GENERAL POST-WORLD WAR II

Information Warfare

G - Ma

Gerth, Jeff. "Military's Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive." New York Times, 11 Dec. 2005. [http://www.nytimes.com]

According to "documents and interviews with contractors, government officials and military personnel," the U.S. government "has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly and often hidden." The goal is "to counter anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world." The 1,200-strong Fourth Psychological Operations Group based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, "turns out what its officers call 'truthful messages' to support" the government's objectives.

Gorman, Siobhan. "Hacker Attacks Hitting Pentagon: But NSA's Methods for Safeguarding Data Are Growing Obsolete." Baltimore Sun, 2 Jul. 2006. [http://www.baltimoresun.com]

"The number of reported attempts to penetrate Pentagon computer networks rose sharply in the past decade.... At the same time, the nation's ability to safeguard sensitive data in those and other government computer systems is becoming obsolete as efforts to make improvements have faltered and stalled. A National Security Agency program [Key Management Infrastructure] to protect secrets at the Defense Department and intelligence and other agencies is seven years behind schedule,... according to intelligence officials and unclassified internal NSA documents obtained by The Sun."

Grange, David L., and James A. Kelley. "Victory Through Information Dominance." Army 47, no. 3 (Mar. 1997): 32-37.

The U.S. Army's ability to control the gathering, processing, and dissemination of information is critical to the service's warfighting capability.

Greenberg, Lawrence T., Seymour E. Goodman, and Kevin J. Soo Hoo. Information Warfare and International Law. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1998. [http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Greenberg_Law.pdf]

"Some legal constraints will certainly apply to information warfare, either because the constraints explicitly regulate particular actions, or because more general principles of international law govern the effects of those actions. Nevertheless, the novelty of certain information warfare techniques may remove them from application of established legal categories. Furthermore, the ability of signals to travel across international networks and affect systems in distant countries conflicts with the longstanding principle of national, territorial sovereignty."

Grier, Peter.  "Information Warfare."  Air Force Magazine, Mar. 1995, 34-37.

Hanseman, Robert G.  "Realities and Legalities of Information Warfare."  Air Force Law Review 42 (1997): 173-200.

Harknett, Richard J.  "Information Warfare and Deterrence."  Parameters 26 (Autumn 1996): 93-107.

Herman, Michael. "Where Hath Our Intelligence Been? The Revolution in Military Affairs." RUSI Journal, Dec. 1998, 62-68.

"[T]he collection and exploitation of textual information of all kinds should have some place in the [Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)] concept, and in the national investments influenced by it. RMA needs balanced coverage of the enemy.... [There is also a] need for caution about RMA as information dominance and perfect knowledge. Technology promises miracles of [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] collection, processing and presentation, but still at the two-dimensional level dictated by objects."

Johnson, L. Scott. "Toward a Functional Model of Information Warfare: A Major Intelligence Challenge." Studies in Intelligence (Semiannual ed. no. 1, 1997): 49-56.

"The overall concept of IW can thus be considered as having three parts: a set of IW elements (techniques and capabilities), a comprehensive strategy that applies and orchestrates them, and a target and objective."

Kenyon, Henry S. "Unconventional Information Operations Shorten Wars." Signal, Aug. 2003. [http://www.us.net/signal]

According to Maj. Gen. Paul J. LeBras, USAF, commander of the Air Force Air Intelligence Agency (AIA) and Joint Information Operations Center, Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, "information operations embrace a spectrum of effects-based missions from psychological operations and system security to intelligence gathering and infiltrating enemy communications networks. The success of recent U.S. military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq has raised awareness about the value of this approach."

Kraus, George F., Jr.  "Information Warfare in 2015."  U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 121, no. 8 (Aug. 1995): 42-45.

Kreisher, Otto.  "Next Steps in Information Warfare."  Air Force Magazine, Jun. 1999, 52-55.

Kutner, Joshua A.  "U.S. Success in Future Battlefield Hinges on Information Advantage." National Defense, Dec. 1997, 24-25.

Libicki, Martin C.

1Conquest in Cyberspace: National Security and Information Warfare. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Arquilla, Perspectives in Politics 6.4 (Dec. 2008), finds that the author excels "at organizing a complex subject clearly and analyzing it insightfully." Although the work "crisply exposits its subject matter and lays out its argument logically, Libicki does not give disconfirming evidence its due." Nonetheless, Conquest in Cyberspace remains "a thoughtful, well-organized, and lively account of the modes of conflict that might emerge in the virtual domain."

2.  "Information Warfare: A Brief Guide to Defense Preparedness."  Physics Today, Sep. 1997, 40-45.

Magnan, Stephen W. "Are We Our Own Worst Enemy? Safeguarding Information Operations." Studies in Intelligence 9 (Summer 2000): 97-103.

Mahnken, Thomas G.  "War in the Information Age."  Joint Force Quarterly, Winter 1995-1996, 39-43.

Mason, Tony [Air Vice-Marshal]. "The Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Target Acquisition Requirement -- An Overview." RUSI Journal, Dec. 1998, 55-59.

"This article makes two major points. The first is that, traditionally, the requirement in warfare for information about the enemy was desirable, but now it is essential. The second is that dominant battlespace knowledge depends on much more than knowledge of the battlespace. The conclusions to be drawn from both statements raise sensitive problems about future force structures and procurement."

Markoff, John. "New Center Will Combat Computer Security Threats: U.S. and Financial Concerns in Joint Effort." New York Times, 1 Oct. 1999. [http://www.nytimes.com]

The Treasury Department announced on 1 October 1999 "that the Federal Government and the financial services industry have established an information clearinghouse to combat threats to computer security and vulnerabilities in computer systems. The center, which will be managed exclusively by private industry, will be known as the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center."

Markoff, John. "U.S. Drafting Plan for Computer Monitoring System." New York Times, 28 Jul. 1999. [http://www.nytimes.com]

"The Clinton Administration has developed a plan for an extensive computer monitoring system, overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to protect the nation's crucial data networks from intruders.... As part of the plan, networks of thousands of software monitoring programs would constantly track computer activities looking for indications of computer network intrusions and other illegal acts. The plan calls for the creation of a Federal Intrusion Detection Network, or Fidnet, and specifies that the data it collects will be gathered at the National Infrastructure Protection Center, an interagency task force housed at the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

Marlatt, Greta E. Information Warfare and Information Operations (IW/IO): A Bibliography. Monterey, CA: Dudley Knox Library, Naval Postgraduate School, rev. Jan. 2008. [Available as a PDF file at: http://www.nps.edu/Library/Research/Bibliographies/index.html]

Return to Post-WWII Issues Table of Contents

Return to Infowar Table of Contents