What is Information Warfare?
Despite attempts to define Information Warfare (IW) in academia and across military doctrines, there is not a single definition that these entities agree on. While considering the current definitions of IW and Information Operations (IO), this paper provides a breakdown of its three dimensions in the information environment and addresses the strategic importance of having a single definition of IW, distinct from Information Operations (IO) and cyber warfare. From a strategic standpoint, it is essential that a definition of IW is adopted that unifies an understanding of United States (U.S.) IW and IO in situations short of war and lethal action, an area where the U.S. is often out-maneuvered.
Academic and military publications agree that IW/IO’s three dimensions within the Information environment are the physical, informational, and cognitive (Joint Chiefs of Staff, Information Operations). The emphasis in military doctrines, however, is on defining IO, not IW, while academic and governmental agencies tend to arrive at similar definitions of IW. According to Whyte, et al, IW is “the deliberate manipulation or use of information by one party on an adversary to influence the choices and decisions that the adversary makes in order for military or strategic gain” (Whyte, Thrall, and Mazanec, 2). This, Whyte points out, is similar to the definition provided by the Department of Defense (DoD), which defines it as “the integrated employment, during military operations, of information-related capabilities in concert with other lines of operation to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making of adversaries and potential adversaries while protecting our own” (Whyte, Thrall, and Mazanec, 6). Both definitions acknowledge that warfare is the domain of the military, and both definitions are intentionally broad to distinguish them from the more specific IW/IO domain of cyber warfare, as “[c]yberspace is a global domain within the information environment” (Joint Chiefs of Staff, Information Operations).
The Joint Chiefs, Marine Corps, and Army Information Doctrines specifically define IO, not IW, perhaps because in the United States, we make a stark distinction between war and peace that Russia and China do not make, as they actively consider continuously themselves at war (Marine Corps, Information). In “Finding the Right Words: Ending the Confusion on What !Information Operations” Actually Means,” by Daniel de Wit and Salil Puri, IO/IW is defined differently across the government and military. Some of these definitions emphasize lethal action while others describe activities designed to influence behaviors for strategic effect without lethal action. As lethal action is an act of warfare that has a wide range of rich, consistent doctrine, it is essential that we adopt a definition that unifies U.S. IW and IO across all doctrines to enable the U.S. to compete more effectively below the level of armed conflict.
Department of the Army, 2018. The Conduct of Information Operations. ATP 3-13.1. Washington, DC, 2018.
Department of the Navy, Headquarters United States Marine Corps. 2022. Information. MCDP 8. Washington, DC, 2022. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCDP%208.pdf?ver=6gIvEcD0CUuPAgTSmyDNag%3d%3d
Joint Chiefs of Staff. 2012. Information Operations. JP 3-13. Washington, DC, 2012. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_13.pdf
Puri, Salil, and Daniel de Wit. “Finding the Right Words: Ending the Confusion on What ‘Information Operations’ Actually Means.” Smallwarsjournal.com. https://smallwarsjournal.com/index.php/jrnl/art/finding-right-words-ending-confusion-what-information-operations-actuallymeans (October 22, 2022).
Whyte, Christopher, A. Trevor Thrall, and Brian M. Mazanec, eds. 2021. Information Warfare in the Age of Cyber Conflict. New York, New York: Routledge.