Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

How 'ambient warfare' changes the game……

By Baz Bardoe - posted Thursday, 12 December 2019


The secret to all victory lies in the organisation of the non-obvious: Marcus Aurelius

What is the connection between ambient music producer Brian Eno, and the tactics of ideologically motivated groups like Islamic State? And what exactly is the guy with the laptop at a trendy café actually doing? Is he running a company, working on his dissertation, or crowdsourcing a headline grabbing atrocity? In the course of my doctoral research I have identified and defined what I term "ambient practice" and proposed that a subtle and not well understood cultural influence has radically altered the ways society organises, communicates and instigates change and major paradigm shifts. This in turn has profound implications for how we think about and prosecute warfare.

When used as an adjective "ambient" denotes an approach that draws upon the peripheral and the ubiquitous, to influence us in ways that may not be particularly explicit or conscious. Brian Eno saw ambient music as being a bit like a tapestry – you can engage with it explicitly, you can walk past it and notice it, or you may hardly notice it at all. It is a "surrounding atmosphere….a tint…" as he put it. However on some level it registers. Terms like "ambient media", "ambient organisations", "ambient awareness" and even "ambient stress" have become common. It is my contention that they are elements of "ambient practice" and that this is a coherent methodology that has the power to usurp any paradigm.

Advertisement

For example "ambient organisations" eschew recognised structures and geographic locations and are often no more than people with laptops connected to the internet. They are highly mobile and adaptable. A good example is Islamic State, or ISIS. Whilst they have suffered vast setbacks on the real world battle field, in cyber space they have been extremely effective in challenging the dominant Western paradigm. Traditionally terrorist organisations recruited members, trained them in a particular location, obtained the required ordnance, made plans and then executed them. This approach made them vulnerable to detection and elimination prior to the successful completion of their mission. Islamic State's cyber approach avoids this pitfall by leveraging a very successful internet based tactic, essentially "crowdsourcing" terror. They provide impetus and some generalised guidelines, and then put it "out there" on the internet where marginalised people who may not have any explicit link to the organisation undertake ad hoc terrorist activities in their name. Islamic State also use seemingly counter intuitive "ambient media" tactics to target their audience. "Ambient media" is a marketing technique whereby something is placed in the ubiquitous and peripheral lived environments in such a way as to attract a non-usual interaction which may resonate on an emotional level quite differently to conventional advertising. Some Western analysts were baffled by pictures of cats placed next to scenes of extreme battlefield violence. Some suggested that this was an ironic take on the internet cat meme phenomenon. Islamic literature however indicates that Mohammed was definitely a cat man. A cat pictured in a context presented as Jihadist in its intent sends a message that resonates with an audience connected to a very primal iteration of Islam, which is exactly the target demographic for a successful Islamic State marketing campaign. The finest advertising minds in the West would struggle to deliver such an elegantly simple but effective "ambient media" outcome.

These simple but effective tactics have made Islamic State the most recognised, feared and "successful" terror "brand" on the planet, and underscore the power "ambient organisations" can leverage, and how difficult they are to counter. As an exercise in marketing it is the success story of our times.

The United Sates election provided another salient example of the power of "ambient practice" via the lateral use of "ambient media" by another "ambient organisation" – the 'Alt Right'. Dedicated "Alt Right" online activists not only challenged the dominant narrative, but successfully inserted their chosen terminology and narrative. They took great delight in spreading "fake news", and swamping the internet with provocative memes. Legacy news outlets were at times made to look ridiculous when they fell for "fake news" trolling, and struggled to understand the counter intuitive march of a fascist cartoon frog. The more the "normies" struggled with the meaning of it all the more it reinforced the Alt Right narrative that the mainstream was hopelessly out of touch. An "ambient organisation", most likely with comparatively few active members, had waylaid arguably the best funded and most professional campaign organisation in history. "Ambient media" succeeds by inserting something incongruous or counter intuitive into the ubiquitous lived environment that might create a particular emotional connection, and both Islamic State and the Alt Right have proven masters of such tactics.

So it is clear that "ambient practice" can be effectively used to achieve the goals of warfare, namely to erode an enemy's capability and challenge its power structures and societal narrative. These tactics are well suited to contrarians – those who niggle away at a dominant paradigm.

But how effective can they be in defending the dominant narrative, even when it has suffered considerable blows to its credibility? It turns out that it can be every bit as effective and the corporate world has led the way in leveraging its power. Whilst Western governments have found it difficult to counter emergent "ambient organisations", the corporate world has been more proactive in how it approaches the battle to control the ubiquitous information landscape, and therefore shape policy, defend and build its reputation and consumer trust, mould societal paradigms and boost profit margins.

The term "astro turfing" refers to the creation of a fake "grassroots" movement intended to give the impression of overarching support for something and make this support seem all pervasive and an unquestioned orthodoxy. It is a tactic intended to wrestle control of the ubiquitous information environment, and limit access to contrarian views. Given that some 95% of people never extend a web search beyond the first page of Google – the choke point of almost all information dissemination - it isn't quite as difficult as it might sound, but it does require a significant budget, and a multi-facetted approach. The pharmaceutical industry has embraced this and proven to be masters in using it to achieve marketing goals providing a strong precedent for how dominant paradigms can be defended or even strengthened using elements of "ambient practice".

Advertisement

To provide some context it is instructive to look at how bad the industry's record has been in some instances - something which would seem to be at odds with its astonishing record of profitability in recent times. Forbes magazine for example has suggested that 'Big Pharma' is "addicted to fraud", whilst many of the main pharmaceutical companies have received multi-million dollar fines in the last five years for everything from bribing officials to fabricating research data. Professor Peter Gotzsche one of the founders of the Cochrane Collaboration – arguably the 'gold standard' in independent medical research – has likened 'Big Pharma' to organised crime, and alleged that it is the third biggest killer of people in the West behind heart disease and cancer. Against this backdrop the industry should be in freefall, but in fact the opposite is true. Profits in the pharmaceutical sector are soaring. This bears testimony to the incredible success of their cutting edge approaches to marketing and their ability to influence audiences and mitigate the effect of contrarians.

So how have they done this?

The key is a multi-facetted approach that leverages and dominates the peripheral and ubiquitous information environments, and minimises the impact of contrarians. Medical professionals, policy makers, regulators and consumer advocate groups are usually intelligent people who can spot advertising when they see it. The success of "astro turfing" involves inserting a chosen narrative into the pervasive information environment until it becomes dominant and unquestioned. For example Dr Richard Horton, an editor of the Lancet has revealed that some clinical guidelines are being written by people linked to pharmaceutical companies, alleged that articles in medical journals are often 'ghost written', and data withheld if it doesn't support marketing goals. He suggests that much of the material in journals may be compromised. Some in the industry have worked hard to co-opt the medical literature that influences medical professionals. Lobbyists then draw upon this to influence policy makers, who almost by definition are multi taskers who don't have the time to delve into issues too deeply. Some media outlets allegedly have connections to pharmaceutical concerns and publish supportive material. But journalists point out that in an age where legacy news outlets are under increased constraints, in depth investigative journalism is a dying art, and this makes exposing "astro turfing" problematic. Multi award winning journalist Sharyl Atkisson believes this issue is the key challenge to journalism today, and suggests that the discipline of verification has never been so challenged.

But what do they do about suitably qualified professionals who take a contrarian position? Their voices are rarely heard and their published work usually attracts little attention. This is partly because they don't have vast marketing budgets but it is also because the industry at various times employs, supports, influences or otherwise promotes an army of internet activists who set about defending the industry and compromising the credibility of anyone who threatens profits. A vast range of authoritative sounding websites and blogs often with "science" or "sceptic" in their names launch scathing attacks on the scientific credentials of critics. The work of critics becomes "pseudo-science" simply because they repeat it often enough, and it is repeated as many times as possible in all available information platforms. The idea of "cognitive ease" allows us to understand this approach – neuro science shows us that if something is repeated often enough it actually becomes easier for the mind to accept, and by passes critical thinking. Allies in the media reinforce the message and it becomes the accepted paradigm.

The key point however is that control of the first page of a Google search means almost complete control of the information landscape. The corporate world has been quick to understand this and has proven adept in using this power to influence policy and wider societal attitudes. Despite their poor corporate record in some instances these companies have never enjoyed so much support and such good returns. They have proven to be masters of "ambient practice".

So what can the military learn from this?

Firstly the game has changed. Historically the military has often struggled to incorporate new developments in technology into tactics and strategy. During the Napoleonic wars it seems incredible that armies would literally line up in front of each other in tight formation and shoot until whoever survived could claim victory. World War One was all too often defined by large number of troops charging machine guns. In World War Two the 'Blitzkrieg' took European armies by storm by employing new tactics with existing technologies. Now in the age of "Network Centric Warfare" we are sharing information across different platforms and assets in ways that would have been unimaginable even a few years ago. But a hierarchical organisation with defined locations for its assets is inherently many steps behind those employing "ambient practice" to its fullest extent. Whilst the last century was largely defined by the "third generation" of warfare which saw mainly conventional forces battling over resources and ideology, the "fourth" ushered in "irregular" tactics which were motivated by ideology and saw numerically and technologically inferior forces challenge the overwhelming conventional superiority of Western powers. We are now however seeing the emergence of the "fifth" which is a step beyond this. It is chaotic and fuelled by sometimes unclear motivations. The aim may no longer be a definable victory. Stalemate and anything that degrades the Western narrative and capability will suffice. The age of "ambient warfare" is upon us and it is fluid, chaotic, counter intuitive and ill defined.

The military is still highly compartmentalised but today's ambient warriors blur boundaries and merge seamlessly with the ubiquitous environment in much the same way as guerrilla fighters blend into the jungle and move between skillsets that we still organise quite separately. Whilst the Western military might distinguish between information operations, public affairs, cyber warfare, influence activities, recruiting and intelligence gathering they do not. Whilst a military centre for excellence in one of these areas might be at a certain location, theirs is not located at any one identifiable place. And whilst the military have hierarchies that define organisational structures and place limitations upon what operatives can do, they often do not. For a group like Islamic State the mission brief is fairly vague – undermine the Western narrative and spread chaos and fear – and this is well suited to ambient approaches. Likewise the Alt Right is contrarian so they 'win' when the dominant paradigm is in some way eroded. Superficially it would seem hard to use these tactics for the purpose of defending and strengthening a particular paradigm, but the corporate world has given us examples of how this can be done to brilliant effect no matter what damage has been done to the brand. The key is a holistic approach that takes account of all information platforms, and uses "ambient warfare" to its fullest extent. Inserting desired narratives into conventional communication outlets will always be an important element as will all the extant "traditional" methods. However corporate success now also draws upon an "army" of largely self-reliant entities who have an open brief to valorise the brand, and engage in ongoing activities that undermine any contrarian narrative. Often they do this without any explicit link to a particular organisation.

The military which has traditionally valued congruence in its approaches finds this confronting. These free agents are multi-disciplined and although they align with a general paradigm, they exercise autonomy and sometimes they get it "wrong". When this happens there is no explicit link with an organisation, so any harm is minimal and deniable. Just as there is argument among Jihadist groups and elements of the Alt Right about what approaches may be effective and what may be going too far, "ambient warfare" is imprecise. With the right operatives it is however fluid and quickly self-correcting.

So what will the ambient war fighters of the future be like and what will they do?

To answer the first part they will be multi skilled and move between different skillsets seamlessly. No individual operator will have the exact same skills as another, and some may have areas of specialisation. What they will be able to do is look at situations from multiple standpoints, and know where to source the skills needed to achieve an objective. The military organisation they might work for needs to be able to quickly network them as required. Their taskings could be many and varied from defending the organisation's "brand" to undermining the narrative of its adversaries and building a picture of their intentions. It would be a non-compartmentalised approach that straddled what we now enshrine as separate disciplines. More than this an "ambient warfare" capability would pose challenges to the current notion of the military being distinct from the political decisions that inform our social constructs. Would they do as their opponents do and engage in wider "wars" of ideas and culture? Would part of their mission be creating chaos and havoc among opponents without a defined end state? Difficult questions need to be addressed in the face of opponents who have no such reservations.

Ambient warfighters would also make it their business to remain on the cutting edge of emerging trends in social organisation and communication, feeding this back into the organisation and informing their own approaches. Such a capability would be rapidly evolving and responsive to new challenges in real time. Their learning would be constant and they would build on the best and most innovative thinking in the corporate and private sector as well as keeping abreast and if possible ahead of emerging trends being employed by special interest groups and enemies. At least part of their mission brief would be to act as a rapidly evolving think tank.

Islamic State is very good at "ambient" approaches. The corporate sector has refined some of these techniques to boost profits to previously inconceivable levels. Our military is well placed for modern war fighting, but in terms of "ambient practice" Western militaries are often still grappling with a previous generation of warfare.

"Ambient practice" eschews compartmentalisation and draws upon fluidity to challenge any and all legacy societal, communication and informational paradigms. It is remorseless in its assimilation and mutation of existing approaches. In the "ambient future" there will be no respite as information and values are constantly challenged and appropriated. The news and information cycle is now registered in Planck time. Information and responses evolve more quickly than can be measured. For some it is a land of endless opportunity. For others a confusing collapse of the familiar. One thing is for certain – it is not going away.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

2 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Baz Bardoe is a military aviation public affairs specialist. He is currently completing post graduate research in emerging trends in communications, social organisation and "information warfare". He is a widely published aviation, defence and technology writer. Any views expressed are his own.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Baz Bardoe

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 2 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy