08.11.2014 Views

Download - Foreign Military Studies Office - U.S. Army

Download - Foreign Military Studies Office - U.S. Army

Download - Foreign Military Studies Office - U.S. Army

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

primarily to systems and equipment and give scant reference to the mind.<br />

Similarly, IW should have been defined differently than it was in JP 3-<br />

13 and JP 1-02. War is defined by Webster= s dictionary as a “state of usually<br />

open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations.” JP 1-02<br />

does not define war. This is an interesting point. How can one possibly define<br />

IW if we do not define “war”? The question is worth asking, for avoidance of<br />

controversy is hardly an acceptable price for lack of clarity. This can become a<br />

troubling condition. For example, consider the emphasis we put on the correct<br />

determination of an “objective” or a “center of gravity” as operational or<br />

strategic principles. 117 If we do not define the terms properly, can we make the<br />

proper determination? Was a weak definition the reason that IW is no longer in<br />

the US army’s lexicon? If this is so, we will need to inform the international<br />

military community (coalition forces that support us), because they are still<br />

using the IW phraseology.<br />

JP 1-02 defines IW as “information operations conducted during times<br />

of crisis or conflict to achieve or promote specific objectives over a specific<br />

adversary or adversaries.” The latter part of this definition sounds more like the<br />

definition of an operation, in that an operation carries on combat to “gain the<br />

objectives of any battle or campaign.” Further, the definition of war can only be<br />

inferred to mean “crisis or conflict” based on the definition of IW in JP 1-02.<br />

That is the only difference between IO and IW.<br />

This problem is exacerbated when foreign concepts are bumped up<br />

against US concepts. For example, the 1986 Russian <strong>Military</strong> Encyclopedia<br />

defined “military information” (there was no entry for information) as<br />

“information of a military nature, as well as the process of transmission and<br />

receiving of such information.” An “operation” was defined by the<br />

encyclopedia as<br />

An aggregate of battles, engagements, strikes and maneuvers,<br />

coordinated and interlinked in objective, tasks, place and time, by<br />

various force organizations, conducted simultaneously and sequentially<br />

according to a common concept and plan, to accomplish missions in a<br />

theater of operations, a strategic or operational sector, or within a<br />

specified period of time; a form of military operations.<br />

“War” was defined as “a sociopolitical phenomenon, continuation of<br />

politics by violent means…armed struggle comprises the specific content of<br />

117 Discussion with Dr. Geoff Demarest, FMSO, on 14 November 2002.<br />

64

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!