Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment

A short while back, in giving my reactions to Dr Who of that week, I mentioned the Myth of Redemptive Violence. Well, this article brings home to me just why we need to pay increasing attention to the issue: the military are actively seeking to exercise hegemony in global society, that is they are seeking to win acceptance and a perceived 'naturalness' to their agenda.Scholarly commentary invited through December 2010.: Military Social Influence in the Global Information Environment: A Civilian Primer - King - 2010 - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy - Wiley Online Library: "This ongoing “revolution in military affairs” (Metz & Kievit, 1995, p. iii) has precipitated, among other things, a steady increase in U.S. military capacity to conduct social influence campaigns at every level of the modern world's information environment: in local, national, regional (or “theater”), and global spheres; in domestic and foreign populations; among individuals, groups, organizations, and governments"
Whether or not this is explicitly tied to MoRV, said myth is clearly a 'sleeper meme' in our culture that can be easily activated to mobilise a population to support, fund and give bodies to the war effort. Particularly when the military use phrases like "perception management", we realise that they are after our minds and consent. The article referenced here is written with this end in mind: "it is now possible, if not imperative, for those who study and teach about social influence to understand U.S. information operations, arguably among the largest, most controversial, and most influential social influence campaigns in modern times."
This is more, for the most part, than simply the old propaganda battles, the new realities of weapons and IT mean "Our military's enemies, ... are most likely to be small, rogue groups who attempt to prevail by winning popular support and undermining U.S. political will for war ...The argument here is that in most modern war, physical battles, if they exist, will be for the purpose of defining psychological battlespace ... terrorists are “armed propaganda organizations”" -perhaps that latter remark is at least partly exponented by Al Qaida.
The other factors impinging on this are the greater transparency that IT tends to foster so that atrocities are harder to hide and for those whose soldiery are from democratic regimes this brings a change of role, particularly when combined with heightened awareness of human rights and international law: "the transformation of the role of the individual soldier in the context of the increasing transparency of the global information environment, the decreasing utility of conventional weaponry, and the increasing power of social influence. It has been suggested that the modern soldiers of western democracies are essentially “heavily armed social workers” ... These troops work to change behavior in the glare of a multi-technology-based global media. They are obligated to minimize casualties, manage the perceptions of the global audience, and influence behavior through nonviolent means."
Now, much of that has been stated in terms that sound as if there is a push towards the more ethical and applaudable end of warfare. And not particularly supporting the tone I set when I began the post. However, we should note that all of the above can be used -is used- simply to make the case. What is still going on is the violent and repressive exercise of brute force in furtherance of political goals by non-consensual means. Iraq has shown us that information manipulation and spin are also weapons of war. The mention of the soldiers of western democracies carries with it a certain irony since their most recent deployments have, it seems, been to impose democracy by non-democratic means. I know there is more nuance to it than that, but it is really hard to tell it any other way to ordinary people in Muslim-majority countries -just take a look at the bit and pieces of reportage about the way that Libyans, and others, have viewed NATO involvement there: there is a lot of suspicion around.

Of course, trying to do this in a global environment which has a lot of bottom-up about it is (or can be) like herding cats. It's working in a complex environment and so MI and IO is going to be about trying to find 'strange attactors' in information and opinion terms that allow the forming of opinion round certain perspectives most conducive to the interests they represent. It's always going to be a dicey thing: there is a lot of awareness of power interests and their wiles.

So it is important that we as Christians, following the Prince of Peace and the one who said 'Put away your sword', should continue to 'fight the good fight' (Blake's "mental strife") to demolish strongholds; ie we resist MoRV and other alibis for keeping elites in power and most people in the dark -sometimes violently herded into the dark.