Journal Entry (Module 10) CYSE 201S

LINK to Article:
Social Cybersecurity An Emerging National Security Requirement (army.mil)

This writing is in response to the article titled “”Social Cybersecurity: A Holistic Approach” written by Lt. Col. David M. Beskow, U.S. Army.

David defines the issue stating, “Social cybersecurity is an emerging scientific area focused on the science to characterize, understand, and forecast cyber-mediated changes in human behavior, social, cultural, and political outcomes, and to build the cyber-infrastructure needed for society to persist in its essential character in a cyber-mediated information environment under changing conditions, actual or imminent social cyber-threats.”

In plain speak he is saying there is a shifting focus on trying to understand how modern technology can be used to influence populations, specifically in the context of nation states targeting other nations citizenry. How can nations defend against and utilize this domain for war and national interests?

He then brings into focus the current information warfare environment referencing Russian “Information Operations”. The writer is LT Colonel in the Army, so he is not immune from using a lot of military jargon that everyday citizens are not familiar with. I will do my best to translate what he is saying into real life/ easy-to-understand language. Those with military experience or intelligence background will be able to read between the lines of his wording, although many others will not.

The article makes a lot of big claims amping up the Russians activities, but it does not give many specific instances or explanations to what they’ve actually accomplished. It’s the equivalent of your friend saying their neighbor is acting strange and has been doing weird things but doesn’t explain beyond “they’re just acting weird”. I think the author uses the fact that people just accept that Russia is the boogeyman and at the same time recognize his authority as a US Military member and take him at his word. Readers will nod their heads that Russia is doing advanced cyberwarfare against us. While it may be true, using actual examples would help his case.

The single example provided is that a Russian created a website “USAreallyDOTcom” and he asserts its intent was “to both spread a twisted narrative as well as agitate in a manner aimed at promoting discord among the American populace”. He doesn’t explain the contents of the site or why it was “twisted” information.

LT. Col David does get it poppin’ with some hot takes that are very interesting and that I mostly agree with, specifically in this section –

“The United States’ two greatest security measures are still called the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Crimea was annexed by Russia largely because of the strategic importance of its Black Sea Port (as well as energy implications). Afghanistan instability will persist partly because of its geography. Geography does and always will matter. However, numerous factors, to include technology, have arguably shifted the pendulum toward the human dimension. This shift toward the human domain was hotly debated inside the U.S. military during the War on Terrorism. After years of debate, the majority seemed to agree with the quote from a 2009 article in Small Wars Journal: “One of the most profound changes the U.S. military must make to be effective at countering insurgency is to shift strategic centers of gravity from the physical to the human aspects of warfare.”

In the last part what he means with “strategic centers of gravity” and the “physical and human elements” is simply, If the US wants to win wars and accomplish its goals it needs to focus on hearts and minds, how to sway people’s psychology versus being able to overpower and dominate opponents with bombs and bullets. Psychological Warfare is the name of the game going forward and not as much dropping bombs and kicking doors down.

The US Military dominated insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, however it wasn’t a success because ultimately, we failed to convince the people they should conduct themselves a certain way. The horse was led to water very quickly, but we couldn’t make it drink.

What he’s talking about is there’s a laser focus on how to combat ideologies and ideas versus just being able to kill things. You can take down a lot of people and control their home terrain for decades, but how do you stamp out an ideology? Ultimately that is what you’re fighting. Your fighting ideas/religions, and cultural beliefs. Kill one terrorist, 5 more pop up with the same sympathies.

Here’s his big transition where very potently states his entire focus “Multiple other state and nonstate actors observed these changes and began exploring the idea of manipulating these movements through cyberspace.” BOOM. There it is. How do we use this new technology to influence people to our desired outcomes? How do we shift their minds to a position we are comfortable with? Information Warfare in a nutshell.

“Directly targeting the fabric of society, the true center of gravity of a nation, has massive ramifications for the tactical through strategic levels of war, and is the genesis of this emerging domain of social cybersecurity.” Straight from the horse’s mouth.

He makes two very obvious but important points. Technology is “decentralized” and “physical presence is not required”. Well yeah, we all know that…..right? But why does he say it? and what does he mean??? He’s ultimately saying it so military leaders understand the new war isn’t one where you can invade a geographic location and that the war spreads far and wide in a domain that you can’t physically put people to fight. He’s saying in today’s world you can’t give a Humvee full of Marines and Soldiers M4’s and Flashbangs then send them into cyberspace to fight the information war. He’s letting his organizations people know that isn’t going to work anymore and they need to change how they think about conflict. It’s not going to be won the way it always had been since they were coming up through the ranks. Not with the invention that allows people to communicate and spread ideas all over the world from anywhere at any time. The Military no longer has a monopoly on war, the advantage has shifted to people and their ability to spread their message. If an adversary spreads their message better than they can, its game over. Welcome to the 21st Century!

Whether this LT. Col is aware or not, I’d argue he very much is, he is getting into some very dark and scary territory with these ideas. Let’s go deeper, here are some of his quotes. Let’s do the math.

“Those nations that value freedom of speech and open marketplaces for opinions and ideas are more vulnerable to these threats.”

“The vulnerability of open societies to social manipulation through technology is exacerbated by the fact that most of these strategic information efforts are launched on global social media platforms that are privately owned and outside of the direct supervision of governments (though influenced by regulation).”

Hmmmm. Open societies such as the US, b/c of free speech, puts them at strategic disadvantage. The method for using freedom of speech these days has shifted to mostly technical means, and the government does not have the power, as of right now, to enforce their will upon these outlets and control what information is allowed. How sad.

“Government censorship of content is assumed to be partisan and violates the freedom of speech espoused by these governments.”

Tell me you’re itching for government censorship w/o telling me you’re itching for government censorship…….

Seriously? “Is assumed to”.

He then dives into how “bots” work and some the applications they can be used for. Notice though he labeled them “force multipliers”. All my Vets and Intel folks out there know that’s a word reserved for good things. Hes saying Bots can aid the information warfare mission and empower efforts more effectively than before. Force Multiplier =Very Good! If you were lost in the woods during a camping trip with your friends, compasses and maps would be “force multipliers”.

“Arguably, the greatest strategic weakness for any country is internal, not external.”

In other words, the biggest threat is our own citizens buying into ideas we don’t like or condone.

“We as military leaders must understand that one of the information blitzkrieg lines of effort will be to drive a wedge of distrust between us and the society we defend as well as civil leadership that leads us.”

Hes saying its paramount we control the narrative because if not our own population will lose faith in our institutions and see us as illegitimate. We must hang on to our social hegemony by combating lies.

“If one of our primary missions is to “sustain American influence abroad,” then we need to find our role in promoting American values in this international marketplace of beliefs and ideas within a coordinated interagency effort.”

Promoting American Values? What are “American Values”? He doesn’t say.

Also, when he says “interagency” he means Dept. of Defense and the intelligence apparatus. NSA/CIA/ State Dept, etc… with the support of leaders in Government.

Heres his summary…… Pay close attention.

“In summary, we must directly educate our force and indirectly educate our society about the decentralized nature of the modern information environment, the risks that exist, and ways and means to individually vet the facts and opinions that we digest and allow to shape our beliefs and attitudes. We must develop a multidisciplinary approach to social cybersecurity. We must build relevant policy that enables social cybersecurity. We must seek to remove any wedge of distrust artificially driven between our military and the society we defend. We must search for the DOD role in an interagency effort to combat the information blitzkrieg we face today. Social cybersecurity is a required discipline for the foreseeable future.”

Educate the force = Military personnel

Indirectly = seemingly not on actual purpose.

build relevant policy = government mandates and control.

“remove ANY wedge of distrust b/w OUR military and the society we defend.”

So, ANY possible critique of negative information being shared about the DOD must be squashed out and there must be policies in place to prevent that from occurring? And if not, then our society who obviously don’t have the brains to decide for themselves will see us illegitimate and we can’t have that b/c if anyone’s going to tell Americans what they can and cannot think it’s going to be me!