Distractions, Diversions, Books, Wines, Whiskeys and Other Stuff To Think About When You Should Be Doing Something Else.

The Catch: Recommended Reading

The Catch: Runaway Generals, Psy-ops, Zombies and Prions!

There are either two very different articles in the Catch, or this is the most epic wargame of all time, ever!

From Rolling Stone:

Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators

In short, the story is about how Lt. Gen. William Caldwell tasked his Information Operations (IO) team with targeting visiting U.S. Representatives and Senators in order to provide more personnel and funding to support his efforts to train the Afghan security forces. The team, trained in psychological operations, apparently resisted the plan as unethical.

 “My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave,” says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. “I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line.”

(emphasis mine)

The rub here is apparently about the difference between Information Operations and Public Relations which seems to entirely depend on who is considered an enemy, who get the Psy-ops and propaganda; or an ally, who get  the orchestrated briefings, staged demonstrations and photo-ops.

“In March 2010, Breazile issued a written order that “directly tasked” Holmes to conduct an IO campaign against “all DV visits” – short for “distinguished visitor.” The team was also instructed to “prepare the context and develop the prep package for each visit.” In case the order wasn’t clear enough, Breazile added that the new instructions were to “take priority over all other duties.” Instead of fighting the Taliban, Holmes and his team were now responsible for using their training to win the hearts and minds of John McCain and Al Franken.”

(emphasis mine)

From a Fifth Gradient Warfare point of view there really isn’t a difference between IO and PR. Preparation of context is the heart of either of these kinds of efforts. To my thinking General Caldwell gets that. He is trained (I hope) to seek advantage wherever he can find it and he saw an opportunity to use the resources at his disposal to improve his position in order to better accomplish his mission. According to the article he was even considering using his IO operation to create support among U.S. and NATO populations. That’s pretty bold but it certainly isn’t stupid. If politicians or anybody else is upset because they were the “targets” of this operation they need to grow up. The world is full of conflict and you are always somebody’s target. Any perceived difference between IO and PR is a polite fiction we use to convince ourselves that we are the good guys and they are the enemy.


Further Recommended Reading on the article at the always interesting Small Wars Journal:

Another Runaway General? Hardly…

On a lighter note,

Via Popular Science:

 FYI: Could Scientists Really Create a Zombie Apocalypse Virus?

I’m not afraid that the Zombie Apocalypse is actually coming, but I do love the “what-if” scenarios that make it so interesting to think about. This article asks scientists if it would even be possible to manufacture a virus that would turn the population into brains-seeking, shambling, undead monsters.

One possible answer has cows going mad, or rather causes cows to go mad:

The most likely culprit for this partially deteriorated brain situation, according to Schlozman, is as simple as a protein. Specifically, a proteinaceous infectious particle, a prion. Not quite a virus, and not even a living thing, prions are nearly impossible to destroy, and there’s no known cure for the diseases they cause.

The first famous prion epidemic was discovered in the early 1950s in Papua New Guinea, when members of the Fore tribe were found to be afflicted with a strange tremble. Occasionally a diseased Fore would burst into uncontrollable laughter. The tribe called the sickness “kuru,” and by the early ’60s doctors had traced its source back to the tribe’s cannibalistic funeral practices, including brain-eating.

Prions gained notoriety in the 1990s as the infectious agents that brought us bovine spongiform encephalopathy, also known as mad cow disease. When a misshapen prion enters our system, as in mad cow, our mind develops holes like a sponge. Brain scans from those infected by prion-based diseases have been compared in appearance to a shotgun blast to the head.

Now, if we’re thinking like evil geniuses set on global destruction, the trick is going to be attaching a prion to a virus, because prion diseases are fairly easy to contain within a population. To make things truly apocalyptic, we need a virus that spreads quickly and will carry the prions to the frontal lobe and cerebellum. Targeting the infection to these areas is going to be difficult, but it’s essential for creating the shambling, dim-witted creature we expect.

Fun stuff!


The Catch: Defense Dept. Research Arm DARPA Tackles Storytime

Defense Dept. Research Arm DARPA Tackles Storytime.

via Fast Company.

“Hence the workshop to try to learn how stories connect to people’s minds, how they influence or prejudice individual thinking, and whether the flow of narrative information sharing in a group can be influenced by an outside agent–all in a “scientifically respectable manner.”

Yes, that does sound creepy.

The workshop has three goals. It will survey theories about narrative data flow to work out “what is a story? What are its moving parts?” and more. It will try to understand how narratives influence security situations, asking “how do stories influence bystanders’ response to conflict” and other questions. And it will survey the state of the art in story analysis and decomposition, with a goal of building a better toolset for quickly understanding the nature of a story, and “how stories propagate in a system to influence behavior.” “

Fast Company’s article approaches the idea with a tongue-in-cheek “Oh no,  its 1984! / Mind control!” mentality but kidding aside, DARPA is in essence exploring a very central aspect of Fifth Gradient Warfare (5GW) thinking. These stories, these narratives, are consumed by Observation that interact with and trigger particular aspects and identities of Orientation. Call it psy-ops, call it memetics, call it spin, call it propaganda, whatever you call it these are all processes that seek to control the narrative in order to exert some sort of control over a targeted audience in order to create an outcome, and that is 5GW.

DARPA press release (.pdf) for Stories, Neuroscience and Experimental Technologies (STORyNET): Analysis and Decomposition of Narratives in Security Contexts workshop,  is here. It would be really interesting to have a 5GW-ist voice in the room.

The Catch: BJ Fogg and the Fogg Behavioral Model

The Underwire blog at Wired.com recently posted an article (pretty funny) that tripped my 5GW radar. The article involved the NetLife Research Bad Useability Calendar and June’s entry (seen to the right) referenced somebody I had, admitted, not heard of; BJ Fogg. I don’t know what persuasive design is but it sounds kinda 5GWish to me.

Research ensued!

(Heavy linking to follow. All links expand greatly on the topic)

Dr. BJ Fogg founded the Persuasive Technology Lab at Stanford University and is the creator of the Fogg Behavioral Model (FBM). He also has published two books about the intersection of persuasion and computer technology:

Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. and,

Mobile Persuasion: 20 Perspectives of the Future of Behavior Change.

convergenceDr. Fogg calls this intersection “Captology” and it is the centerpiece of his research and primary application of his model.

Captology and the Fogg Behavioral Model seem to have a strong resonance with the nuts-and-bolts and the hows-and-whys of Fifth Gradient Warfare Theory in particular and XGW in general. It seems mainly to be applied to social media at this point but for a 5GWist that is a very attractive form of leverage for the manipulation of a target actor. I am going to have to make it a point to track down at least one of his books. Until then I will have to settle for reading his 2009 paper about the Fogg Behavioral Model. Further study will have to determine how closely 5GW and Captology/FBM really intersect.

A bit of Recommended Viewing as well that touches on social media:

The Catch: When Campaigns Manipulate Social Media by Jared Keller at The Atlantic

The Atlantic

When Campaigns Manipulate Social Media

by Jared Keller

“If you think about how much putting an ad on TV costs, you could pay an army of people to post fake information and promote it through social networks,” says Menczer, who, based on his research, anticipates future manipulation of the Twittersphere for political gains. “It’s a form of information pollution. Spamming on social networks has very low cost and has the potential to influence a  large amount of people. From the point of view of someone running for office, it would be crazy NOT to use this system.”

Accountability is a huge problem in the social media sphere, where anonymity is still easy to maintain. “If anything, this is in violation of Twitter terms of service…. but so what? You can just make another account. There’s no accountability,” says Menczer. “I think it’s scary. It’s extremely easy to fabricate news use these methods to manipulate the Web because people want to believe what they want to believe.”

I’ve written before about the possibilities for using 5GW principles specifically for elections. The proliferation and rising prominence of social media even in the short time from when I wrote that post make it even more natural that social media becomes the preferred platform for observational manipulation if only from a cost / benefit standpoint.

By the numbers of that post, from a social media standpoint:

1)  Defined timeframe allows for 5GW organizations to plan to specific points in time and the election cycle allows for a truly strategic planning horizon.

Most of the examples cited in the article are fairly blatant in nature and yet still seem to have a measurable effect. Considering a strategic planning horizon, a 5GW effector can afford the time and effort to create a much more subtle and subversive network of influencers to fly under the radar of projects like Mr. Menczer’s Truthy. Twitter spam accounts, spam blog comments and Facebook Feed spam may still have an important place in the plan, but even more valuable is the opportunity to create or co-opt opinion leaders that will be persistent in the network.

2)  Defined geographic areas involved allow for a 5GW organization to precisely define the scale of their operations.

This is somewhat harder to do with social media, mostly because, by nature, the networks aren’t restricted to geographical boundaries. However, the ability to target specific nodes in a network that may have specific geographic impacts is becoming easier and more effective. It may actually be easiest to do this on the smallest and largest scales of geographic areas like cities and countries, and most difficult at intermediate scales like states or regions of states that are less well represented as network subsets.

3)   5GW organizational goals may be precisely and measurably defined due to the existing systems in place to progressively measure results in detail.

When I wrote this the systems that I had in mind were opinion polls and, of course, the voting itself that can be broken down into individual precincts and viewed over time. Now it brings to mind systems and tools such as Momentum. Momentum bills itself as “a real-time index rating for all content in the global social network.”

“Momentum provides social intelligence. We first retrieve all conversations in regards to the topic, event, brand, or person you entered. Then Momentum extracts all linked content, indexes it, ranks it and displays it so you can use it…”

John Robb has more thoughts on Momentum, its purpose and its potential here. If 5GW is about creating or co-opting a narrative to lead to a specific goal or result, then Momentum and other tools and systems like it, or related to it, are invaluable to identify and get ahead of those narratives.

4)  The campaign and election process is already optimized for rapid information dissemination providing ample vectors for meme transference.

The concern of the day may be changeable and fickle as defined by the pattern of the 24 hours news cycle, but the “message” of the political campaign seems to be endlessly applicable to any given situation. The dedication to spin, especially in more important elections, means multiple mouthpieces for the “message.” To co-opt the “message” is to co-opt all of the mouthpieces. As social media increasingly becomes a mouthpiece of the campaign the opportunity for a 5GW effector to subtly and seamlessly co-opt the “message” becomes more possible because of its ubiquity.

5)  Well connected political parties and multitude of long-standing issues offer powerful memplexes for a 5GW organization to piggyback or hijack.

This is very much related to the previous consideration. Social media in this regard offers influence for the receiving end of the “message” as it has the potential to organize the audience based upon specific interest and provide a direct input into their observation.

6)  Previous election cycles have created a vast amount of pre-existing expertise in political manipulation for 5GW organizations to recruit as 5GW effectors or 5GW proxies.

When I wrote this I was thinking about the existing talent pool of political operatives that seem to drift from campaign to campaign and / or issue group to issue group. It is all about organization. Those skills are easily applied to social media venues with the bonus that proxy organizations may be much more easily constructed or co-opted because of the amorphous anonymity inherent in social media networks and the low costs associated with the creation and distribution of the content.

7)  Discovery of 5GW manipulations may be conceivably and believably be attributed to the campaign process as ‘business-as-usual’.

On social media too. Perhaps even more so, even after things go viral.

From the article:

A few days before the special election in Massachusetts to fill Senate seat formerly held by the late Edward Kennedy, the conservative American Future Fund (AFF) conducted a “Twitter-bomb” campaign against Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate. The AFF set up nine anonymous Twitter accounts in early morning hours prior to the election that sent hundred of tweets accusing Martha Coakley of taking money from health insurance lobbyists to other influential Twitter accounts around the state, linking back to anonymous websites containing further details. Twitter realized the messages were spam and shut down the accounts two hours later, but by that point the messages had reached nearly 60,000 people. The sudden spike caused the attacks on Coakley to turn up in Google searches for her name, effectively gaming Google’s real-time search functions.

8)  There is already ‘competition’ built into the campaign and election  system that may be able to simulate 4GW vs. 5GW or 5GW vs. 5GW opposition.

I intended this in the context of being a test bed for the effectiveness of a 5GW but being applied to social media makes essentially no difference. If the co-opted / manipulated “message” goes viral, the 5GW operation has to have worked in some way.

9)  Election and campaign system is designed to support and protect false-front and proxy organizations.

Social media is even more friendly to anonymity by its very nature and even harder to track down the actors behind the manipulations even if they don’t use proxies or false-fronts. It is the nature of the beast.

10)  Voters expect to be manipulated by political campaigns and will either allow themselves to be manipulated or resist overt manipulations.

As Mr. Menczer said at the end of  the article section cited at the beginning of this post; “It’s extremely easy to fabricate news use these methods to manipulate the Web because people want to believe what they want to believe.”

That is the meat and potatoes of 5GW.

The Catch: Augmented Reality / Diminished Reality

Singularity Hub :  New Augmented Reality Software Removes Objects from Video Feeds in Real Time.

“What if you could remove all the ugliness in the world? It’s not a hypothetical question. Researchers at Ilmenau University of Technology in Germany have developed a new augmented reality technique that erases images from real time video. Called Diminished Reality, the software can take any area selected in a video feed and use photo-shop like adjustments to copy the surroundings into its place. Where once you saw an object now you see the object has been removed. A piece of your world has been erased. Diminished Reality records video from a camera and displays the modified result on a screen with only a 40ms delay. To your eyes it’s effectively instantaneous. Watch a demonstration of the augmented reality editing program in the video below. I’m blown away by how well it works in these early examples.”

Talk about giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Most of the applications I have come across for Augmented, and now Diminished, Reality are gaming / entertainment and advertising in the form of virtual pets, virtual LARP-type activities, and virtual advertising banners that can be highly targeted to individual persons. This demonstration seems closer to the espionage application of the really ugly shirt that played a key role in William Gibson’s novel Zero History (my review here) by rendering the character wearing it invisible to video surveillance by triggering a computer program deep in the London surveillance camera system (see questions five and six of this interview with Gibson) . It may not exactly be to that stage yet though it seems to me this is a very long step in that direction.

The Laughing Man is hacking your eyes!Considering this is a potentially very long, twisty, branching and strange road, the ability to modify reality in this way seems to have limitless implications. The 5GW theorist lurking in my brain (and clapping on the sidelines), also has to wonder about how easy it may one day become to seamlessly and unobtrusively cause distortion between perceived Observation and actual Observation before that information feeds into Orientation. Understanding the mechanisms of 5GW may be instructive in harnessing this type of power, it may also be vital in learning to protect against it.

The Catch: The Cognitive Dissonance of COIN

“The Catch” is, from here on, the heading and category for “Recommended Reading” posts here at Red Herrings.

The Catch: Recommended Reading

Recommended reading from Small Wars Journal:

The Cognitive Dissonance of COIN
Right Doctrine, Wrong War
by Jason Thomas

“The psychological investment in COIN is now so deep that the cognitive dissonance would be too great to change course or admit COIN is the right doctrine for the wrong war. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that despite contrary evidence, people are biased to think of their choices as correct. Like climate change, so much has been invested in counterinsurgency with huge reputations at stake, that anyone who challenges COIN in Afghanistan could be labeled a COIN skeptic.  No matter how much we try to win the hearts and minds, no matter how many millions of dollars is spent on development and regardless of attempts to improve governance and eliminate corruption, the socio-cultural ecosystem of Afghanistan does not respond to the doctrine of counterinsurgency. While the pockets can be won the heart and minds in Afghanistan will always remain notoriously capricious.

 There are many reasons to continually question COIN from every angle, but the two this paper is concerned with are i) whether COIN could be the right military doctrine being applied in the wrong campaign; and ii) preparing for the next major unconventional war – as is often the case in political campaigns and war, we tend to find ourselves fighting on the issues, theories or practices in the last campaign.

 This paper will attempt to “play the ball and not the man”  by pointing to the range of reasons unique to Afghanistan on top of self-imposed obstacles that reinforce the hypothesis of right doctrine, wrong war.”

All in all, a thought-provoking paper that is well worth a read even if you don’t agree with the author’s argument. Personally, I don’t think COIN is the wrong doctrine for Afghanistan. At least, not all of Afghanistan. If the Taliban is seeking to create a parallel, non-secular, (Pakistan aligned) government that usurps the government of Kabul. That makes it an insurgency. The problem is using COIN in Afghanistan is that it is being used across the board, even in places where the Taliban isn’t active. If there isn’t an insurgency, you can’t wage a counterinsurgency. Personally, I think the disconnect about using COIN as the go-to doctrine of the U.S. forces, comes from an inflexibility of practitioners to have multiple doctrines. Everything is COIN because counterinsurgency is the sexy buzzword of the moment. However, COIN is not an anti-terrorism or homeland security doctrine. If you are chasing Bin Laden, you shouldn’t be using a COIN doctrine.

Actually, what I found most interesting about the article were the author’s 6 points for adapting COIN for future campaigns. I felt they had a great deal of 5GW resonance.

“The following are suggestions for improving the adaptability of COIN for future campaigns:

1. Stress test COIN and other military doctrines against a range of insurgent scenarios taking place in potential host countries – what is unique about the cultural and tribal dynamics.

2. Anticipate the next host nations and begin a coordinated, international effort to limit the opportunity for the global jihadists to re-base themselves (Australia has done a good job with its intense support of governance, security and development initiatives in Indonesia) – almost an interntional version of COIN.”

3. Develop sophisticated social networking and internet countering-platforms devised by and run by maintstream, globally recognised and respected Muslim organisations.

4. Intesify the global ‘hearts and minds’ campaign to convince young, mobile and increasingly sophisticated Muslims that the West is not a threat to their belief systems. This must be coordinated at an international level across governments and non-government actors.

5. Identify communications strategies and tactics to undermine the jihadists perceived legitimacy in the minds of eye of mainstream media. Every time the insurgents claim ‘civilians have been killed by US forces’ this is treated as fact by the media.

6. Avoid seeking a generic, off-the-shelf, model of COIN devised from previous campaigns to be applied to the next campaign.”

All six of these points are in line with 5GW thinking. First, working to trigger established rule-sets of a target population’s Orientation by feeding them information in specific context, through their own prefered information channels, is the basis of Fifth Gradient doctrines. 5GW is also inherently strategic in scope, meaning that anticipating the next hot-spot and preemptively targeting it with 5GW operations is required. Above all, adaptability is a hallmark of, not only 5GW, but XGW itself. A basic tenet of XGW is to create a specific doctrine for the situation at hand that is X+1 of the doctrine being used by your opponent, there is no such thing as an “off-the-shelf” doctrine.

Link: Military Futurism at Red Team Journal


Military Futurism at Red Team Journal by Adam Elkus

“As long as human beings have killed one another, theorists have struggled to forecast the nature of future slaughter correctly. Military futurism, however, is different from more popular forms of futurism. Speculation about future warfare inevitably garners more attention than debates over the nature of technological change and human civilization. One reason may be that people are particularly attuned to matters of life and death. But an emerging technology or social change may have just as” much long-term impact as a new kind of weapon or tactic. So why does Patton always flatten Schrödinger and his cat under his tank treads?”

A valuable insight by Adam Elkus, a co-blogger of mine at Dreaming 5GW, on the difficulty of peering into the crystal ball to determine the future of anything, much less warfare. I personally favor the approach of trying to find those elements of warfare that don’t change, that remain constant independent of technology or social change, to use as the basis for theory. I think this is one of the strengths of the XGW framework, that you can take any given situation in any given era and use the XGW framework to classify the gradient of the methods being used, the doctrines behind them, and judge if the response was appropriate or not, and if not, to use the framework to suggest what reaction could have been more effective.