I love the USMC MCDPs (Marine Corps Doctrinal Publications). They’re short, readable, and get to the point.
Last year, I wanted to deep dive MCDP 1-4 Competing because it’s that good, and as far as I’m aware, there is not a better publication on just what “competition” is.
Just look at this graphic.
Unfortunately, I just never got to it.
MCDP 8 Information was released earlier this summer and I wanted to do the same.
It’s worth reading through. It captures the information field nicely.
Some highlights below.
On the “compressed levels of warfare and battlespace”:
Information’s instant, global, and persistent nature compresses the levels of warfare and increases the chances a local action will have a global impact. The ease with which information flows worldwide allows people to continuously monitor local events on a global scale. This phenomenon is unique to the information age. It is powerful because political actors (state or non-state), interest groups, and individual people can scan the globe for local events and use them to reinforce their cause or narrative of choice.
This access, combined with the relative ease with which our adversaries can distort and manipulate information about events through various media, makes every tactical action-even if beneficial or benign to the local population- a potentially disruptive regional or global incident.
Of course, there is a section on “narrative,” which is actually pretty good, but “narrative” is still such a squishy term. Even in this publication, it’s not quite clear what is supposed to be done with it.
I love the below:
PRIORITIZING INFORMATION
The global information environment creates countless opportunities to generate and leverage ambiguity, uncertainty, and friction. It also offers many pathways for world and military leaders to communicate with one another and with relevant populations. Regardless of the situation, commanders, by the very nature of their roles, must prioritize activities that place information considerations at the forefront.
Emphasis mine.
I’ve seen this sentiment in a number of places. What I haven’t seen is the commander turn to the information specialist and say “tell me how to craft this operation to have the most powerful information effect.”
And that’s where we need to be.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
II Marine Expeditionary Force Information Group (II MIG) presents the first episode of Gladiator School (podcast). The first Episode features Colonel Brian Russell, Commanding Officer of II MEF and 2nd Lt. Rebekah Harasick, II MIG Communication Strategy and Operations officer, discussing how II MIG operates in the information environment.
I listened to the audio version (subscribe here) before I checked out their YouTube channel. Really well done, and good quality.
There’s a lot to like about this first episode.
First, I particularly appreciate the way we’re not getting hung up on terms (is it ‘information warfare’ or is it ‘operations in the information environment?’ – not actually super important). Getting worked up about that (which many people do) doesn’t help.
Second, the recognition that “we’re in it.” Whether you like it or not, we’re all “in” the information environment. You don’t really get to choose.
You do, however, get to choose how you participate.
The USMC is doing a lot of work. I recently listened to the ADETs episode and I’ve become a fan of the Phoenix Cast as well.
Looking forward to seeing where this podcast goes.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Episode #102 of the Cognitive Crucible podcast. This one on the Marine Corps’ ‘All Domain Effects Team” (ADET) concept.
ADETs are task-organized forces that integrate information capabilities with lethal fires to achieve effects in the forward operating environment across the competition continuum in support of joint, allied, and coalition forces. These teams are intended to provide a scalable, mobile, and lethal force capable of operating across air, land, sea, space, and cyber domains simultaneously.
A discussion on the composition of the ADET teams starts at about the 14:00 minute mark, starting with the “inform and influence” team.
“People will be like, whoa, pause, how can you have those two working together?
Brian Schweers, ~14:15
He’s not wrong – people will be like “whoa, pause.”
And they shouldn’t be. If we’re not synchronizing and coordinating, then we’re doing it wrong.
What is “information awareness?”
“There is an overall lack of doctrine and taxonomy in the informational world to understand what does ‘informational awareness’ mean.
Yup. Different things to different people.
On “narrative.”
It’s plainly obvious, especially when we look at the Ukrainian-Russian war, how Ukraine has used the narrative to gain that international support. Mobilizing public opinion and galvanizing the will, realizing the narrative, is power.
Isn’t odd that we know what we mean when we use the term “narrative” but it isn’t actually anything baked into doctrine? How do you “do” narrative? What do we even mean?
I hear it every day. “We have to get the narrative right” or “we need to push the narrative.”
Ok, I know what you mean. But do you?
There’s a good vignette at the ~36:00 mark on how to leverage media rapidly in a tactical environment. The whole thing hinges on “release chains” and release authority. To get it right, there needs to be an understanding of what you might see and what you might do before you see it and before you do it in order to get the authority to execute into the right hands.
Finally, when asked where there is room for growth and what academic questions need to be answered:
How do you actually measure effects in the cognitive realm in the informational domain?
In this crossover episode of the Phoenix Cast and Cognitive Crucible, John Bicknell is joined by John Schreiner, Kyle Moschetto and Rich Vaccariello. The podcast hosts discuss why they started their respective casts, how they view competition, the key take-aways of their casts, the top must listen episodes, and the other podcasts they listen to.
I think I’ve listened to a Phoenix Cast episode before, but I wasn’t a subscriber. I am now.
Two things that I took away from this episode. The first is the idea that podcasts like these are a form of “PME” – professional military education.
That seems like a no-brainer – of course they are. But there are still a lot of folks out there that don’t listen to podcasts – which is fine. It’s a form of media – but not everyone is into it.
The second thing is the concept of “term warfare.” This is something we see all the time these days when we’re trying to describe some niche element of warfare.
We should be careful when trying to introduce a new term into the already crowded military lexicon. There’s probably already a term out there that describes whatever you’re thinking about.
On the other hand, sometimes we do need a specific term. Sometimes that term matters.
I’ve got a few of the Phoenix Cast’s episodes in my queue. The focus of their podcasts is more cyber/IT – which is good, because I don’t get enough of that.
And speaking of “term warfare” and cyber – this is a reminder, cyber isn’t PSYOP. Cyber isn’t “IO.”
It is its own thing. And you have to understand it.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
A great piece of #FICINT that captures what I think will be a defining element of future war – and competition – smear war.
“All this is very fascinating, general,” she said. “But I think we could benefit from some clarity on how else you plan to change the Corps. Is it your intention to keep female Marines dressing differently from males? Do you want to keep female Marines ‘in a box’, so to speak?”
Chinese tourists take a ‘selfie’ at the Golden Temple in Amritsar on November 14, 2016, as Sikh devotees mark the 547th birth anniversary of Sri Guru Nanak Dev. Guru Nanak was the founder of the Sikh religion and the first of ten Sikh gurus. / AFP / NARINDER NANU Getty Images
Late last year, the Marine Corps released MCDP 1-4 ‘Competing.’ It’s a great pamphlet that captures the nature of the global competition we find ourselves in today. I would recommend it as a primer for anyone who wants to know more about what ‘great power competition’ looks like. It’s well-researched and well-written.
Over the summer, I plan on lifting a few things from Competing to explore a little further. The first of these is mentioned on page 4-10 as a part of the ‘common characteristics of our rivals approach to competition.’
‘Weaponization of benign activities.’
While a definition isn’t offered, if you have been paying attention, the concept is almost immediately apparent.
Competing provides a short vignette two pages later which discusses the idea in the context of tourism.
Weaponization of Benign Activities:Tourism in Targeted Countries
Palau is an island nation strategically located east of the Philippines, has only 20,000 citizens, and maintains diplomatic relations with Taiwan. About 2014, China put Palau on its approved list for overseas tourism.
By 2015, Chinese tourists flooded Palau, created a Chinese- funded hotel construction boom, and bought up buildings and apartments. Chinese-owned restaurants and small businesses also started, displacing local enterprises. Chinese tour groups were typically self-contained, staying in Chinese-owned hotels and bringing their own tour guides, which froze out locally owned tourism businesses. The influx of Chinese tourism created divisions between Paulauans benefiting from the tourism and those threatened by the displaced businesses, increased living costs, and damage to the local environment brought by the tourism flood.
In late 2017, Beijing placed Palau off-limits for package tours, dramatically affecting Palau’s economy. The off-limits order was reportedly an effort to put pressure on Taiwan via their relationship with Palau. China used tourism to create an economic dependency and then manipulated it to help them achieve their aims.
Weaponization of benign activities. In conducting their political warfare operations, Russia and China have weaponized many normally benign activities. These include but are not limited to diplomatic discussions; conventional and unconventional media operations; tourism into targeted countries; flows of students; visit diplomacy; the establishment of “friendship societies” and similar front organizations; the purchase of well-located pieces of land, key infrastructure, and strategically important companies; accessing, often by stealing, protected intellectual property; managing trade and investment flows; exploiting education systems, and manipulating immigration arrangements.
The weaponization of benign activities will serve as the constant, slow-burn tactic of great power competition. These are events and processes that unfold over years and will be a nuisnance to military, diplomatic, and political leaders who will feel compelled to “do something” in response.
There is a related tactic that we already see every day – and that’s the weaponization of benign information. If you spend any amount of time on social media, you see this when someone includes a screenshot that provides ‘evidence’ of some transgression, however slight or implied. This is a tactic employed by provacateurs and trolls alike. Irrelevant personal details might be tossed on the fire to smear someone. Those details may not add anything useful, but they work as an accelerant with the target audience, carrying unseen weight.
You also see this tactic when headlines are contorted by different organizations to feed a certain narrative.
And of course, you see this when conspiracy theorists posit that some trite piece of information contains hidden meaning.
Words are already loaded with history and stories behind them. Arranged in the right way, they can convey the meaning you want to the right audience and they won’t even have to read the article. Important here, is that this technique is not likely to shift global opinion or ‘win the war.’ Rather, it might nudge the dial just a little bit over time.
More consequently, the weaponization of benign activities/informtation could result in an overreaction, which is why I argue we all need to be a little more patient and let the dust settle when there are bombastic information flare-ups.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
It was a good week for the blog. My post 7 Underrated Military Blogs that Can’t Get No Respect got a lot of attention, which in turn pushed a lot of people to those blogs that don’t get enough love. Hopefully with the influx of new readers, they’ll start posting more.
For whatever reason, though, the top search term was ‘women at usmc school infantry.’ In the world of ‘women in the infantry,’ the recent news that would have people looking for stuff is the recent story of the three women who passed the first day of the Marine Corps Infantry School – the much-vaunted Endurance Test.
Last year, when this story was hot, I posted an image gallery titled the Faceless Women of the United States Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course. I’ve always found it interesting – and a little weird – that the images that accompany the stories always have faceless women. It’s done for privacy, and there is an agreement between the USMC and the media to not show their faces. It creates an odd effect though, of a faceless, personality-stripped female trainee. The pictures in that gallery often features a female Marine alone, or with another female, in a gloomy, cold physical trial. It’s especially weird when viewed in contrast with the Marines’ “Infantrywomen of Instagram,” having just finished the enlisted infantry course, with big bright smiles.
The picture accompanying the Washington Post article also features faceless women infantry trainees, in contrast to the exposed faces of the male trainees.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
A friend who knows about my interest in the whole ‘infidel’ phenomenon sent me this article from the Marine Corps Times last week (Marine vet’s ‘infidel’ knives a pointed jab at the enemy). The article is a profile of a USMC veteran who has started a small business making combat knives for a mostly military audience. A good thing, in and of itself. Check out his webpage or his Facebook page – the knives look gorgeous.
However, these knives are special. From his website:
Bates Tactical Knives are not for the politically correct. Every blade is stamped with the word “Infidel” in Arabic. During the hardening process the red-hot blade is pulled from the forge and immediately quenched in liquid with pig’s blood added to it, completing the “Infidel” touch.
Click here for a picture from the company’s Facebook page of Mr. Bates smelling a fresh batch of pig’s blood.
I’ve beaten the infidel subject to death, and I’ve made an argument that to champion the whole ‘infidel’ thing might put you in the extremist category, so I’ll let this stand here as is and let you be the judge.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
A couple of weeks ago two really interesting things emerged in military writing. One is this story on the Marine Corps urination case in the Marine Corps Times (“Exclusive: Marine scout sniper in urination video controversy speaks out“). The other was an article from Military Review that was featured on Tom Rick’s Best Defense (“The Myths We Soldiers Tell Ourselves“). One an article based on an interview with one of the Marines being punished for the urination video, the other a scholarly article by two active and one retired Army Lieutenant Colonels that taught Ethics at West Point.
I read both of these articles within a day of each other and couldn’t help but notice how they unintentionally bleed into one another. I encourage you to read both articles in their entirety and make your own judgments. While you’re at it, you should also read this – “Warriors, the Army Ethos, and the Sacred Trust of Soldiers.”
I pulled these paragraphs from the articles, because they appear to be talking to each other:
From the Marine Corps Times:
What really led up to it is they desecrated one of our Marines,” Richards said of the video. “When you’re under that much stress and in that environment, your whole mental being changes. You’re no longer Joe the Family Man. You’re a warrior, and if you read back to biblical wars and wars since the dawn of time, men have been doing this to men for millennia.
From “Myths”:
The authors argued in a previous essay, “War is a Moral Force,” that the most critical considerations of human conflict are the moral ones. These considerations were as important to the Romans as they are now to us, not something new to modern war. However, the information age has amplified the effects. There may have been a time when mythologizing served a useful purpose in war, but only ignorance could make it work. Today, in an age in which information flies around the world at the speed of light, immediately bringing a great coherency and power to moral opinion, we can no longer assume such ignorance will last. We cannot long hope to be allowed to say we are one thing while actually being something else. Our spoken words (and values) must be indicative of our actions.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Another two women recently failed the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course, joining the other two who failed late last year. I’m proud of them for trying. I’m fascinated by the photos that accompany the stories. There are always photos of the women, but their faces are never shown. I’m guessing there is probably some rule There is a Pentagon rule that protects the women from being identified, so the photographers cannot publish pictures showing their faces.
Enjoy the posts? Subscribe to the monthly newsletter.
Processing…
Success! You're on the list.
Whoops! There was an error and we couldn't process your subscription. Please reload the page and try again.
Carrying the Gun 