Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
The views expressed by contributors to Dreaming 5GW are entirely their own and may not reflect the views of other contributors or the general editor.
Site
Yesterday a good friend from Virginia sent me an article from “DataTech Government Newsletter” that harshly criticizes the Training Transformation program at U.S. Joint Forces Command (one of ten joint [all-service] Combatant Commands in the U.S. military). Besides harshly maligning the corporate culture at my former employer (claiming the parking lot isn’t full until nearly 9:00am, and almost empty shortly after 4:00pm), it also accuses the Joint National Training Capability of failing to deliver a product despite a budget of over $170 million.
The curious thing about this article is that DataTech Government Newsletter returns zero hits on a Google search. And a search for “Bob Gerlach”, the alleged “AFU Correspondent” who penned the article, yields a similar doughnut of results. Furthermore, there is no date in the excerpted pages as one would expect from a legitimate publication. And the reference to the current four-star USJFCOM commander (Gen. Jim Mattis, USMC) as “Lt Gen Mattis” (using the U.S. Air Force honorific for a three-star general, not the U.S. Marine Corps “LtGen”) further erodes the credibility of the piece. Lastly, the subsequent article references a non-existent “North American Health Logistics Forum” (again, zero Google hits) and “Section 16 under USC Code [sic] 27”, the portion of U.S. federal law that addressed Prohibition and has been repealed for more than seventy years. You can download the excerpted 1.4MB .PDF file here.
Could this be an elaborate hoax — an attack designed to change the very context by which an entity is perceived — to discredit U.S. Joint Forces Command’s training activities? A former colleague told me that not only are they aware of this piece, but that Major General Kamiya (the Joint Training Director) distributed it to all personnel. When faced with an anonymous foe who wants to distort perceptions, I think MG Kamiya’s response was very appropriate.
[Crossposted @ Oz]
The curious thing about this article is that DataTech Government Newsletter returns zero hits on a Google search. And a search for “Bob Gerlach”, the alleged “AFU Correspondent” who penned the article, yields a similar doughnut of results. Furthermore, there is no date in the excerpted pages as one would expect from a legitimate publication. And the reference to the current four-star USJFCOM commander (Gen. Jim Mattis, USMC) as “Lt Gen Mattis” (using the U.S. Air Force honorific for a three-star general, not the U.S. Marine Corps “LtGen”) further erodes the credibility of the piece. Lastly, the subsequent article references a non-existent “North American Health Logistics Forum” (again, zero Google hits) and “Section 16 under USC Code [sic] 27”, the portion of U.S. federal law that addressed Prohibition and has been repealed for more than seventy years. You can download the excerpted 1.4MB .PDF file here.
Could this be an elaborate hoax — an attack designed to change the very context by which an entity is perceived — to discredit U.S. Joint Forces Command’s training activities? A former colleague told me that not only are they aware of this piece, but that Major General Kamiya (the Joint Training Director) distributed it to all personnel. When faced with an anonymous foe who wants to distort perceptions, I think MG Kamiya’s response was very appropriate.
[Crossposted @ Oz]
Posted by deichmans on Feb 2, 2008 09:00 PM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 5GW Attack on JFCOM?.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/234.
5 Comments
Disturbing.
I have a follow-up/addendum to my Nuts and Bolts post dealing with memetic warfare that ties into this almost perfectly. Unfortunately, I seem to be having problems getting my articles to publish and Curtis hasn’t gotten back to me yet so it has been sitting in limbo for a bit more than a week.
The core of it though deals with the controlled introduction of specifically tailored memes into systems that spread virally in order to achieve a specific effect or consilience of affects. This report fits that almost perfectly. The real damage a report like this can do is second or third hand as a reference or source for follow-on articles from legitimate information sources that are influenced by its allegations and tone.
I think the response from JFCOM is interesting though I’m not sure it is effective. The program personnel may now be aware of the false nature of the report and if asked can respond but this seems very passive to me. Yet, if the response is too aggressive in eliminating the false-report people start to look for a ‘cover-up’ and the conspiracy theorists come out of the woodwork.
For an organization that has limits on its transparency what would be the best way to combat an attack on the perception of that organization?
Dan, ARH, Thx for chiming in.
ARH, I think you’re on to something with your notion of “organizational transparency” — and the methods by which they respond to disinformation. Since USJFCOM would clearly have more to lose from an aggressive response, perhaps the more-passive approach (along with a healthy trust in personnel to respond apropriately to inquiries) was the best option available.
An interesting follow-up is “What kind of organizations can reply with impunity — and is their ability to retaliate a by-product of transparency (or lack thereof)?”
“What kind of organizations can reply with impunity — and is their ability to retaliate a by-product of transparency (or lack thereof)?”
Good question!
My initial answer was an organization with a lack of transparency. Like the “DataTech Government Newsletter” an organization of that type is a perfect 5GW proxy and would be able to make any allegation or claim it desires. However, thinking about it further, and considering the implications of a battle of opposing 5GW organizations engaging in a memetic war of information and disinformation my answer would have to be the most transparent organization. That kind of organization has a reputation that is beyond reproach. In an environment where ideas are constantly at odds with one another, and every argument is muddled with 5GW attack dog proxies spreading disinformation, the organizations that have the appearance of complete transparency will be the ones that can be relied upon as honest brokers and their messages will carry the most weight.
In the web of organizations that I envision a 5GW affector will create, attack dog proxies will be created for specific purposes and easily discarded once they have served that purpose, however these transparent ‘honest brokers’ either created or co-opted will be pearls beyond price to be carefully defended and nurtured.
I don’t think the target is Joint Forces command.
The things pointed to in to article would make its credibility suspect by anyone at Joint Forces command.
People (not in the no, perhaps outside of the US, who are potential allies or fence-sitters may have their opinion of the US future military capability lessened. These people I think might be the targets.