In unconventional warfare, manipulated beliefs are used to displace inconvenient facts.
Whenwaging war by way of deception, false beliefs are an oft-deployedweapon. Recall Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories?
Iraqi meetings in Prague with Al Qaeda? Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium from Niger? All these claims were reported as true. All were later proven false or, worse, fabricated. Yet all were widely believed.Only the yellowcake uranium was conceded as bogus before the invasionof Iraq. As the U.S. crafted its response to the provocation of a massmurder on U.S. soil, those widely shared beliefs shaped a consensus towage war on a nation that had no hand in it.
A similardeception-traceable to the same source-is now working to expand thiswar to Iran. Based on fast-emerging events, the next conflict couldinclude Pakistan.
The modern battlefield has shifted. Groundwarfare is now secondary. Likewise air strikes, combat troops, navalsupport and even covert operations. Those physical operations are alldownstream of information operations. Manipulated beliefs come first.Psyops precede bombs and bullets. Hardware ranks a distant third.
Firstand foremost are the consensus shapers and thought manipulators whotarget perceptions and opinions until a critical mass of agreement isreached. Then comes war. Those skilled at such duplicity inducedcoalition troops to war in Iraq. Knowledge was their target. Manipulatethought and all else was downstream.
[snip]
When waging war on the public’s sharedmindset, the power of association is one of the most effective weapons.Thus the potent imagery of the peaceful Buddhas at Bamiyan whenassociated with destruction, violence and religious extremism.
Thusthe ease with which evil doing Al Qaeda extremists were associated inthe American mindset with the Taliban – and the evil of 9-11 with knownEvil Doer Saddam Hussein even though the intelligence was proven false.
Thustoo the associative impact of Secretary of State Colin Powell’sFebruary 2003 testimony before the U.N. Security Council. Hiscredibility as a globally recognizable military leader (the Powell”brand”) was deployed-as a weapon-to lend the appearance of truth tolies about Iraq’s possession of mobile biological weapons.
Akinto showcasing the celebrity endorsement of a consumer product, thistestimonial by a trusted military leader was broadcast worldwide in thelead-up to war. Powell was not the only “mark” in this operation. Sowere the U.N., the U.S. military and a global public. Both aggressorand aggrieved became casualties of this duplicitous “field-based”warfare. Meanwhile the source of this deception once again faded intothe background.