UK Government Looks to "Armed Propaganda" to Win Wars

For both sides, showing successful attacks on the opposition or highlighting the abuses of occupying forces is essential to forcing a withdrawal through undermining domestic support or fomenting international unpopularity.

The latest report on global strategic trends from the Ministry of Defence calls this “armed propaganda”, highlighting the fact that attacks may be staged as much for their value on YouTube as their physical effect in weakening the enemy. From this point of view, all wars are media wars and, with this in mind, the MoD predicts that “kinetic” force will become less important as social influence becomes increasingly significant in defending British interests.

UK Government Looks to "Armed Propaganda" to Win Wars

Military forces have long talked about "winning hearts and minds," and of course psychological warfare and psyops will be familiar topics to many on ATS.

What seems to be new about this particular approach is that it seems more finely-tuned than past efforts I have read about. And rather than targeting insurgents or soldiers directy, it targets people on the homefront. The effort is not to sap the will of the fighters or impact their ideologcial orientation; rather, it is to undermine the systems of support for the war effort as a whole in the societies they emerge from. Thus, it is a bit like attacking the logistical supply train of an army, but on the cognative level.

This approach also makes use of social networks...everything is social networks these days, it seems. Businesses have been establishing social networking strategies for some time. Now its the military's term to get all sociable.

ATS is a social network, of sorts, and one that is very political in nature. It seems ripe for targeting.

There is, of course, a shadow side to this effort. If governments can convince people that the enemy is trying to undermine their nation's efforts on social networks, then they can also shut down legitimate dissent on the homefront. The possibilities for domestic oppression are unsettling to say the least.

The use of the expresson "armed propaganda" also is effective in giving the impression that words are weapons. Expressing your opinion mught thus not be considered "free speech" but a type of insurrection.

Scary.

reply to post by KarensHoliday


Oh they're very clear on it… Bush says this a couple different ways. What he really is saying is, "You are either with us or you are the enemy".

reply to post by KarensHoliday


PSYOP targeting the Soldiers has always been pretty much weak sauce. The Russians are winning this one. Not only have they migrated there, but they have also given the local populace Russian status passports way prior to kicking this off.

The West is way behind the power curve on this one. To be truthful, I blame the US administration as they have no clue to what they are dealing with and ignore advice from others that do.

reply to post by intrptr


Bush isn't in charge anymore.

We can't blame him for this fiasco.

reply to post by TDawgRex

Bush isn't in charge anymore.

We can't blame him for this fiasco.

They all go one way together. Nothings changed. You just have to go back to "Daddys little decider" to hear it.

reply to post by intrptr


But who is "Daddy's Little Decider?" Soros? The Koch Brothers? The Rothchilds, etc, etc.

Hell I'm so stressed/pissed lately I'm afraid I might start smoking again.

Armed propaganda worked quite well in Libya, had some effect in Egypt and while also used in Syria has just become another entrenched front in this messy situation. As with all wars there are many factors with lots of resources in play and at stake. While cyber lies can be tough to fight I would rather them than cyber machines.