VOA Must Be Working! Hacked by Iranians?

The Voice of America (VOA) has been in the news lately. An Iranian group is claiming responsibility for hacking the VOA website (www.voanews.com). The screen shot along with this post speaks for itself.

Reactions by your enemy are always worth noting. In this case a faction of Islamists has claimed responsibility for hacking the VOA. The logical conclusion is that VOA has been effective to the point where the hackers felt they needed to attack.

The VOA has been in the news recently as President Obama is in the process of cutting some of their funding as part of his overall program to reduce government spending. It has been argued that shortwave communications in the day of the Internet and the smart phone is a technological buggy whip.

There are a couple of good takeaways here:

1. Influence operations cross media to accomplish their goals. In this case the Iranians are attempting to counter VOA by bringing their website down – a cyber means against a broadcast medium.

2. The notion of political influence is not lost on our adversaries as Secretary Clinton is personally addressed in the hack –

3. Sometimes it’s not really possible to know what effect your influence operations are having. In this case can we assume that the VOA is so effective as to earn the ire of the cyber savvy adversary?

4. The military principle “Unity of Command” dictates that a single CDR direct an operation. I am highly skeptical that a single entity, much less an accountable CDR has the responsibility of tracking this hack and addressing the effectiveness of the group taking credit.

Truly we live in interesting times.

Other sources: ttp://www.newzimbabwe.com/news-4521-Iranian+hackers+target+VOA+website/news.aspx; and http://www.thenewnewinternet.com/2011/02/22/iranian-cyber-army-suspected-of-hacking-voice-of-america/

Proposed New Law to Modify Smith-Mundt

On July 14, 2010, U.S. Congressmen Mac Thornberry (TX-13) and Adam Smith (D-WA), both members of the House Intelligence and Armed Services Committees, introduced “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2010” (H.R. 5729)
( see http://www.thornberry.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=198167)

According to the Press Release which can be found at the above link: ““While the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was developed to counter communism during the Cold War, it is outdated for the wars of today,” said Congressman Adam Smith. “Effective strategic communication and public diplomacy should be front-and-center as we work to roll back al-Qaeda’s and other violent extremists’ influence among disaffected populations. An essential part of our efforts must be a coordinated, comprehensive, adequately resourced plan to counter their radical messages and undermine their recruitment abilities. To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

The bill’s co-sponsors include: Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK), Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), James Langevin (D-RI), Jeff Miller (R-FL), Ted Poe (R-TX), Dennis Rehberg (R-MT), and John Tanner (D-TN)

This would be an opportune time to contact your Congress person and help them understand the importance of the work we do.

I’ll leave it to you to use a name for it that you’re comfortable with.

Cyber PSYOP: Google vs. China

The recent “activity” surrounding Google’s China market search engine business and the Chinese government’s political, economic and technical actions to impose censorship on searches illustrates the critical nature of the cyber component of PSYOP and free information flow.

One of PSYOPs core principles is that truth is the best PSYOP weapon. The Chinese government goes to great lengths to insure that Chinese citizens only have access to truth that has been approved by the government and considered fit for consumption. Google has been an unparalleled success story and the wealth of its high tech founders is the stuff of legend. However, they have failed to learn by history.

I was quoted in Computerworld UK concerning the Google/China affair: “In Google's case, there are two aspects of why the Chinese government would pay special attention to Google: first of all open access to information is contra to the philosophy of the government of the People's Republic of China and secondly Google as a business offers lessons to be learned. Consequently it should be no surprise that Google has been attacked from inside and outside.” (http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/security/data-control/in-depth/index.cfm?articleId=3084; March 1, 2010)

From a strategic PSYOP perspective the Chinese of been able to: 1. harness their citizens to ‘protect’ the state, 2. muster significant technology resources and muscle to enforce their political will, 3. sacrifice short term economic gain for long term consistency, 4. Coordinate the disparate arms of government (foreign policy, economic development, military, and legal) to achieve an information objective that is part of their well understood governmental strategic communications strategy.

Taking the other tact for a moment, Google sought to evade China’s grip by redirecting searches from the Chinese Mainland to Hong Kong. Apparently they lost sight of the fact that in 1997 Hong Kong reverted back to the government of the People’s Republic. While Hong Kong retains traces of its former British governance and aspects of friendliness to the West, make no mistake it is part of China.

Google’s mantra of ‘do no evil’ smacks in some ways of the Star Trek Prime Directive (do not interfere with other cultures), however even this technological giant has met its match in the People’s Republic of China. The message for us is clear – we must develop an Influence Operations Strategy and President Obama must orchestrate its operations and tactics.

A small baby step in this direction would be to appoint a White House level coordinator along the lines of Howard Schmidt, the Cyber Coordinator. While Mr. Schmidt has no real authority he is a single point of contact and can act as a conductor to facilitate the performance of many players. Our global communications strategy deserves no less.

Congress and Strategic Communications – Are They On The Right Track?

Today’s Washington Post covered comments made by the Senate and House Armed Services Committees concerning Strategic Communications. Rather than point to failings of the military I believe it shows that President Obama – one of the great info warriors of our time – is paying more attention to communicating with the American Voter than to the world audience. (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/27/AR2009072701896.html)
(Pictured are Senator Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and Representative Ike Skelton, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee)

There were several key points raised by Congress in the article:

1. Strategic Communications Programs are too big, have grown too fast to allow effective oversight, it is impossible to determine whether the efforts are integrated within DOD or with the broader US government” and Pentagon planning “is insufficient compared to the needs.”

2. The military is producing propaganda and other materials that mask US government sponsorship and focus beyond traditional military IO – they are “alarmingly non-military propaganda, public relations and behavioral modification messaging.”

3. There needs to be a new legal review of the law prohibiting strategic communications (or PSYOP) accessible by American audiences.

Presidential Action Need to Command and Control Strategic Communications

Given that funding for Strategic Communications is rapidly approaching $1Billion and that there is no central control or coordination of these efforts across the USG it seems to me Congress is right on. There are other critical issues here though. First of all it appears that the President has not focused any attention on strategic communication. His information advisors are concentrating on making sure the Health Care Agenda goes forward and are paying scant attention to foreign audiences.

The President or his designated Information Leader needs to be the focal point for Strategic Communications and Public Diplomacy because our efforts worldwide are moving to information engagement over kinetic operations and this trend is likely to accelerate over time. The President needs to be mindful of the previous criticism of USG information management and the disaster experienced by the Pentagon Office that sought to address this issue.

There needs to be an approved overall USG information engagement strategy and a designated leader for it reporting to the President. Only be applying the principle of unity of Command will the USG be able to effectively manage its information engagement efforts and determine the adequacy of planning and resourcing for the task.

Information Engagement Must Be More Than Military

Congress has missed the boat on the ‘military nature’ of strategic communications. DOD is the critical resource serving as a conduit of information to civilian audiences. US forces abroad are faced with the need to effectively communicate to foreign audiences on their own soil. This messaging is inherently non-military in nature. The so called ‘winning of hearts and mind’ is no longer the leaflet urging surrender. Rather the messages are support your government, help defeat the insurgents, explore possibilities for a more stable economy – the stuff of nation building and bolstering governments rather than the traditional messages associated with combat.

Information Laws Are Obsolete

The Internet Age has brought the world to smart phones, the notion of ideas being bound by traditional national borders is nonsense and the time has come to amend the laws restricting information engagement even if American audiences can receive the messages.

State of the Regiment

I have had a couple of weeks to savor the experience of Regimental Week at Fort Bragg and on reflect on the State of the PSYOP Regiment in general.

To quote Dickens “These are the best of times, these are the worst of times.” The PSYOP Optempo is breathtaking. No matter your assigned POG, you are going to be a part of the war some time soon – and often thereafter. Reservists can expect to re-deploy 18 months after they return and the Optempo on the active side is intense as well. The fact that the 4th POG guidon is deployed down range is evidence of the PSYOP commitment to National Defense.

PSYOP forces have experienced the tragedy of KIA and continue to prove their mettle on the battlefield. The Regiment has taken a giant first step with the first awarding of the Gold MG Robert A. McClure award to COL (R) Al Paddock; COL (R) Jeff Jones, COL (R)Frank King and LTC (R) Joseph Meisner. Each of these outstanding individuals has dedicated a life time to PSYOP and deserving of the award.

While the maturation of the Branch through the award is a positive step forward, there is still much to do.

At the top of my list is the need to reunite AC and RC forces under the same command. The split of command responsibility between USSOCOM and “the Big Army” is a mistake. As one well placed Pentagon official put it during branch week “there must be transparency of capability” to best serve the force. Hopefully DOD is moving ahead in this direction.

Second is the need for community leadership through the CDR of POG troop units, the Regiment and PSYOP Associations. It is my belief that the POG CDR and the JMISC CDR must constitute the critical components of an informal Board of Directors who work in tandem with all the constituents including SWC for the betterment of the branch. SOCOM as the Proponent for PSYOP needs to exert itself through J39 and serve as the catalyst (and perhaps funder) to insure the evolution of the total community.

Third is political action. It all happens on “The Hill” and we in PSYOP must model our ability to “inform” members of Congress about PSYOP to help insure PSYOP receives its appropriate share of the pie.

Fourth is image building. All of us – those in uniform and out must work together to help build a positive image of PSYOP to once and for all remove the stigma of ‘propaganda’ and to clearly articulate the value of what we do everywhere from the battlefield to the Congress to wording of contracts.

My personal congratulations to COL Curt Boyd on the completion of his outstanding tenure as CDR of the 4th POG and my best wishes to the incoming CDR, COL Carl Phillips on his assumption of Command next month.

Good News Can Be Good PSYOP When Properly Employed

The Honolulu Star reported on some recent comments by the Brigade CDR of 3rd BCT of the 2th Infantry. (see http://www.starbulletin.com/news/20090322_progress_in_Iraq_pleases_schofield_brigade_leader.html) in its March 22 edition. (Photo: http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2009/february/images/feb03_06/06_03.jpg)


The Bde CDR, COL Walter Piatt, proclaimed good news based on his experience in his current and previous tours in Iraq. The positive news includes increased oil production and exporting from the Baiji oil refinery benefiting the province and the country. Piatt also noted construction efforts on al-Askari, or the Golden Mosque. The Mosque, one of the holiest shrines in Iraq was attacked several times in 2006 (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/070613/GAL-07Jun13-77880/index.html) so that rebuilding the Mosque points to much progress according to COL Piatt.

While I am not now, nor have I ever been to Iraq, I wonder how much of this progress is documented by Iraqi media and how much, if any, is covered in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Surely the progress noted here as well as market openings, school building and other hallmarks of positive movement are being observed elsewhere. They could serve as evidence of the country’s growing stabilization and could also offer hope and inspiration for those in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

However, while COL Piatt and the Honolulu Star are credible in Hawaii, different sources would need to be leveraged to make the most of the good news to other audiences beyond the Aloha State. These sources would be those that are relied upon by the various target audiences.
Ideally those sources would be a complementary mix that could include several broadcast and print media. Furthermore, it would be ideal if local peer leaders could espouse the praises of the progress and exhort their local population to follow the examples of the Iraqis.

A less powerful, but workable alternative is to present the progress examples in a neutral light, documenting the success with pictures and quotes from those in the province, or respected international leaders commenting on the specific items of progress.

Perhaps it would also be useful for educational purposes if COL Piatt were interviewed and the interviews forwarded through the Army Office of Congressional Liaison or perhaps through private entities such as the PSYOP Regiment or PSYOP Associations. The success stories would serve to reinforce Congressional understanding of the role of PSYOP subsequent to combat and could help to positively influence funding and organizational decisions. SWC has provided similar educational materials such as their recent video on “Why We Fight” which documents efforts surrounding the GWOT.

In any event, good news, especially good news that could be documented represents good PSYOP when used judiciously through appropriate credible sources.