Hactivists and the Internet: Lessons For PSYOP/MISO

The 8/26/2011 issue of netgov (http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110826_6276.php) had an article “Analysts say online ‘hactivism’ is becoming a preferred tool of protests”. The article proposes that Computer Network Attack (CNA) has emerged as a powerful force for protesters. The article talks about the protests against the San Francisco centered Bay Area Rapid Transit System which appear to be organized by the group Anonymous.

That group has innovated in its TTP (tactics, techniques and procedures) by combing CNA with on ground activity. The attack vectors are dependent on the desired result. If the group is looking to harm a target whose actions it opposes, it has turned to cyber attack as in the case of attacking Visa because it decided to stop accepting donations to Wikileaks.

Where the goal is more traditional – say blocking traffic, protesting on subway platforms or interfering with the daily commute the organization will demonstrate physically. They shield their identities in a number of ways with the Guy Fawkes mask featured in the movie “V for Vendetta” being a common means.

When dealing with urban AOs today’s MISO needs to be at least as flexible and techno savvy as our adversaries and enemies. We must appropriately employing digital influence and digital PSYACTs. Unlike non-state actors, military organizations must play by the rules. Unfortunately, in the case of the digital world the laws, rules, and doctrine have not kept pace with the battle. Computer Network Operations (CNO) are still pretty much behind the 21^st century ‘green door’ and tactical MISO soldiers are not likely to have the CNO tools and authority.

MISO is often marked by innovation on the ground, SWC and the MISO chains of command need to support digital influence in a big way. Perhaps the new MISG can establish a joint ‘center of excellence’ with the other PSYOP Groups to develop doctrine, and TTP. This Digital MISO Center of Excellence should be located at the Naval Post Graduate School so that it could benefit from the latest in IO thought leadership. Fort Hunter Liggett should be considered as a proving ground where the technique could be honed in relative isolation and supported by both Active and Reserve personnel.

Regimental Week 2010: Coming Attractions

When I was a young lad growing up in Brooklyn I used to love going to the movies on Saturday. In retrospect I’m not sure which I liked more the movies or the candy. Next week I’m off to Fort Bragg for PSYOP Regimental Week. You can find the official press release from the US Army Special Operations Command at: http://news.soc.mil/releases/News%20Archive/2010/October/101018-01.html

For me this will be a bittersweet occasion as it will be my last one as the Honorary Colonel of the PSYOP Regiment. Surely the time has come for another senior PSYOP officer to assume this honorary role and I’m delighted that the designee will be an outstanding bridge between PSYOP of the past and military influence operations of the future.

Strangely enough I found out about the ‘replacement’ quite by accident – that fact speaks to the nascent nature of the PSYOP Regiment and the need to attend to military custom.

I’m looking forward to the program which will include updates from the Groups, the Joint Military Information Support Command and our sister services. I’m also looking forward to touring the Media Operations Center and seeing the latest and the greatest and comparing what they have to what I see in the heart of Silicon Valley.
Most of all I’m looking forward to mingling with the troops and learning about what is really happening in the field. While I’m a very hard grader and am rather tough to excite, I am always gratified by the level of our PSYOP soldiers and their ability to perform in an outstanding manner under the most adverse of circumstances.

I’ll be working on my “State of the Regiment” talk over the next few days. Some key messages I’m considering are:
• The PSYOP Brand – what do we really need?
• Today’s PSYOP soldier
• Unity of Command: why don’t we have it and what do we need to do to get it?
• The Future of the Regiment
Field input is encouraged!

Attacking The Terrorist Mind

The January 10, 2010 NY Times features an article entitled: “The Terrorist Mind: An Update” (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/weekinreview/10kershaw.html?scp=1&sq=terrorist%20mind&st=cse)

The author analyzes works by a number of academicians who have studied the terrorist mind. According to the article, Dr. John Horgan of International Center for the Study of Terrorism at Penn State is credited with leading “much of the research into what is known as disengagement – a terrorist’s departure from the organization”. Dr. Horgan claims that there are a couple of key reasons why terrorists leave the movement. This is not to say they abandon their radical views, but rather they have left the group and renounced violence.

Leading reasons include: the small groups they are in “are rife with jealousies and personal competition; life is boring; pressure of maintaining a double life is too exhausting. Others include “aging out” where the member has grown to the point of wanting more stability and perhaps starting a family. Some may sense that the group’s goals are unattainable and/or they have reached their moral limit. Others are dismayed to find elderly and children engaged in battles.

From a PSYOP perspective we want to stimulate and reinforce these views. The Internet is likely the ideal medium to transmit dramatizations and perhaps ‘testimonials’ form former terrorists (to include Taliban) that underscore the feelings noted above.

The Internet has been cited as a key medium for recruitment for Al Qadea and Others (see NY Times, December 31, 2009, “Focus on Internet Imams As Recruiters for Al Qaeda” (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/us/01imam.html?scp=1&sq=Focus%20on%20Internet%20Imams&st=cse)) Consequently it is logical to assume that the same medium would be the way to reach the terrorist member and transmit messages reinforcing the desire to leave the movement.

Chatrooms and other virtual meeting places need to be designed that can attract terrorist recruits and members and that offer messages stimulating disengagement. In my view it makes sense to post messages from various sources on websites known to espouse terrorism. I am a believer of using the Internet like the ocean. Taking down offending websites is like playing Whack A Mole because new ones will pop as quickly as others are taken down.

It seems to me that these kinds of operations need to be joint (more than one service) and ideally combined (more than 1 nation). Furthermore the best work product is likely to come from a combination of military, diplomatic and civilian minds – groups designed to think like the customer with the native linguistic ability to carry the creativity and disengagement messages forward in multiple directions on the Internet and elsewhere.

24th Air Force Cyber Command – Wither PSYOP?

According to the August 18, 2009 San Antonio News:
“The 24th Air Force, headquarters for a new cyber command, has been activated at Lackland AFB.A ceremony activating the command was held today at the base, which was chosen over five other U.S. sites. The command will oversee efforts to prevent cyber attacks on military bases and systems……Local leaders predict moving the headquarters from Barksdale AFB, La. and adding 400 new positions will provide an economic impact of $30 million annually in salaries.” (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/53612852.html)

The DOD indicated that Brig. Gen. Charles K. Shugg, vice commander, Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional), Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, will be the new vice commander, 24th Air Force, Air Force Space Command, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas (http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12898). You can find his bio at: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=8905; photo courtesy of DOD

So what does this all mean? Size, or as in this case, rank matters, so let’s address that for a moment. If the Vice CDR is a one star, stands to reason the CDR will be a MG or two star. So that makes the 24th CDR comparable to a Division CDR. Experience has shown that your rank rather than your competence is your ticket to admission to the CDR’s inner circle. Consequently if PSYOP is to have a seat at the 24th’s Cyber table its representative would have to be at least an 05 or LTC because 04s (Majors) would just get lost in the shuffle.

The mission of the Cyber Command is to: “provide combatant commanders with trained and ready cyber forces to plan and conduct cyberspace operations, and to extend, maintain and defend the Air Force portion of the global information grid.” (source is the general’s bio cited above).

Assuming this is the Air Force component and cyberspace operations means offensive as well as defensive this all begs the question of how PSYOP and the other elements of IO fit in the picture. I’ll hazard a guess that if there is PSYOP representation at the 24th it might come from Air Force PSYOP resources with any Army PSYOP resources being junior in grade and responsibility.

Furthermore – strikes me there may be some very significant strategic challenges and command issues as the ‘big’ Cyber Command fleshes out at Fort Meade. There is no evidence that the President and DOD have established a a total cyber strategy: offense, defense and influence or that there is a top down chain of cyber command that reaches down from the White House and incorporates the influence side (DOD and DOS at a minimum) into the picture.

So, while standing up cyber resources is the right thing to do and this is surely the time, unless the White House stands up to the task of formulating an overarching information/cyber strategy the new cyber units are like aircraft without rudders.

PSYOP Training – A Joint Approach

The post on the PSYOP Regiment received the comment reproduced below. I felt this was such an important topic that it required a special posting. In my mind there are several aspects of training and qualification posed by the comment.

“What are your thoughts on training for PSYOP training for Officers and NCOs from the Air Force and Marine Corps? Each of these Services now have a requirement for PSYOP training - should their personnel be held to Army standards for PT and "soldier skills"? Or is it more important for them to receive ROBUST training in the theory, planning, TAA, development and execution of PSYOP?As of this writing MOST of the sister service officers will never be assigned to the POGs or the Bns (the Air Force is working on establishing a "detachment" at 4th POG - but that is a long way off IF it happens) - but there will be personnel assigned to JMISC and the JPOTF. Must these personnel be "JUMP" qualified to practice PSYOP? Even if they graduate from POQC (as approx 10 Air Force officers are ever year - they continue to be challenged by Army PSYOPers as not being "real" PSYOP Officers - what is the discriminator that makes a "real" PSYOPer? Is it graduation from the POQC? Language skills? Product development? Assignment to a TPD? Jump school? or simply you can't be a "REAL" PSYOPer unless you are IN the Army and assigned to the POG?”

My personal views:

Physical Training (PT) – it seems to me that the most logical approach is that service members must pass the PT tests of their services.

Airborne Qualification – it is my feeling that being airborne qualified is not a prerequisite for PSYOP. Some PSYOP support missions to airborne units may require airborne insertion, if this is the case then I would endorse the concept of airborne qualification as a necessary qualification to support airborne units.

PSYOP Training - successful completion of the PSYOP Qualification Course (POQC) is the foundation for any PSYOP assignment. For the sake of uniformity and transparency, the POQC should be required prior to PSYOP assignments. Non Army personnel can add value by virtue of the uniqueness of their service experience. They are also in an excellent position to leverage the assets of their service for PSYOP purposes.

Language Training – language training is always key to success, however, experience shows that PSYOP work product requires a level of language proficiency not generally achieved by non-native speakers. Consequently language training is useful on critical missions where the PSYOP team needs to be self-sufficient.

“Real PSYOPers” – over time we will observe more non-Army personnel assigned to PSYOP missions. Air Force PSYOP in particular is likely to grow significantly since the Air Force as a knack for following the money and for being at the leading edge of many new warfighting trends. Non-Army personnel are and can be real PSYOPers, however it is important to point out that the PSYOP Regiment is an Army only organization.

Reader input, as always is encouraged.