The Frontier of Information Warfare and the PSYOPS
New technologies combined with the post-Cold War international environment have modified the traditional concepts of attack and defense leaving an essential role to information. In the present society, the latter is a very important resource and a soft power lever, indeed, over time it has become a primary strategic asset for the State. Furthermore, communication and information technologies (e.g. spy satellites, night vision goggles, flying television or radio stations etc.) have proved very effective in influencing the outcome of a conflict, and the media, given their ability to shape the socio-political and economic environment, are now central actors in the national security. Following this rationale, during the XX century, the primary targets of bombings have changed from strategic factories and shipyards to power plants, telephone exchanges and broadcasting stations.
Taking into consideration a conflict we can recognize two types of forces, namely physical (combat capabilities) and psychological (soldier’s morale), that refer to different objectives and thus, methods to conduct operations. In this article, we focus on the latter force and examine the ‘psychological operations’ (Psyops).
Information is at the same time an instrument of offense and a target; hence, in this context ‘information warfare’ indicates all the offensive and defensive actions deployed to pursue a competitive advantage in the information environment. Leading countries like the US (always ahead!), for several decades have been developing systems of 'information warfare' that combine specific scientific knowledge (for example, behavioral sciences and mass communication) with strategic-military application. This avant-garde warfare frontier includes many sub-areas namely, operational security, electronic warfare (EW), deception, physical attack on the information process, information attack on the information process and, in the end, the psychological operations (psyops).
The US Department of Defense defines psychological operations as “planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives”. The Inter-American Defense Board adds that “these operations include psychological warfare and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic, and ideological actions planned and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support the achievement of national objectives”. Therefore, we can see these operations as a more complete form of propaganda that combines scientific knowledge from several fields that study the human being in the biological and social dimensions and uses them in a strategic military sense. In the domain of psyops, it is necessary to address not only the objective world that surrounds an individual and a population, but also their perception of the world that in the end becomes the critical variable. It is notable that the DOD definition leaves room to perplexity when states that psyops pursue the objectives of the creator rather than those of the nation (as instead is written in the DOD and IADB definition of ‘psychological warfare’).
The US defines three sub-categories of PSYOPS based on the scope of the operations conducted. Firstly, the ‘strategic’ PSYOPS are information activities conducted at a global/ regional level in support of the national strategy and can come in many forms such as diplomatic initiatives, aggressive military attitude and political statements. Secondly, the ‘operational’ PSYOPS are organized within a specific geographical area as a part of a master plan developed by the scenario commander or of other joint operations; these are very effective deterrents and powerful means to trigger a reaction of the target e.g. the deployment of army units and offensive maneuvers close to the border. Lastly, the ‘tactical’ operations consist of individual commitments aimed at consolidating the overall action. These have a strong impact on the opponent’s morale and can be for ex. propaganda of prepackaged stories on the violation of human rights and publicization of the destruction of enemy’s vital facilities. However, the distinction between the three levels has become less clear and more subtle from the ‘post-Cold War’ period onwards, up to the present day when the almost instant way to access information and news anywhere, makes it practically impossible to locate an information campaign.
It is important to point out that weapons are psychological in relation to the effect they produce rather than to their nature, in this way ethical and physical means, in addition to orthodox military ones, are employed in this type of operations. Although the military psychological factor on the battlefield (ex. morale, deceptions) has always been considered important, the relevance of psychological operations as a ‘force multiplier’ was originally recognized only by some military leaders and statesmen (for ex. Sun Tzu, Alessandro the Great and Napoleon) and ultimately, after WW2, the PSYOPS were elevated to the rank of weapon system and used as such. To carry out the ‘psychological warfare’ program, as advocated by James Webb (Undersecretary of State 1949-1952), the US security services cooperated with university experts and social scientists. One remarkable proof of this collaboration is the Project Troy (1950s) in which a group of scholars from MIT, Harvard and Rand tried to help the government strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the VOA (Voice Of America: government-owned broadcasting network) as a propaganda device; the final report stated that VOA was not sufficient to tear the ‘Iron Curtain’, thus advocating other means and methods. The following years consolidated the relationship between officials at CIA and State Department and scholars at prestigious universities; funding was allocated from several US military branches, departments and agencies including the aforementioned, the Air Force and the Navy to many research centers (e.g. BASR, BSSR, CENIS) to meet the demand of scientific information in different fields of study such as communication sciences, persuasion and interrogation techniques. In the following decades, asymmetric armed conflicts have emerged and have shown the importance of connecting military commands with civil authorities and the local population, thus increasing the psychological depth of the operations. For this reason, from the 80s onwards, military commanders could no longer do without the advice of their PSYOPS unit, whose task is to use the psychological persuasion to influence the perception of friendly and enemy forces, civilians and military towards desired behaviors (producing audiovisual and editorial material to be distributed to the local population). These groups were deployed to provide tactical support in every conflict fought by the US in Europe (Kosovo, Bosnia and Albania), Asia (Afghanistan, Iraq) and Africa (Somalia) as well as natural disasters.
One of the foundations on which Psyops are based is the credibility of the statements declared, and the Gulf War is an interesting example of information warfare in which the media were used in an innovative way. During the Desert Storm Operation, the US forces operated radio and televisions programs as the radio program ‘Voice of the Gulf’ which broadcast continuously for more than 540 hours, as well as leaflets and speakers to spread messages about the Arab brotherhood, the Coalition air power and the isolation of Iraq, in order to destroy the enemy morale and to induce the troops to desert. About 29 million leaflets of 100 different types were launched within 7 weeks, reaching 98% of Iraqi soldiers, informing enemy units on the ground, of massive bombings that would begin within 24 hours and the instructions to desert. The media campaign urged Iraqi soldiers to make a choice: escape and live or stay and die; as a result, there was a large-scale surrender and desertion of Iraqi soldiers (often conscripts).
