{"id":75079,"date":"2021-12-06T14:09:02","date_gmt":"2021-12-06T20:09:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=75079"},"modified":"2021-12-06T14:25:25","modified_gmt":"2021-12-06T20:25:25","slug":"75079","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=75079","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

BLUF:
\nAs this author has\u00a0previously pointed out<\/a>\u00a0in The Federalist, there is no greater long-term danger to the country than the politicization of the military.<\/strong> For that reason, the military has a culture of not publicly wading into partisan disagreements.<\/p>\n

The regrettable direction of the NDU article by the Cyber Center authors creates an unfortunate appearance that this nonpartisan culture may be at risk. These authors have shown little hesitation about wading into partisan thickets. Let us hope that this is an outlier, not a trend.<\/p>\n

Military Officers: To Combat \u2018Disinformation,\u2019 The Government And Its Big Tech Buddies Should Tell You What To Think<\/a><\/p>\n

Four military officers who describe themselves as \u201cresearchers\u201d at the Army\u2019s highly respected Cyber Institute have published an article<\/a>\u00a0that adds to the growing concern about the ongoing politicization of the military. Published by the military\u2019s National Defense University (NDU), their article purports to analyze the dangers of misinformation and disinformation and to advise the Biden administration about how to counter it.<\/p>\n

The article\u2019s authors all are military officers and at least two are professors at West Point. They say their article \u201cis written in response to the Capitol insurrection.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ironically, the article is itself misinformation. That this misinformation is published by military officers associated with two highly prestigious institutions, the NDU and the Cyber Institute, makes it all the more inappropriate and dangerous.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The article attempts to address a real and dangerous issue: how mis- and disinformation can endanger national security. Preparing for and combatting disinformation is a complex issue that involves disciplines from sociology and psychology to highly technical cyberwarfare issues.<\/p>\n

The difference between misinformation and disinformation is generally understood to be a matter of intent; disinformation is\u00a0intentionally and maliciously deceptive<\/a>. Disinformation is as old as warfare itself; only the techniques vary. The U.S. military has been practicing and studying it and related disciplines for many years. Misinformation has been a staple of military operations since the days of the Trojan horse and Sun Tzu.<\/p>\n

Jan. 6 Capitol Riot Caused by Disinformation?<\/h2>\n

The Cyber Center authors\u2019 thesis is that the \u201cinsurrection\u201d at the Capitol building on Jan. 6 was a mortal danger to the country that was caused by disinformation, namely the idea that the 2020 presidential election was rigged or stolen. The \u201cinsurrection\u201d spawned by this alleged disinformation then becomes the justification for the authors\u2019 proposed government censorship (although they eschew the term) of free speech.<\/p>\n

The article suffers from a number of flaws. One of the most notable \u2013 and dangerous \u2013 is that the authors wade deeper into the political wars by advocating more government control over speech that they regard as outside the mainstream or, as they put it, contrary to a desired \u201cshared reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authors\u2019 misinformation begins in their very first paragraph: \u201cOn January 6, 2021, long held assumptions about the meaning of American national security were challenged when\u00a0insurrectionists<\/strong>\u00a0stormed the United States Capitol, attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential election\u201d (bolded emphasis added here and elsewhere).<\/p>\n

False Premise<\/h2>\n

Warming to their theme, the authors then claim \u201crecent polls indicate that nearly 20 percent of Americans approved of the\u00a0insurrection<\/strong>\u201d and that their article is \u201cwritten in response to the Capitol\u00a0insurrection<\/strong>.\u201d This purported support for an \u201cinsurrection<\/strong>\u201d then becomes the compelling force for the authors\u2019 advice to the Biden administration that it should clamp down on free speech.<\/p>\n

But that initial premise is false: Although\u00a0some politicians<\/a>\u00a0have used the term, there was no \u201cinsurrection.\u201d \u201cInsurrection\u201d is a violation of the federal criminal code, 15 U.S.C. \u00a72383. If there had been an insurrection on Jan. 6, Attorney General Merrick Garland would have brought related criminal charges against the alleged insurrectionists. Although almost 300 people arrested for the events of Jan. 6\u00a0have been charged with \u201cparading<\/a>\u201d in the Capitol building, not a single one has been charged with insurrection, indicating prosecutors don\u2019t have evidence to charge them of this crime.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Additionally, the authors\u2019 citation does not support their claim that almost 20 percent of Americans support the \u201cinsurrection.\u201d The\u00a0polling data that they cite in their very first footnote\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0does not even mention the word \u201cinsurrection,\u201d much less claim that one occurred on Jan. 6.<\/p>\n

As these Cyber Institute scholars fully appreciate, in disinformation warfare, words matter. Yet they falsely equate \u201cinsurrection\u201d with \u201criot\u201d or \u201cprotest.\u201d It is ironic that, in an article decrying the dangers of mis- and disinformation, the authors engage in misinformation by falsely claiming that 20 percent of Americans support an \u201cinsurrection.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authors then use that frightening but false statistic to support their call for more government control over speech. Because they argue the \u201cinsurrection\u201d was caused by the false idea that the presidential election was rigged or stolen, they use that purported crisis to call for the government \u2013 aided by private actors \u2013 to squelch views of which they disapprove. They urge such censorship because they say mis- and disinformation are \u201cAmerica\u2019s most urgent national security challenge.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Definition of Disinformation<\/h2>\n

So, how would these military officers identify \u201cdisinformation\u201d? It is difficult to know, since the authors never define either mis- or disinformation. But apparently it is anything that is contrary to what they call \u201cshared reality.\u201d<\/p>\n

They repeatedly call for a \u201cshared reality,\u201d which can be aided by, in their words, government \u201cpressure, if not regulation\u201d to \u201cbury spurious sources.\u201d They give an example: \u201cIt may be necessary to consider\u00a0requiring<\/strong>\u00a0social media companies to adjust their algorithms to ensure users view a variety of\u00a0legitimate<\/strong>\u00a0professional news sources.\u201d<\/p>\n

The authors acknowledge (in a footnote) that it may be difficult to secure \u201cuniversal agreement\u201d on just which news sources are \u201clegitimate.\u201d They never identify just who should be the arbiter of truth; they just leave that to unidentified actors in \u201cthe private sector, the government, and the public.\u201d And they do not say how they would identify what needs to be censored, other than speech that departs from\u00a0groupthink\u00a0shared reality.<\/p>\n

But, of course, some person must be the arbiter, even if only by writing the tech companies\u2019 algorithms. Who shall it be? A 23-year-old intern at Twitter? A committee of Mark Zuckerberg-approved techies? The Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and\u00a0serial liar<\/a>\u00a0Adam Schiff? Government bureaucrats such as Anthony Fauci,\u00a0who lied to the American people<\/a>\u00a0because he thought they \u201ccan\u2019t handle the truth<\/a>\u201d? The authors provide no answer.<\/p>\n

Hunter Biden Coverage Shows How It Would Work<\/h2>\n

The folly inherent in the Cyber Institute researchers\u2019 heavy-handed proposals for government and private collaboration to limit speech to some \u201cshared reality\u201d was on full display in a disinformation campaign the authors ignore. That is the successful efforts by the Biden team (which includes the media and much of the intelligence community) to effectively censor The New York Post\u2019s revelations about Hunter Biden\u2019s laptop and emails evidencing his and President Biden\u2019s corruption.<\/p>\n

Just two weeks before the presidential election, and while early voting was in progress, Biden allies falsely portrayed the New York Post\u2019s revelations about Hunter\u2019s laptop and emails as Russian disinformation. In an article headlined \u201cRussian Disinfo,\u201d Politico\u00a0reported<\/a>\u00a0that \u201cMore than 50 former senior intelligence officials have\u00a0signed on to a\u00a0letter<\/a>\u201d outlining their shared reality that the recent disclosure of Hunter Biden\u2019s emails \u201chas all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.\u201d They concluded: \u201cIt is high time that Russia stops interfering in our democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n

These former \u201csenior intelligence officials,\u201d including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan, claimed that they were doing exactly what the learned researchers at the Cyber Institute advocate in their article \u2013 countering the Post\u2019s alleged disinformation. And their bogus \u201cRussian Disinfo\u201d theme quickly became a \u201cshared reality\u201d among Democrats, the media, and other Biden supporters.<\/p>\n

But they were\u00a0dead wrong<\/a>. It can no longer be seriously disputed that the laptop was indeed Hunter\u2019s and the emails were genuine. The \u201cshared reality\u201d published by the 50-plus learned \u201csenior intelligence officials\u201d was itself disinformation that, unlike the Capitol riot, may well have been decisive in the election.<\/p>\n

A serious and intellectually honest article about the dangers of disinformation would also have mentioned the biggest and most effective disinformation campaign in recent history \u2013 the\u00a0Big Lie<\/a>\u00a0that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians. That was disinformation of the first order. It was spread by lies concocted by Hillary Clinton\u2019s presidential campaign in collusion with Russians, to overturn the results of the 2016 election.<\/p>\n

Yet these Cyber Institute researchers ignore this disinformation and that Biden allies such as Clapper publicly spread disinformation about Trump\u2019s supposed collusion with Russians to undermine the election, while admitting\u00a0under oath in closed-door sessions<\/a>\u00a0they knew of no evidence to support that.\u00a0Such glaring omissions create, at a minimum, the appearance that the authors are reluctant to accuse prominent Democrats of disinformation lest they be perceived as aiding Trump when they are seeking to advise the Biden administration.<\/p>\n

As this author has\u00a0previously pointed out<\/a>\u00a0in The Federalist, there is no greater long-term danger to the country than the politicization of the military. For that reason, the military has a culture of not publicly wading into partisan disagreements.<\/p>\n

The regrettable direction of the NDU article by the Cyber Center authors creates an unfortunate appearance that this nonpartisan culture may be at risk. These authors have shown little hesitation about wading into partisan thickets. Let us hope that this is an outlier, not a trend.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BLUF: As this author has\u00a0previously pointed out\u00a0in The Federalist, there is no greater long-term danger to the country than the politicization of the military. For that reason, the military has a culture of not publicly wading into partisan disagreements. The regrettable direction of the NDU article by the Cyber Center authors creates an unfortunate appearance … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,50,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75079","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-enemies-foreign-domestic","category-goobermint","category-military"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75079","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=75079"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75079\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75082,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75079\/revisions\/75082"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=75079"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=75079"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=75079"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}