Byting Back. Regaining Information Superiority Against 21st-Century Insurgents
Abstract
Armed conflict has always made serious demands on information, whether it is about the disposition of our own forces or the intentions and status of the adversarys. With the advent of modern information systems, the management of information about friend and foe has become a key determinant of how armed conflict plays out. The Department of Defense's (DoD's) information architecture for conventional warfare reflects that fact. Counterinsurgency, though, differs from conventional warfare. First, whereas the battles in conventional warfare are waged between dedicated armed forces, the battles of counterinsurgency are waged for and among the people, the central prize in counterinsurgency. Collecting information about the population is much more important than it is in conventional warfare. Second, the community that conducts counterinsurgency crosses national and institutional boundaries. institutional boundaries. U.S. and indigenous forces must work together. So, too, must military forces, security forces(notably police), and providers of other governmental services. Sharing information across these lines, thus, has a greater importance than in conventional warfare. An integrated counterinsurgency operating network (ICON) should, therefore, be different than that which DoD has built for conventional warfare. In this monograph, we outline the principles and salient features of ICON.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jan 01, 2007
- Accession Number
- ADA472417
Entities
People
- David C. Gompert
- David R. Frelinger
- Martin C. Libicki
- Raymond Smith
Organizations
- RAND Corporation