Responses to "Terrorism is Information Warfare disguised as Military Action"

[Mike Bobbitt]

Please post all replies to the "Terrorism is Information Warfare disguised as Military Action" Editorial here.

 

[GAP]

Maybe it is time to stop waiting for the "normal" media to write stories of what the Canadian soldiers are doing for Canada.

There are forums such as this, there is "official" PR newsreleases and papers that will not rock the boat, but nowhere is there a publication that tells things like they are, the good we are doing, the equipment supplied that is good and/or bad, the needs, the opinions.
More importantly, since most of the media columns are written by people who are inherently lazy, why not give them a source to quote in their op-ed piece?

Whew...out of breath...

 

[MasterStryker]

I have to say, this was a well put together atricle. I have to agree with it because that is what the terrorists want to do, create a false image of power and strength in the hopes that it will scare the public. I know that there are a lot of people out there who seemed to have believed this tactic but what these people don't understand is that the terrorists started this war. It's not like we went out looking for a fight, we along with our allies are just trying to make the our country and the world a safer place. If people would just try and understand this, (its a long shot) then MAYBE they would change their views on our military and our allies.

 

[rifleman]

I still don't see the connection between supporting the troops and supporting a governments decision. I do agree with becoming informed, however I would stop at suggesting the only measure of being informed is to agree with the government. I would add question both sides, ensure that the aim has been selected for the right reasons and maintained.

As for it being our war, it's not. Remember the CF just goes where we are sent. An when its decided we leave, out we go.

 

[manhole]

excellent editorial!  I wish all Canadians could see it and have more understanding of our role there.

Ubique

 

[ProPatria031]

i think the people should stop wasting there time posting these masages on the internet and put them on the air because not many folks actually visit this site, and most of those that do already know these kinda things. they need to put them in commercials and in the news so all the ordinary folks can see them and for it to actually make the massage heard.

but what do  i know I'm only 17

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

While I agree with your sentiment of "getting the message out" there are legal and logistical implications to that which I don't believe "we" are in a position to fully deal with at this time.

So for the time being we'll likely see these continue to appear here, in front of a fairly small and admittedly "on side" audience. You're welcome to distribute the editorial however, as long as you adhere to the Ruxted Group Terms and Conditions.

(As a side note, we get on average 4-5,000 visitors a day and 40-60,000 unique visitors per month.)


Cheers
Mike

 

[a_majoor]

I still don't see the connection between supporting the troops and supporting a governments decision. I do agree with becoming informed, however I would stop at suggesting the only measure of being informed is to agree with the government. I would add question both sides, ensure that the aim has been selected for the right reasons and maintained.

As for it being our war, it's not. Remember the CF just goes where we are sent. An when its decided we leave, out we go.

The government's decision is largely driven by the polls; i.e. what Canadians think of the mission. The initial reason to go into Afghanistan in 2002 was poll driven; the Liberals knew the Canadian people did not accept the dozen or so justifications for OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom), so a battlegroup was mustered off to Afghanistan to provide plausible deniability should the Coalition request Canadian participation in OIF ("sorry, we're already fully comitted"). While the reasoning behind the decision is pretty disgraceful, the actual mission is important to Canada, since it prevents the reestablishment of the Taliban state, the creation of a safe haven for terrorists, and at the same time it gives us presence on the international stage and proves we are still a serious nation, capable of contributing to the greater good of the Anglosphere West.

The Taliban and the AQ would like nothing better than to shatter our will and ability to continue this mission (much less undertake others), hence the need to target you, make you feel doubt and fear, and have you communicate that doubt and fear to the elected officials who make the ultimate choices about our deployments. If you are fully informed, then you can help the government make the right decision, and prevent a panicky retreat, the abandonment of the Afghan people to the wolves and the destruction of our reputation throughout the world.

i think the people should stop wasting there time posting these masages on the internet and put them on the air because not many folks actually visit this site, and most of those that do already know these kinda things. they need to put them in commercials and in the news so all the ordinary folks can see them and for it to actually make the massage heard.

but what do  i know I'm only 17

You can direct your friends to this site. Word of mouth is a powerful tool to spread the word.

 

[rifleman]

I am not arguing the merits of the Afgan mission, just the fact that both sides use propaganda and a truly informed person will see the BS on both sides.

The one I pointed out is proponents for Afghanistan will say if you don't support the mission, you aren't supporting the soldiers. This does not equate.

Another one is what you point out, the theory that we are in Afghanistan so we can't go to Iraq. Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall this being given as a reason to go to war. If it was then perhaps we went for the wrong reason. I'll leave the anti side alone as enough people on this site slam them already.

Bottom line, tinfoil hats can be on both sides. Be informed and don't give in to either side absolutely

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am not arguing the merits of the Afgan mission, just the fact that both sides use propaganda and a truly informed person will see the BS on both sides.

The one I pointed out is proponents for Afghanistan will say if you don't support the mission, you aren't supporting the soldiers. This does not equate.

Another one is what you point out, the theory that we are in Afghanistan so we can't go to Iraq. Maybe I missed something, but I don't recall this being given as a reason to go to war. If it was then perhaps we went for the wrong reason. I'll leave the anti side alone as enough people on this site slam them already.

Bottom line, tinfoil hats can be on both sides. Be informed and don't give in to either side absolutely

While I am in 100% agreement that our propaganda machine, like the enemy’s wants to shape Canadian public opinion I think the editorial dealt with that when it said: “… Canadians should take the time to read reports by the Canadian Forces, along with the media’s reports, in order to discover the truth on the ground …”.

There may be a suggestion there that all media is propagating the enemy's position.  I do not believe that.  I do believe that much of the media is an unwitting agent when it accepts opinions from all sources without adequate fact checking or discrimination.

With regard to the ‘why’ we are in Afghanistan, I think a previous editorial (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/40707.0.html ) dealt with that, saying:

” The Ruxted Group considers that former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien:

• Did the right thing, the honourable thing in early 2002 when he ordered nearly 1,000 Canadian soldiers to go to Afghanistan and fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda;

• Probably did the logistically sensible thing when he restricted that mission to one, six month, tour of duty;

• As was his wont, took careful note of the radical shift in Canadian public opinion which occurred after the Anglo-American (plus) invasion of Iraq; and

• Ordered a second Afghan mission – with ISAF in Kabul – for base and dishonourable reasons: to appease the USA which was displaying growing frustration with and distrust of Canada.  Many Canadians felt that US frustrations might be vented in other areas – like border restrictions with severe economic impacts - right in Canadians’ wallets.  It appears that PM Chrétien calculated that sending troops to Afghanistan and playing a ‘lead’ role in a UN sanctioned, NATO(+) mission would mollify official Washington while not alarming Canadians.”

I think we need to understand that Information Warfare, which embraces a whole multitude of functions including, e.g. EW and propaganda alike, is a powerful weapon which the enemy knows how to use and which we must use with better effect.

Edit: Addendum added


This is an addendum.

Those who follow my ramblings will know that I am no fan of journalists; if a biblical plague appeared and left the first born but took all the journalists I would regard it as the gods cleaning up the gene pool.

That being said we need to get the media on our side – not just as tame propagandists but they don’t hurt.  We need to manage the propaganda component of information warfare in three main target areas:

o Afghanistan and West Asia – we need to get our message out to the people of Afghanistan.  That means we need Afghan journalists embedded with our forces, too;

o Europe and America – we need to remind our friends and allies that we are doing a full and fair share of the heavy lifting in this ‘war’; and

o Canada (English and French) – we need to keep on embedding reporters and we need to get good, solid, honest information out to the press – good and bad news, equally and equally openly and honestly.  The Canadian Forces must manage its propaganda quite separately from the Minister’s communications staff and farther from the PMO’s PR machine.  We need to have Public Information Officers who, eventually, will have earned a reputation for providing complete, honest and unvarnished facts.  That will do us much, much more good, in the long run and we need to think long term because it is going to be a long war.

In the propaganda war we need to persuade Afghans and Canadians that our 3D effort is both sensible and altruistic.  Canadians wants us to do the right thing and do it right, too.  If we can show them we are trying to do both they will support the mission.  In the long run we will not convince them with slick public relations techniques – simple, direct honesty, especially when things go wrong, will work well.  The very worst thing the CF can do is to lie and cover up.  The journalists, Canadian journalists, will catch the lies and they will uncover the truth and they will turn it against us.  ’Fessing up’ when we do something wrong – explaining what, why, how and how we plan to prevent repeats of our mistakes will pay dividends.  If the Information Warfare folks establish their own credentials for honesty and integrity it will become easier and easier to get our side of every story out.

We need, also, to investigate every claim by the enemy – no matter how outrageous.  We need to try to damage the enemy’s propagandist credibility and answer every charge which has some element of truth.

 

[cameron]

I have one simple response to the article "Amen!"

 

[Jake]

Great article. 

 

[C and P]

Oh Great... Cyprus-Stan.  Whats the end state?  Soakin' up IED's in Central Asia for the next 10 years?  What does Afghanistan have to look like for the mission to be complete?  How long will that take? 

 

[George Wallace]

Oh Great... Cyprus-Stan.  Whats the end state?  Soakin' up IED's in Central Asia for the next 10 years?  What does Afghanistan have to look like for the mission to be complete?  How long will that take? 

I would imagine when things are a little more 'stable' than they are now.  Once a Government is established, that has the infrastructure to maintain itself.  Once some semblance of 'Law and Order' is in place. 

Sort of like what happened with Germany in 1945.  How long were we there?  Just a few years longer than Cyprus, don't you think?  And Japan?  Or should we walk away now, like we did in Europe in 1919?  It really amazes me that people think that these things can be worked out overnight.

 

[C and P]

The reason for my sarcasm and skepticism is that this ain't no Cyprus. How long did we stay in Germany and Japan? Decades. Heck we're still there. Not to mention the price of admission to those countries was over 42,000 KIA, 53,000 WIA.

 

[GAP]

The admission price might have been high, but the price would have been much higher if we had not gone.

 

[Echo9]

As I was listening to the CBC on my drive in to work this morning, I heard the lineup for The Current.  Top of the show was detailing yet another lightly sourced story on atrocities committed by the US military in Iraq.  naturally, I quickly switched to sports radio to keep my blood from boiling...again


It also led me to question what went wrong.  I've heard probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25 different articles on mistakes by western forces on that show alone.  I can't think of even one, single, positive one.  Nothing on some of the advances that have been made for the average citizens in Afstan (where sports radio doesn't include public beheadings anymore).  nothing about how the improving mortality rate for Iraqi citizens, even though the  death toll through the counterinsurgency is something under half what existed in Saddam's vampiric excuse for society.

It's really easy to say, well, that's just the biased MSM at work.  But what led us to the point where our fellow citizens appear to be actively rooting for the other side?  I mean, what kind of derangement is at work when feminists and gay activists root for the side that would have them hooded and stoned respectively?  Is there really a constituency for these views that's so large as to keep these useful idiots on the air? 

Until we can begin to answer these questions, I am afraid that we will not have the collective guts as a country to see this through.

 

[coachron]

The problem with unconditional acceptance of the mission for, I believe you said, a generation, is that you can die stupid.  The Canadian people ultimately are the deciders.  In my experience, Canadians tend to be uneasy with blind acceptance of what the government of the day thinks they ought to think about the mission in Afghanistan or anything else for that matter.  Bring on the propaganda of the enemy.  Let's consider their claims.  Citizens of democracies like Canada are capable of forming their own judgements in the market place of ideas.  It is politics.

Typically the government and its institutions have privileged access to the media and are advantaged in that regard compared to the Taliban whose public relations skills have never been well honed in any case. I also assume that we are actively directing our message to the population of Afghanistan as well.  But the editorial appears to focus less on the inept communication strategies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and more on our own media reports of bad news stories.  There seems to be a suggestion that the media only report good news stories about the home team. Moreover, there is the suggestion that the media and other opinion makers actively root for the opponent. Thus, Time Magazine  should be seen as out of bounds by breaking the news about a masacre allegedly carried out by Marines in Iraq because this will give aid and comfort to the enemy and further weaken the resolve of the American people to continue to fight the insurgency in Iraq. 

I don't agree.  We need to hear the bad news with the good.  The only good news about the war in Iraq, compared say to the War in Vietnam is that in Vietnam, 19 Americans died each and every day on average over the course of the war.  In Iraq the figure is a little more than 2 a day.  Hardly cause for celebrating as the carnage increases and the destruction of the infrastructure escalates while the latest group of Iraqi government officials can not set foot out the Green Zone to walk among the population.  Clearly people in North America and the world are waking up from the anesthetic administered by the Bush administration.

I fully support the diversity of ideas and wider exposure to different points of view through the free press and in this site as well.

 

[KevinB]

coachron -- you missed the entire point of the article.
I'm not surprised though.

The article was designed to educate the public/layman about the rationale dehind the terror tactics, the fact they they are militarily self defeating -- but the idea is to mobilize anti-war support in the coaltion countries.  As for the rest of your aimless blather, you are so far off the mark that you nedd a new map to plot it.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

We need to hear the bad news with the good.

This is precisely the point of the editorial. Let's start seeing some of the good news reported back to us, as all we're seeing these days is the bad. Ironically, I couldn't agree more about a democracy's right to make individual judgements based on all the facts, but the problem is, IMO we're not getting all the facts, just the ones the media chooses to report because they're sensational and therefore profitable.

It's easy to forget that newspaper presses and radio stations are businesses, and like any business that wants to remain viable over the long term, they must conduct themselves based on what's best for the bottom line. The media necessarily reports based on what sells, not what's best for the country, a particular political party, a special interest group, or an individual.

"Feel good" stories simply don't sell as well as stories of atrocities, even though the former occurs far more often than the latter. Since I don't believe we can rely on the media to give the whole picture of the Afghan mission, we have to take it upon ourselves to search out - and share - this information, to allow the citizens of our democratic society to make a truly unbiased judgement.