Faustine wrote: > I have a hunch the DoD would like nothing better than to see > leakees go totally > apeshit on leakers as "disinformation spreaders." Do their dirty > work, save > them the trouble: sounds perfectly in line with Rumsfeld's doctrinal > emphasis on "deterrence by denial" to me. Google this phrase with > "information > warfare" and you can find some pretty interesting papers online.
It would seem to me that deception would better rest on trusted, precision channels. I doubt JYA would be among my selections. (But, who am I to say, and I don't know how far we have fallen.) "Windfalls" might even not believed. To plant the story on the enemy might even take a good deal more artifice. And, perhaps what the enemy believes doesn't really make a damn, unless he does something about it. Such uncontrolled channels and rumor-mills might even work contrary to deception principles, assuming the need for prediction and consistency, both in interpretation and any decision-making RESULT that is to be obtained. Finally, I doubt the DOD is confused with regard to the American people and "the enemy." Circumstances suggest that we have allowed our CI capabilities to wither, which might preclude any benefit from such an operation, and certainly not one that would outweigh the risks. Furthermore, when it comes to certain forms of deception, Americans don't seem deception-inclined. (Some of the covert action exposes we've had in the last decade had baby blanket cover planning.) In truth, the British still hold the title belt, and have done so for over 50 years. Currently, the sign on the American wall of deception operations is a fairly clear one: _WE SUCK_. Faustine, I do hope you do well in policy analysis, and adhere to your strong political viewpoints and goal-states. If you do, a deception planner will never hurt you. ~Aimee 7(2)-- "...as it's position, owing to being clandestine, is very dangerous, they have had little success, as only about twelve revolutionary members are affiliated, and their activities are very limited and rather ridiculous.' ...most of their time making lists of names.....who must be eliminated when their aspirations were achieved. -- Notes from GARBO.
