I think the first thing that struck me as I was reading Captain Flor's work, and later General Baker's, is how similar an information operation seems to a political campaign or a long-term advertising campaign. All three seem to involve using certain information to create a certain image or narrative that is completely unshakable, or at least quick to fix when opposing information appears, true or untrue, that tries to shake that image.
The second thing that struck me is that's kind of creepy, how politics and information operations are similar to a long-term advertising campaign. After all, politics and military campaigns aren't as harmless as "no really, Crest is the best brand of toothpaste," the effects that military and politics have are much more crucial.
I found some of Flor's points especially odd. The very first point about how information operations should operate is that "Credibility is the currency of counterinsurgency: 'The truth is an asset, not a liability,'" then detailing the importance of keeping an information operation campaign honest and credible. But then, his very next point is "Establish an overarching narrative: 'Stay on message.'" I feel when all information has to conform to a certain narrative, especially with something as complicated as military operations, it would damn near impossible to keep all reports entirely truthful, and you definitely wouldn't be able to tell everything.
I feel like these two points highlight the age difference between these two men, mentioned in our prompt: that Flor was closer to a college student's age when he wrote his article, while Baker was much older. I feel like Baker has no such naivety about creating honesty within a set narrative, for a key point between Baker's and Flor's articles is that Baker has no such section on honesty, though he has many other sections on how information campaigns should work: the importance of repetition of information, keeping to a set message, unity of that message, spending a large amount of time delivering the information, and setting up feedback mechanisms. I feel like Baker is aware enough on how these campaigns actually end up working out that he knows honesty can't always occur when keeping to a set message.
I suppose I find their ideas of a repetitive, long-lasting narrative a bit disturbing. If the narrative is actually true, stays true, and helps create relations between foreign countries and the U.S., then sure, no problem. But when I think of established narratives, I think of extreme leftwing or rightwing politicians, of the mainstream media which targets the news to a certain audience, or fundamentalist religions -- everything that fits the narrative is heard, points that could change or argue against the narrative are swept under the rug. And especially in politics, avoiding debate or change is why nothing gets accomplished rather than pointless bickering between the two parties. It keeps the targeted audience ignorant too, of what is really going on.
I also think of our discussion regarding Bradley Manning, the information he leaked, and how he was treated afterwards. The video could have been treated as the beginning of a much needed discussion about many important issues, a discussion that everyone could know about and be involved with, rather than, at best, a taboo subject discussed in hushed tones by higher military officials. Instead, because it went outside the established narrative and was seen as harmful information, Manning was tried and convicted as a criminal.
I guess I can see how, especially when operating in foreign and potentially hostile countries where untruths could be quickly spread by counterinsurgencies, establishing a constant, positive narrative is a good thing. I just worry about the potential for the truth to be changed, hidden, or silenced with the efforts to maintain a consistent narrative.
