How do you define Information Warfare?
As revealed last night on IWC Self-synchronization Live:
“Information Warfare: Actions and capabilities to defeat any enemy by using assured command and control, battlespace awareness, integrated fires, and freedom of maneuver in and through the information environment.”
The official redesignation of the Information Dominance Corps to the Information Warfare Community was announced via NAVADMIN 023/16:
UNCLASSIFIED//
ROUTINE
R 021815Z FEB 16
FM CNO WASHINGTON DC
TO NAVADMIN
INFO CNO WASHINGTON DC
BT
UNCLAS
NAVADMIN 023/16
SUBJ/INFORMATION DOMINANCE CORPS REDESIGNATED INFORMATION WARFARE COMMUNITY//
MSGID/NAVADMIN/CNO WASHINGTON DC/N2N6/FEB//
RMKS/1. Effective immediately, the Information Dominance Corps is redesignated as the Information Warfare Community.
2. This redesignation reflects the rising influence of global information systems and the increasing rate of technological creation and adoption, as reflected in the Chief of Naval Operations A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority. This transition also aligns Information Warfare as a predominant warfare area. The name change highlights three fundamental capabilities which form the mission of the Information Warfare Community: providing sufficient overmatch in command and control, understanding the battlespace and adversaries, and projecting power through and across all domains.
3. OPNAV N2N6, in conjunction with key Fleet stakeholders, is developing a plan to accomplish the many actions required to reflect the name change (to include, but not limited to, updating command names and relevant OPNAV instructions and manuals). Details of this plan will be communicated over the coming months.
4. Designators and ratings within the new Information Warfare Community will remain unchanged. However, the community of officers with the 181X/681X/781Xdesignators will be renamed and communicated via separate correspondence.
5. The OPNAV N2N6 point of contact is CAPT John Lewin at (703) 604-5842/DSN 664 or via e-mail at john.j.lewin(at)navy.mil.
6. Released By Vice Admiral Ted N. Branch, Deputy Chief of Navy Operations for Information Warfare, N2N6.//
BT
#0001
NNNN
UNCLASSIFIED//
20 February 2016 at 19:22
“War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” – Clausewitz
Applying Clausewitz in the Information Domain, Information Warfare would be defined as “An act of force to compel our enemy to do our will in the Information Domain.”
General Dominance Theory (GDT) provides a more modern theory of war that is very much complimented by Clauswitz.
In GDT, “Dominance” is defined as, “the state where you can make your desired reality the actual reality.” Warfare is subsequently defined as, “the struggle against an opponent to achieve and retain a perfect ability to affect reality and perception or reality” – or simply, “the pursuit of Dominance.”
Applying GDT in the Information Domain, Information Warfare would be, “the struggle against an opponent to retain an Ability to Affect the Information domain and maintain an accurate Perception of Information Reality” – or simply, “The pursuit of Information Dominance.”
There is a post on Disruptive Thinkers on GDT: http://disruptivethinkers.org/general-dominance-theory-and-the-idc/
LikeLike
20 February 2016 at 19:51
Regarding the definition you cited,
“Information Warfare: Actions and capabilities to defeat any enemy by using assured command and control, battlespace awareness, integrated fires, and freedom of maneuver in and through the information environment.”
– This clearly attempts to capture the IDC Core Capabilities. However, a definition like this should neither be service nor community specific. Does this mean that any time I am not using a core capability I am not engaged in Information Warfare? Why should the Navy's Definition of Information Warfare be different from the Amy? It shouldn't, therefore it must be more general.
– “freedom of maneuver” is a way to incompletely describe the concept in GDT of making your desires into reality. So “freedom of maneuver” includes movement, but what about ability to affect your opponent? Don't we also want that? Integrated fires are great, but it doesn't matter if it doesn't affect your opponent. A group of synchronized swimmers are absolutely employing integrated fires, but are not affecting the opponent.
– the idea of “defeat” is undefined here. What is the criteria for defeat? Does it mean total annihilation? In GDT, the end state is not the defeat of an enemy, but the dominance over an opponent, where Dominance is defined as the ability to make desire into reality. So with GDT, warfare is when you struggle to achieve Dominance. The criteria is simple, either you can make your desire into reality, or you can't. Whether the enemy or adversary is degraded, denied, or destroyed, you can achieve success.
Blending GDT with the IDC Self-Sync definition:
“Information Warfare: actions and capabilities employed in a struggle against an opponent in the Information Domain in the pursuit of Information Dominance.”
or
“Information Warfare: actions and capabilities employed in a struggle against an opponent in the Information Domain in the pursuit of making Information desires into Information reality.”
or, just KISS:
“Information Warfare: the pursuit of Information Dominance.”
(where “Information Dominance: the ability to make your desires into reality in the Information Domain, despite the will of an opponent.” <-- which would be a vast improvement over the definition of Information Dominance currently held by the IDC/Navy.)
LikeLike
20 February 2016 at 23:14
Certainly a more generic, and possible more effective, definition. Thanks for the input.
LikeLike