Information activities by any nation is a fickle beast.  The US is lambasting Iran, who is lambasting Israel, Germany is lambasting the US, who is lambasting China (nicely, mind you), who is lambasting…   the list goes on forever.  All nations attack other nations in the press when they are opposed, this current set of disclosures pits allies against allies.

The current  crisis du jour follows the Snowden disclosures.  Everybody spies on everybody, few talk about it publicly. The only time the press talks about it in bold headlines is when someone is caught with their hand in the cookie jar.  Snowden shared with the world that the United States is spying on a whole bunch of people. General Alexander and President Obama say the US only spies on foreign countries.  The Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, has publicly slapped the US for spying on her cell phone.  Oh my.  The negative press has been going on for some time.

Apologies, Ms. Chancellor, the United States has not denied spying on you, at least not that I’ve seen.  Do you deny spying on the United States?  I didn’t think so.

The latest twist to this story, and it is almost embarrassing, is that the US is not the only party that has tapped Chancellor Merkel’s phone, according to a German weekly Focus magazine (http://www.focus.de/) cited here.  The five countries are Russia, China, North Korea and the U.K – in addition to the US.  I would say her connection and phone probably worked as slowly as mine, making her phone basically a party line.  For those of you too young to remember those days, please look it up in Wikipedia, under telephony terms.

This portends an awful future for information activities.  Advertising:  ”Our phones are hacked less than theirs!”   Press secretary: “Our leader’s phone is secure”.   Congressperson, member of parliament, duma, etc: “Gentlemen do not listen to leaders’ phones!”  It boils down to ‘We gather less intelligence than you do!’  Extrapolated one tiny bit further:  ’we are less informed than you’, which becomes ‘our decisions are not based on facts as good as yours’, which distills to ‘we’re going to make some pretty awful decisions’!  Okay, these statements will never be made but these are the falsehoods Chancellor Merkel is leading us to – and it’s empty. The agony, Ms. Chancellor, the horror, the betrayal.  Please spare us the false outrage, Madame Chancellor, it’s disingenuous and makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth.

The fact is that nobody is going to spy any less on anyone, based on these disclosures. Our spies will just have to be smarter.

Words mean things but they can be grossly exagerated, can be very distorted and can be outright lies.   Some argue that numbers and statistics can also be manipulated.  But if an attempt is made to calculate an exact amount of supporters, using hard analysis, one can make a fairly solid estimate which is fairly insulated from spurious denigration.  In other words, it will be difficult to disprove your claims.

My thanks to Dr. Igor Panarin, who posted a link, here, to a Russian-language Ukranian website discussing a mathematical way of determining who showed up at a rally in support of European integration.  Dr. Panarin is a well known expert in Russia about Information Warfare.

Estimates of attendance in support of this rally ranged from several thousand, from the Russian media, to 30 thousand, by the police to 150,000 to 300,00 by supporters.   Obviously more numbers would indicate more support.

Kiev mathematics student Nazar Kovalenko used mathematical formulas, combined with Google Maps for area calculations, and determined there were approximately 37,500 people in the rally.  He shows his calculations, the margin of errors and what he produced is probably a fairly accurate estimate.

I used the translator embedded in Chrome to translate from Russian to English, to read the article.

With hard numbers one can calculate an increase, decrease or a plateau in the popularity of a movement over time.  It is good to share and my thanks to Dr. Panarin for this article.

IO Definition: The integrated employment, during military operations, of information-related capabilities in concert with other lines of operations to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own.

US SECDEF 25 JAN 2011 Memo:  Strategic Communication and Information Operations

“Disrupt, deny, degrade, destroy, or deceive” vs. “influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp”.   Which is right, what is it that we do?

The definition of IO is all about influence, the military is seeking to affect the decision making of adversaries and potential adversaries.

“Disrupt, deny, degrade, destroy, or deceive” is how the US Air Force seeks to characterize their ‘cyberwarfare’ efforts[1], [2].

Here is the definition of Electonic Warfare from Wikipedia:

Electronic warfare (EW) refers to any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare

The US “official definition” of Electronic Warfare.

JEMSO are the coordinated efforts of EW and joint electromagnetic spectrum management operations (JEMSMO) to exploit, attack, protect, and manage the electromagnetic operational environment (EMOE).

The term EW refers to military action involving the use of EM energy and directed energy (DE) to control the EMS or to attack the enemy. EW consists of three divisions: electronic attack (EA), EP, and electronic warfare support (ES).

Joint Pub 3-13.1, Electronic Warfare, 08 February 2012

Apologies to anyone who reads that and goes “huh”?  Whoever wrote and approved that definition of both EW and JEMSO forgot to address the “in order to” or “in order to accomplish” part of a definition.  It’s a modern tragedy that those definitions are as meaningless as <insert insult here>, they don’t say anything.

I am reviewing all these definitions only because this past week somebody asked me about electronic warfare and cyber and why we would ever use both or either cyber or electronic warfare.  I thought it was obvious so I attempted to show the common denominator between them.  Information.  ”What?  Are you nuts?” was the look I got.

I simply used an action verb: deny.  If I deny an adversary information by either jamming their air defense system or launching a DDoS attack against their network, the adversary does not get the infomation necessary to make an informed decision.  I may also disrupt their systems and make the information questionable as to the accuracy, timeliness or even reliability.  We may also destroy an adversary’s network or system and deny and at least degrade the information received.  The most difficult thing to do is to deceive.  Electronically it is a very sophisticated action, in both cyberspace and using the EMS. In World War II it was achieved, not as easily as we believed, by using lengths of aluminum chaff cut to the wavelength of the enemy’s radar, for instance.

All this deals with information that an adversary desperately needs to make an informed decision.  That is how we “ influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making of adversaries and potential adversaries”.

Bottom line on the bottom.  Cyber and EW are cool, but we dare not lose sight of their ultimate goal, targeting an adversary’s or potential adversary’s decision cycle.  Cyber and EW are not goals nor ends by themselves, it’s all about information.  Information is the most powerful tool or weapon at our disposal at all times.

DARPA has come up with a really neat competition which starts in…  3, 2, 1…

Rather than try to improve on what they say, here’s what their website says in the second paragraph on their homepage, here.

The DARPA Cyber Grand Challenge (CGC) is a tournament for fully automated network defense. Similar to computer security competitions currently played by expert software analysts, the CGC intends to allow groundbreaking prototype systems to compete for the first time in a “league of their own.” During the competition, automatic systems would reason about software flaws, formulate patches and deploy them on a network in real time. The CGC would unite program analysis experts with the computer security competition community to bring automation research out of the lab and into the field. By acting at machine speed and scale, these technologies may someday overturn today’s attacker-dominated status quo.

According to FCW, here, it’s a human against human competition.

Today starts round 2.

In this information age I often encounter people who I consider quacks.  People from the extreme left or extreme right who honestly believe the venom they spew, usually based on misperceptions, shaded falsehoods and, quite often, blatant lies.  I usually endure their blathering, because they obviously base their opinions on highly biased sources.  And the cycle continues…  there is little if any original thought, and the person quickly becomes completely ignorable.

Then there is the case of the misguided few who demonstrably embrace what I consider the fetid ideals of anti-social thought.

Today I read a piece by Dr. Jeffrey Polet, “The ubiquity of propaganda obscures the American military’s true role“.  I read his piece once, twice, three times.  I just could not believe someone could think this way and then would actually write and publish this…  trash.  Three days ago I read a similar piece by Jason Peters, Propaganda, The Military, and the Melodrama, who echoed the same feelings after speaking with Dr. Polet. A quick perusal of Jeffrey Polet’s blog pieces reveals a fervent disgust with the military.

The author claims he is not anti-military, but then labels public celebrations of military service as “propaganda”.   I apologize that there is no “official” definition of propaganda by the US government, but I would certainly say these celebrations are not propaganda.  They are not founded on stereotypes, not based on reinforced negatives and certainly not based on lies.   That was the propaganda that Joseph Goebbels launched on the citizens of Nazi Germany which forever tainted the word propaganda.   But in the 60+ years since Goebbels, it has not become acceptable to label celebrations of our national heroes as “propaganda”.   Dr. Polet, you do not have the right.  In your article you said you were recently in Washington DC and attended a Washington Nationals’ baseball game.  Did you, by some chance, also tour the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and tour the Nazi Propaganda exhibit?  If not, you missed a very direct and simple lesson in what actually constitutes propaganda.

I have approached several PhDs and asked them to become the next Dr. Phil Taylor and in the hope they would become the world’s foremost expert on propaganda.  None have bellied up to the bar and accepted the challenge but I believe I have one PhD candidate interested.  Heck, the annual NDAA outlaws “propaganda”, but without an official definition, spurious applications of the word propaganda will continue to be flung and stick like boogers on a wall.  Dr. Polet’s piece is one of those boogers.

ps. I believe I understand what the author is trying to say: “Enough, already. I’d just like to enjoy a game.”  These emotional reunions between deployed troops and their families are not in any way exploitive or manipulative, to think so is paranoid in the extreme.  Dr. Polet, you deserve heaps of opprobrium for saying so.  These wonderful shows of a family once again united are meant to buoy our sagging spirits.  Not by an administration, but by the administrative offices of the teams involved.  The vast majority of Americans, citizens of theses United States of America, enjoy this.  Come join us, celebrate life with us.

…and please, wear your twill pants, tie-dyed skirts and Birkenstocks.

As this year draws to a close I must issue an apology.  I recently shared with a group of seniors in the cyber world an incomplete phrase, I assumed they knew the rest. My friend and mentor, Dr. Dan Kuehl, pointed out the obvious and I looked like a dolt for my assumption.

My mistake was I wrote the phrase that “in the end it is all about information”.  At issue was the question of what is the point of cyber and electronic warfare.  Folks in the cyber world tend to believe that we attack and defend cyber networks to that end, whereas it is really to ‘deny, degrade, destroy’ information.   The same for electronic warfare.  If I work in the electronic warfare field I wish for the enemy commander to see a false picture, to have that commander not believe in what he is seeing, or I want the commander to not believe the system is reliable.  I might also want to blind that commander and deny him information.

Now, if I were to end the discussion right now I would be doing you, dear reader, a disservice.

Dr. Kuehl pointed out to me that I did not cover the cognitive piece using his 3C model (Content, Communication, Cognitive) of Information Operations.  He has long promised a paper that covers his model, as of right now it is PowerPoint deep, meaning there aren’t adequate words published which describe his model and its meaning.  He was correct, I wrote “it’s all about the information”, assuming my audience knows about the remainder of his model.

Allow me to explain a little bit of my perspective of the 3C model.   First, we have content.  These are the words, the sights, the sounds, the stimuli we use to activate the receptors in our target audience’s brain.  Second, we have communication.  This is how we relay our content to our target audience.  Last is cognitive.  Once our content is received by our target audience, the information now has a (hopefully) desired effect on the target audience.  What is missing in this simplistic explanation is a feedback mechanism and the resultant retooling of our information activity.  Hopefully the cycle will continue, always being refined in order to achieve better results.

This is a problem in Information Operations, Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy, and I fell into that trap.  I ASSUMED the entire process was apparent to my audience, whereas this is not the case.

I blame myself and nobody else, but I would like to add a little context.  I have been doing a fairly deep dive on Public Diplomacy and the BBG for the past year.  They have a feedback mechanism which tells them how effectively their broadcasts are reaching the target audience, yet most of the information activity ‘cycle’ is hidden.  The staff puts out “fair and objective” reporting and then broadcasts it into denied areas.  The focus is on reaching the most numbers.  The focus is not on achieving an objective.  What is that objective?   The best answer I can ascertain is to “promote democracy”.  Other than that the objective is to merely reach the most numbers.  The true measure of success, I have discovered in the past year, is only anecdotal.  After the fall of the Iron Curtain, we discovered that the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other International Broadcasting efforts were being listened to.  I have yet to find concrete evidence that VOA or RFE contributed to the fall of the Iron Curtain, however, I would like to think so.  I admit I have not done enough research in that area.  My point is that I do not see adequate planning or research in the Public Diplomacy field, I don’t see stated objectives, I don’t see planning, I don’t see how the planning is effected by the feedback mechanism they have in place – except for broad policy and resource allocation changes.

I have been focused on the content and communication pieces of Dr. Dan Kuehl’s 3C model, so much so that I assumed away the cognitive piece.  I have been so frustrated at a lack of apparent attention to the cognitive piece and a lack of the planning process’ feedback mechanism that I forgot to mention this piece in my ordinary correspondence.  For that, I apologize.  Therefore, in the future, my blog pieces will all be a minimum of 5,000 words.  Just joking…

Merry Christmas, Happy New Years and all the other Happy Holidays, to you!

In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov famously pushed a “reset” button, to refresh the relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation.

Since then the world has changed.  In my opinion the relationship between our two countries has become often adversarial, many events have acted as a catalyst for negative relations.  The Snowden affair is one of the more damaging events in United States’ intelligence and diplomatic relations, and Russia did not help by offering Edward Snowden continued refuge.

The uprising in Kiev, oops, Kyiv, Ukraine has served as a tinderbox bereft of positive outcome, with Russia backing the eastern part of the country and the western part wanting to align with the European Union.  Accusations by Russian media accuse the West, and especially the United States, of backing Western Ukraine and stoking the flames of opposition.  Without disclosing his name, a Russian friend in a senior governmental position, has repeatedly posted links to Russian websites outright accusing the US of supplying ammunition and other support to the rebels.  I asked a friend in a position within the US, that might know more about this, he claims it is a private initiative of US citizens.   This I like…

In a more recent double edged release, apparently Russia intelligence released a damning audio clip of U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland saying on her cellphone, “*F* the EU”, a charge the Russians deny (releasing the audio).   The European Union, of course, is not pleased about Nuland’s utterance. The United States is not pleased of this abuse of an intelligence disclosure. Russian media is beaming with glee at the US’ discomfort.

The Winter Olympics of 2014, held in Sochi, Russia, is an event designed to bring all nations of the world together in sports as a uniting venue.  In this more modern era, accusations of Russian corruption and supporting newscasts showing shoddy construction preceded the ceremony, casting a largely negative light on the construction.  ”The Hill”, a product of Congressional Quarterly, outright states that the rift between the US and Russia is widening as a result of the Sochi Olympic Games, here.

The US’ Broadcasting Board of Governors released a study, citing an increasing number of Russians are turning to alternative news sources, here.

This prompted me to ask some of my colleagues in Russia for their perspective.  Again, without disclosing names, here is one PhD’s opinion of the coverage and where she gets reliable information.

I find Western media outrageously biased (not on Russia only, and, mind, I was married to a Canadian journalist, I saw how your news are made). If I look for the news I go to the RT, ITAR-TASS or RBC – all Russian sites, plus the Reuters and BBC for the other side’s perspective. Also I get analytics at work on all main political issues, and I don’t watch any TV in principle, be it ours or yours. I saw Western reports on Sochi because it was all over FB with different feelings of people about it, and I am not interested in watching sports so I did not follow the Olympic news myself.

However,  a FB friend today gave a link to a blog of Sochi’s volonteer (a Moscovite) http://bg.ru/sochi2014/dnevnik_volontera_za_den_do_otkrytija-21157/ BG.ru (Big City) is a liberal resource, even slightly anti-governmental, their editor-in-chief was a well-known supporter of Bolotnaya meetings, but the girl is quite happy with the way things are despite some troubles with only some hotels and her main negative is about Western journalists who came already biased against Putin, corruption, etc. and write only about what was wrong.

After viewing the Sochi opening ceremony as well as much of the lead up to the games, I am clearly alarmed at the anti-Russian bias of the news.  I am neither a Russophobe or a Russophile, but my view is that the media is so negatively biased against Russia that I find it distasteful.

One thing I found almost hilarious was the Russian Police Force choir, almost certainly autotuned, here (original here).  The funniest part is the grim faced man between the two featured singers, I think he’s barely alive (link to .gif featured).  Unfortunately Pussy Riot could not perform.

Bottom line, the broadsides are being fired from both sides, in this information battle.  We, the information consumers (and many of you here are generators as well), are inextricably besieged by content thrust upon us, through our preferred information sources.  A cheaper version of the cold war is upon us.

PS. On a side note, United Airlines brought together 12 of the Team USA athletes and made a patriotic and stirring advertisement titled “Athletes Aboard”, complete with Gershwin in the background, here.

BY NSE (National Security Enterprise)

Original post: http://studynationalsecurity.org/romerstein-nse-library/ 

FEBRUARY 10, 2014

DEVELOPMENT, INTELLIGENCE

Are you aware of this story? I frankly don’t know much more than I read in open sources, but I’ll give it a try.  Here is one of the original stories, here. 

A “trusted” Ukranian news agency, Ukrainian Pravda, quoted the chief medical coordinator, Dr. Olga Bohomolec, of Maidan (the main protest camp) and she also posted it in social media that the Ukranian Red Cross “officially” refused to do custom clearance for the Canadian plane with aid for Maidan, here. It caused protesters’ fury and rage at the URC (Ukrainian Red Cross) beyond imagination. And guess what? Both Ukrainian and Canadian Red Cross officially declare that this aid never existed.

This is logical – Red Cross National Societies can’t just go and send whatever, the RC Movement has coordination mechanisms, no additional aid was needed in Kiev, needs were all covered by the ICRC and Ukrainian pharmaceutical companies. And, on top, no Red Cross/Crescent Society can ever send aid to specifically one side of the conflict. The International Red Cross is neutral and impartial.

The ICRC posted on Facebook that the story is false, both in Russian and in English.  Here is the International Red Cross’ statement:  https://www.facebook.com/ICRC/posts/10151974374487263

Guess what? Ukrainian protesters did not believe the International Red Cross statement. Many of them still think their beloved medical coordinator can’t possibly be wrong, this is all “Judases” (like the one who betrayed Jesus) Red Cross.

Talk about the damage to Ukrainian Red Cross and the International Red Cross image.

Update:  just corrected the Medical Coordinator’s name and cited the “Trusted” Ukrainian News Agency.  I also just posted the International Red Cross’ statement.

A Ukrainian, clearly marked as medical personnel, was shot in the neck by a government sniper, here.  

After Olesya Zhukovska was seated and received first aid she reached for her phone and tweeted “I am dying”.

This and the accompanying picture mark a very powerful series of pictures that work against the government but in favor of the uprising.  The government has been caught flatfooted, relying, instead on press releases.

This is the 21st Century.  The rest of the world is watching, listening and learning.  Since there is going to be a new government in Ukraine, perhaps they’ll learn?

As many of you have read in the past, I am deeply interested in fair and objective reporting.  I have interviewed many of the senior editors from the various bureaus in the Broadcasting Board of Governors. I have spoken with senior editors from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, from Radio Free Asia, and others.  All are quite concerned and focus on presenting fair and objective reporting.  All attempt to screen out language and coverage which they, in their senior experience, would consider to be perceived as “Propaganda”.

The cold war ended in 1991 but many biases continue to exist and have even grown worse because of the introduction of the internet.

A PhD friend of mine, in Moscow, posted a link to an article in The Nation about American media treatment of Russia.  The Nation is considered to have a liberal bias, according to Southern Oregon University Research Guide, here.  The article, “Distorting Russia: How the American media misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine” is by Stephen F. Cohen, here.  It is well worth reading.

As I read the article, however, I was struck by the author’s obvious bias, so I researched Stephen Cohen, starting with his author bio at The Nation, here.  Dr. Cohen’s bio at The Nation:

Stephen F. Cohen is a professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University. His Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From Stalinism to the New Cold War and his The Victims Return: Survivors of the Gulag After Stalin are now in paperback.

A quick review of his Wikipedia page, here, shows Stephen Cohen is a highly educated Russian expert, he’s lived in, studied and written extensively about Russia and the Soviet Union.  His bona fides are unquestionably stellar.

I then read a number of articles by Dr. Cohen, printed in The Nation.  He is surprisingly neutral in this article:  ”Twenty-seven Questions for Stephen F. Cohen from Russia’s Leading Opposition Newspaper: Questions from Novaya Gazeta on the Soviet Union, segregation and Russia today”, here.  Some of his articles were defending against attacks against his articles regarding Russia, he is viewed in those articles as pro-Russian, perhaps even anti-American, but that’s probably a stretch.  With that background, “Distorting Russia” is a continuation of articles about Russia that can probably best be categorized as pro-Russian, even though I sincerely believe his intention is to be firmly objective and neutral, in this effort he does not appear to succeed.

I’ve written previously about the media bias against Russia that I have detected, and I do find it alarming.  The article reinforced my feelings that the 2014 winter olympics in Sochi, the situation in Ukraine, and a number of other situations around the world are being used to undermine the credibility of President Vladimir Putin.  I even had a stranger acuse Putin of being a wanna-be James Bond.  I had to respond that Putin was as close to James Bond as any world leader ever could be, as he was in the KGB for 19 years, rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and retired in 1991 to pursue politics.  This person’s statement indicates not only a firm bias against Putin, but a huge gap in knowledge.

I am interested not only in the coverage of Russia by the media, but I like to expose obvious bias. I say the truth is what you believe. Unfortunately the press, the media, even social media, is so distorted from all perspectives in most of these situations that it is truly difficult to have reliable sources with objective reporting. Fair and objective reporting by news outlets vowing to do just that is practically absent.The other day my Russian friend posted news sources which she finds reliable, ITAR-TASS, RT, RBC (RosBusinessConsulting), lenta.ru.  I learned that Pravda is seen as…uh…  bad. I respectfully disagreed with her assessment that they are fair and unbiased, but I include those sources in my overall coverage of global situations.

Additionally, when reading these sources in their native langue, I often have to translate using a translating site, such as Google, Bing or the built-in tranlator in the Chrome browser. I have found discrepancies in their translation, which sometimes further contributes to perceived bias.

I queried my Moscow friend about her sources and received the following:

It’s not that I find them totally trustworthy and reliable – every news source has some bias and agenda, be it yours or ours, so I don’t fully believe in any. But they are good. Besides, I read FB and LinkedIn links, Al jazzeera,  Reuters and BBC to get  the other side of the story. And, of course, analytical reports at work. :))

My conclusion, which should be obvious, is for anyone wanting the objective truth, that they should read reports from a wide variety of sources. As a former intelligence officer I also saw bias in intelligence reports, from the source, from the analyst and from their supervisors. I also saw clear bias from reporters, their editors and the agencies. You will normally see bias, the secret, in my humble opinion, is to understand the inherent bias from a historical perspective while reading current reporting.

Gentle readers, I have cyber overload.  I used to write two, three or more times each day about some new cyber problem. A glitch.  A warning.  About some new exploit.  About a simple precaution.  Make a secure password. Watch out for Social Engineering.  Beware of Spearphishing attacks.  Look at what US Cyber Command is doing. Lot what DHS is not doing.  How to make a tin foil cap.  Oops, forget that last one.

It occurred to me today that I have not written about anything cyber in the longest time.  Frankly, I’m too tired to look it up.

Guess why?  I’m resting up for a long bout dedicated to mostly cyber.  Please don’t forget cyber is ultimately about information.  Then it is about how that information influences.  Who it influences.  How and why it influences.  I’ll even take a stab at ‘when’, but I haven’t looked into any studies – not yet.  Bottom line, I have been appalled lately at how so many cyber experts think cyber is only about cyber, that it has nothing to do with information or influence.  That it is a means and an end unto itself.

I’m heading up to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in a few hours to participate in the Drexel University Cybersecurity Institute Launch.  When I say “Oh, joy”, I really mean it.  My good friend and former colleague, Norman Balchunas, Col, USAF (Ret) is heading up their “informatics” program and he believes I know a thing or two about cybersecurity.  He’s also standing up a few other sub-groups, one of which is about influence.  Oh, joy.  And yes, I mean it.  Just don’t remind me of the last time I rode my motorcycle through downtown Philly and drove through a pothole the size of Penn Stadium.  I blew out the rear tire (thank goodness it was a run flat), dented the front wheel and shredded the front tire by the time I got home.  But that’s still not as bad as driving through a hurricane later that year.  Yep, I’m probably certifiably crazy.

I seem to be actively engaged these days.  I am still working with the headquarters, Association of Old Crows, for the betterment of the greater EW and IO communities.  I am on the Board of Directors for the local chapter of the AOC, the Capitol Club Chapter.  Now I will be involved with the Drexel University Cybersecurity Institute.  I am about to be announced as joining the National Security Enterprise, a wonderful new graduate school in downtown DC, establishing the Information Strategy Center.  I  just interviewed with the National Cybersecurity Institute at Excelsior College, also in downtown DC (and it’s a paying job!).  I am heading to Uzbekistan in April to teach Information Warfare at their Armed Forces Academy in Tashkent.  I’m writing a paper on the future of IO for The Journal of International Security Affairs.  I think that’s it.

You can’t pay me enough to have this much fun.

A friend posted a picture of college dropouts, acusing one group of being led by college dropouts (and therefore less capable), whereas another group includes a PhD.  I had to laugh…

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg…  All college dropouts, all wildly successful.  But their success and the success of many app developers is creating a problem.

Yesterday I was at the launch of the Drexel University Cybersecurity Institute. During small group working sessions following the ceremony, we were all observing that the new trend is for kids to attend college for two semesters, pick up some new skills and then drop out, intending to write an app and sell it for billions of Dollars, Rupees, Rubles and Rimembe.  Reflecting on myself, years ago, when I was at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, PA, at the time one of the top pre-med schools in the nation.  I thought of myself as some sort of a genus, er, ginius, oops, a geneus…  a smart guy.  I learned quickly that my high school education had not properly prepared me for a school of that caliber.  I knew after my first calculus class, when my professor took roll and didn’t call my name.  I was also not very aggressive. I waited until the second week of class and approached the professor and asked why he never called my name.  He asked my name and then said I had been absent for two weeks (yes, I felt like slapping him).  The professor had a very thick Pakistani accent. So the next class he called my name and looked directly at me.  ”Mister Hadee”.  I knew I was in serious trouble when I couldn’t even understand my own name.  I lasted two years and quit (so I is a college dropout), joined the Army, later returned to college, easily got my degree and then rejoined the Army.   By the way, I know that I is a college dropout is incorrect.  If you’ve ever read me before, you know I want to joke that “I  be a college dropout” is correct…  If you still have doubts, please look at the title?

Speaking of college dropouts, however, I wonder if this trend is going to create a power vacuum in 20 to 30 years.  Certainly, if these dropouts are successful and get most of the money by writing and selling apps, that causes a change in the financial makeup of the American and perhaps more cultures.  If the people who stay in college make decent money as CEOs and COOs, then their ‘lack of success’ may be overshadowed by the college dropouts’ success.  This would create a disincentive to attending colleges and universities, or perhaps just completing a degree.  But I tell you, what I saw at Drexel made me believe in the future of cyber education.  I believe it is gems like that amazing program that will ensure our future will be forged in titanium alloy embedded with nanotechnology and formed with a 3D printer.   Oops, perhaps I should just say forged in steel.

There will always be the people, guys and gals, with the amazing ideas who are the exception.  I believe, however, that the vast majority of future conventional leaders will enter our universities and take advantage of the tremendous opportunites available to them.

Drexel University Cybersecurity Institute launched amidst much fanfare, 150+ attendees, high powered VIPs and world class media.  

Dr. David E. Fenske, dean of the College of Computing & Informatics spoke, as did John A. Fry, Drexel’s president.

Channel 3, Channel 6 and KYW all covered the event. I grew up near Philadelphia and watched these stations and woke up to KYW every morning.

Drexel University’s Cybersecurity program is awash in students with bright gleaming eyes, hard working research and brilliant ideas.  I sat across the table, during a working group following the launch, from a PhD candidate about to get his PhD in May, he is a former Navy Officer.  I met a gentleman who had been in the Army’s 101st Airborne Division just last month but already had a beard that looked like a Navy SEAL’s.  The gentleman between them was another former Navy officer, and yet another PhD candidate.  The Dean at Drexel University, College of Computing and Informatics, Dr. David Fenske, stopped by and met with us and allowed each of us to brief him, individually. He could personally relate to each of us and responded with tales of his own adventures in the wonderful world of cyber.  I was introduced and the introduction was so good I didn’t want to detract, so I said “I think he said it all”.  This is not like me at all…  Perhaps I felt the need to stand out by not saying anything or perhaps I was just humbled by my introduction.  Each of my predecessors spoke for a five full minutes, sometimes more, but there was something in Dr. Fenske’s eyes that told me that less was better, and I am a big believer in my instincts.

“The Institute will act as an information repository by providing consultants and facilitating regional sharing,” said Norman Balchunas, the Institute’s coordinator and director of strategic solutions at Drexel’s College of Computing & Informatics. “This capability is critical to counter criminal and advanced persistent threats that can mean the loss of private financial information, or worse, tampering with supervisory controls of essential power, communication and safety networks.”

Source: DREXEL OPENS CYBERSECURITY INSTITUTE

To begin to wrap it up, programs like this make me believe that amazing things are possible and Drexel’s Cybersecurity Institute is beginning to run on all 12 cylinders (like a Jaguar V12 series engine).  It is a brand new yet already mature, the projects they are already involved with almost boggle the mind.

The Drexel University’s Cybersecurity Institute has close ties with the Wounded Warrior transition program but has already worked to bring in a much more mature, more capable and dedicated students in former military warriors, veterans.  There is an intangible aspect to the program, I believe it can best be described that the students love the program.  At least that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

National Security Enterprise  Source, here.

Joel Harding, the well-known information and influence operations authority in Washington DC, is joining us as Director of the NSE Information Strategy Center. The Center will develop training programs in the areas of information operations, psychological operations, public diplomacy, and strategic influence.

From the National Security Enterprise:

We are excited to announce Joel Harding as the Director of the Information Strategy Center for the National Security Enterprise.  Joel worked in military Information Operations for close to 20 years.  He is also a retired military intelligence officer and former enlisted Special Forces.  Joel is the past director of the former IO Institute with the Association of Old Crows, the Electronic Warfare and Information Operations Association. He currently also serves on the Board of Directors for the local AOC Chapter.  Joel has spoken around the world about Information Warfare, Information Operations and Cyberwar, most notably in Russia and China.  Mr. Harding was also the editor in chief of the IO Journal and hosted InfowarCon 2009 and 2010.  Joel has also researched and written extensively about IO, Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communication, most notably on his blog: To Inform Is To Influence.  

Joel issued a statement:

 I look forward to establishing the Information Strategy Center as part of a larger, comprehensive effort by the National Security Enterprise.  I’m really excited at how the National Security Enterprise is creating a world-class educational program concentrating on strategy, which is being offered to defense, diplomacy, intelligence, law enforcement, security and related fields.  How information activities are integrated as a strategy, at all levels, is of deep interest to current and future leaders and I fully intend to address their concerns.  I am seeking to bring together students with experienced, senior professionals for frank and open discussions for education, to establish innovative publications, and to host and partner for networking and community gatherings.  We have a marked advantage of being located in Washington DC, where many of the best and the brightest are based, in these fields.

For days I’ve been reading the tea leaves and predicting a Russian ‘invasion’ of Ukraine, primarily on my Facebook page.  The subsequent discussions by former military professionals has been interesting.

It looks like Russian efforts are limited to Crimea, which has a predominantly Russian population.

Sergiy Aksyonov, PM of Crimea, called directly to President Putin, for assistance.  This is beyond gall.  He is publicly calling for another sovereign power for assistance inside Ukraine.  Classic and reads like a movie script.

Now, the Russian Upper House has voted unanimously to approve military force in the Ukraine.  Why?

The debate in the Federation Council has revealed that Russian MPs are united on the issue, with many of them sharing concerns on the recent events in Ukraine. The common notion was that since the power was seized in Kiev, the situation has only been deteriorating with radical nationalists rapidly coming to power and threatening the lives of those opposing their actions, most notably the Russian citizens living in Ukraine. Source: RT.

In the meantime President Obama had a press conference saying that Ukrainians have a universal right to determine their own future.  The US supports the Ukrainian government.  Source:, BBC Live, Ukrainian Crisis.

Recent discussions by retired military officers, including a bunch of strategic analysts, indicate that NATO has no history of ever upholding its obligations and preventing foreign incursions. The US only moves when public opinon calls for stopping apparent genocide.  By all counts, Western powers will do nothing.  Nada.  Zip.   Zero.

Oh come on, Mr. President.  We did nothing when Russia invaded South Ossetia in Georgia.  This after it was publicly shown that US forces were training the Georgian military.  We have less power and less reach in that part of the world than anyplace else on the globe.  Crimea voted over 75% of pro-Russian candidates in the last election.  You stopped short of condemning the Russian show of force and the unanimous approval of Russian military deployment to the Ukraine.  We know you are not going to launch a cruise missile and risk outright war with Russia.  We know you are not going to deploy a US carrier group into the Black Sea and risk conventional war.  We know that you are not going to launch the DRF-1 (the standby battalion from the 82nd Airborne Division who is designated for exactly this purpose), they could not be reinforced by conventional troops in a sane amount of time and would be, de facto, sacrificed.  We know you are not going to threaten an attack against Russian forces in Crimea.  We know sanctions are useless.  We know an embargo is useless.  I happen to think your diplomatic gestures are useless.  Mr. President, you appear to be wearing mom jeans, once again.

I predict a bloodless takeover and annexation of East Ukraine.  Eastern Ukraine voted over 75% in favor of pro-Russian candidates.  I believe there will be a call in East Ukraine for uniting with Russia, a bloodless coup and annexation.

In this case there is and was an information fail.  While the world focused on Sochi 2014, Russia was deploying to annex Crimea and possibly all of Eastern Ukraine.  While we sang praises of Russia hosting Sochi, you failed to act decisively, Mr. President.

Admiral Stavridis, former SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander US European Command) and current Dean of the Fletcher School (International Affairs school at Tufts University),  penned an article in Foreign Policy, here, entitled NATO Needs to Move Now on Crimea.   

At the end, true to his multidisciplinary approach to most situations, he recommends cyber actions be considered:

Convening allies with cyber-capabilities (this is not a NATO specialty) to consider options — at a minimum to defend Ukraine if it is attacked in this domain (as Georgia was).

I do not know for a fact about any US Cyber Command plans or operations, but as a former plans chief, I know that many contingencies, once set into action, brush the dust off of plans which are often rehearsed in excruciating detail, and set into motion.  Any plan executed by the US Cyber Command is going to be classified at least at the Top Secret Codeword level and the vast majority of the public will never hear a word of its effectiveness or even if it was executed. Certainly, years from now, we may heard about a plan number that was executed or even a codeword name, but probably never together.

What might they attack?  The list itself would also be highly classified but let’s guess at a few of them, shall we?

We can prioritize some targeting.  Communications at the strategic level.  Intelligence networks.  Communications on Command and Control networks. Air defense networks.  Any operational networks. Logistical networks.

What would we do?  Disrupt, deny, degrade, deceive, corrupt, usurp or destroy the information.  The information, please don’t forget, is the ultimate objective of cyber.  That will directly impact the decision-making process of the adversary’s leader who is the ultimate target.

How can this be done?  Sometimes the most obvious target is not the answer.  There are such things as direct attacks, indirect attacks, cascading effects, second, third and fourth orders of effects and so on.  BUT we cannot forget about the Laws of Armed Conflict and we need to limit unintended consequences on non-military targets.  We do not want to target hospitals in any way, religious objects such as a church or mosque.  The target lists and taboo lists are done well in advance and are refined.  In this case we are seeing thousands of extra soldiers, more vehicles and probably many new networks. This all has to be categorized and ranked.  Then, when all this planning is done, the lawyers get involved.  In my opinion, depending on the size and fit of the underwear they wore that day, the lawyers will confirm or deny targets, weapons and time schedules.

After all this is written and approved by the lawyers, then and only then will the commander be informed for a decision.  Then politics gets involved and a decision has to be made depending on the possibility of exposure, how badly public opinion might result and if our leader has the…  guts.  NOT the word I want to use but it’s almost politically correct.

Bottom line, it’s good to see cyber options are being considered for use against Russia in Ukraine. It’s about time.

This from someone inside Ukraine. For their security I must say that I don’t know where in Ukraine they live.   

Sorry I haven’t had time to respond properly. I think the disparity in press releases after Obama’s phone call to Putin about summarizes things in my mind. Russian propaganda continues to abound and is manipulating events to portray Russians in Ukraine as being in imminent danger, begging for Russian assistance. This is a fabricated pretext for invasion and violates several international agreements. Inserting troops without uniforms or insignia is particularly insidious and deceptive, as it serves to sow fear among the populace. Yanukovych’s slip during his press conference in which he referred to his Russian patrons and himself as “we” was telling in many ways, although I had the feeling that Putin may have abandoned him when he saw the writing on the wall.

Sorry for the rambling response, but I guess the key point to make is that Russian actions are not only illegitimate, but illegal under several standards of international law, including the very specific Budapest Accord from 1994.

Obviously this person has not been swayed by the Russian propaganda.

No Words are necessary.