Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Open source intelligence and the narrative of doubt
Austin Bay has an interesting essay up on Real Clear Politics that discusses the poorly publicized intelligence that morale is low at al Qaeda Central Command. Among various subsidiary points, Col. Bay argues that the requirements of a modern ideological struggle militate in favor of more, rather than less, disclosure of captured enemy documents and bits of enlightening intelligence:
During World War II, America and its allies often had the valuable "edge" of such insight. The Allies' ability to intercept and decrypt Japanese and German radio traffic provided not only hard facts about enemy plans, but insight into their high command's perceptions of Allied military and political actions.
Allied decryption capabilities were closely guarded secrets. Protecting them ensured their continued utility.
That's why the National Security Agency and other present-day spy shops release captured al-Qaida communications with great reluctance.
They should be less reluctant. Here's why. Information Age media -- swamped with ideological and political Sturm und Drang -- are a key battlefield in this war.
In America's open society, people constantly take public counsel of the fears. Sowing doubt about current leadership is a fundamental opposition tactic in every democratic election.
Thus America's "narrative of doubt" tends to dominate the global media -- with a corrosive effect on America's ability to wage ideological and political war.
Though war's doubt and uncertainty affect all sides, dictators and terrorists can control their "message." As a result, there is no balance to media portrayal of American doubt.
The American "narrative of doubt" plays into the business model of sensationalist media, which rely on hyperbolic and emotional display to attract an audience. (CNN's Anderson Cooper, with his "show rage" coverage of Hurricane Katrina, is an example.)
Which is why the rare glimpse, like Atiyah's letter to Zarqawi, is truly big news.
To be even more blunt, victory in this war -- which is, as Col Bay says, a contest of ideologies -- will require that one of the combatant ideologies -- violent Islamism or democratic capitalism -- be discredited. We in the West, including Democrats and the media, should hope fervently that it is the enemy's ideology that is discredited, and not ours. This is the best reason why critics of American policy are right to pressure the Bush administration to uphold our values in such matters as the treatment of prisoners (recognizing that reasonable people will disagree about what constitutes upholding our values). It is also the reason why politicians and journalists who emphasize al Qaeda's successes for partisan or commercial purposes without balancing consideration of its failures are undermining American national security.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Oct 04, 10:04:00 AM:
I am surprised that the intelligence establishment even releases as much as it does, such as this letter.
Clearly, it will reveal potential sources, and heads will roll, literally, in the AQ organization.
However . . . there is also value in pumping up the paranoia within the AQ organization as well, and causing just the sort of fratricidal leak-plugging that no doubt comes in its wake.
So, yeah, I think these sorts of revelations are probably valuable for reasons other than winning the information war as well.
By , at
Wed Oct 04, 10:52:00 AM:
"We in the West, including Democrats and the media, should hope fervently that it is the enemy's ideology that is discredited, and not ours. This is the best reason why critics of American policy are right to pressure the Bush administration to uphold our values in such matters as the treatment of prisoners (recognizing that reasonable people will disagree about what constitutes upholding our values)."
It makes me feel a lot better that at least some people on the right understand why those of us on the left make such a fuss about Guantanamo/rendition. Thank you.
By 
TigerHawk, at
Wed Oct 04, 10:59:00 AM:
Well, Phrizz11, that would be the principled reason to object to some of these tactics. Unfortunately, there has also been a great deal of distortion about Gitmo (in particular) that seems motivated by considerations that relate more to gaining electoral advantage than winning the propaganda war against al Qaeda.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Oct 04, 12:04:00 PM:
There's another aspect to this: disinformation.
what would prevent us from creating "documents" and "leaking" them to our press with an eye toward impacting the mental state of our enemy?
Over at ITM Mo and O have discussed the fact that Arabs love gossip. The conspiracy theories that these people cook up are simply amazing. As further proof, the MEMRI expose on the Arab view of 9/11 clearly showed this propensity to wild theorizing.
At this point the western media is clearly a tool for anyone who cares to use it. ( I won't say "whore" even though there are days when it's probably closer to the mark).
If its doubt we wish to sow, we could do it easily. totalitarian regimes and guerilla groups both have a little ability to trust their own co horts. Keeping them paranoid saps mental resource and prevents true teamwork.
I wonder how much of what hits the Arab press is such disinformation.
what a world, what a world.
By , at
Wed Oct 04, 02:26:00 PM:
But Tigerhawk . . .
Presumably the AQ leadership also knows when a leak to the press is actually true.
If bin Laden opens the New York Times (as he is wont to do, I am sure) and reads a truthful leak of a letter or other communication from his organization, that is the truly effective way to wreak damage within the ranks.
By , at
Wed Oct 04, 02:27:00 PM:
Oops, sorry, meant to address that to Skipsailing.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Oct 04, 03:15:00 PM:
thanks, Ken, I'm flattered.
My reading of the recently disclosed Al Q "memo" leads me to believe that much of their communication is via messenger. If this is so presumably there are long periods of time when either party is incommunicado.
futher, the "leaks" don't have to be earth shattering at all. The goal of my campaign would be doubt. doubt about the folks doing the dirty work in the field, doubt about each other, doubt about what the enemy is planning in response.
At this point we could leak a story that claims we posses a space based weapon that can send Laser bursts with pinpoint accuracy and some would believe it.
We could create "documents" that were supposed to have been written years ago casting doubt on the piety of a known insider. We could forge travel records or other documents that would give the appearance that a trusted insider isn't so trust worthy.
Again, this wouldn't bring down the enemy, but it would consume resource and make work difficult.
Your point about the NYT is well taken, but I'm not thinking of major news scoops. I'm thinking about a series of small stories placed here and there and designed to come to the attention of the enemy's media watchers.
Maybe I'm being too James bond here. Or not james bond enough.
By , at
Wed Oct 04, 03:32:00 PM:
No I think your point is very well-taken.
A mix of disinformation, misinformation and real leaks would have them playing the mole hunt game indeed, and take up time they would otherwise spend blowing up innocents.
I am all for it.
By Georg Felis, at
Tue Oct 10, 12:53:00 PM:
Um, they already blow up innocents. I think the phrase you are looking for is “stab each other in the back”. And yes, I'm all for it.
