http://all.net/
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------
> http://all.net/
> 


-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9699/1/_/595019/_/976986394/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

------------------
http://all.net/