Force Preservation in the Online Social Domain – A Digital Camouflage

In this age of digital socialization, the digital realm increasingly becomes a significant dimension of the contemporary battle space. Much has been said and done about cyber threats; however, very limited attention is paid to the challenges arising from the malicious use of openly available digital information related to military organizations.

Today, adversaries do not require significant resources or advanced cyber capabilities to pose a threat. Social media and connected technologies are easily accessible, providing information and infrastructure that can be exploited by anyone with access to an internet-enabled computer.

Social media is a mix of human psychology—specifically social behavior—and the Internet of Things. While this assessment is largely accurate, it's essential to note that the human element accounts for approximately 70% of this dynamic, while the network comprises the remaining 30%. The personal internet was available even in the early 1990s, but it was the synthesis of the human urge to communicate—with a person (a face) rather than an IP address—that spurred the explosive growth of social media platforms. The arrival of the smartphone, a handheld connected computer, further placed the world in our palms. While this convergence brings numerous benefits, it also raises concerns. As devices—from phones to watches—become computers, they simultaneously transform into potential surveillance tools.

The survival of any military force is a primary concern in strategic planning and decision-making. This consideration extends well beyond military operations and involves issues such as public support and political cohesion. It is evident daily how the nation's military protects its members. Recently, the media highlighted steps taken by the Army to safeguard soldiers against the coronavirus, in addition to measures implemented by the government. We have also seen security efforts surrounding various bases and ports, which are vital military functions. Similar to physical security, digital security is another aspect that keeps military planners vigilant.

We have heard about measures such as app bans, smartphone bans, and wearable device bans mentioned in various reports concerning the military. While these measures can be effective, there is no silver bullet solution. With such pervasive technology, apps like Facebook and devices like smartphones and smartwatches have become integral to our daily lives. Their functionality has become a necessity, especially with e-banking, e-commerce, and crucial contact tracing platforms. Therefore, a completely non-implementable digital isolation as a protective measure offers limited value.

Separating mobile phones from defense personnel in official areas or during exercises and operations may be critical for operational security; however, it does not address the complex threats in the digital domain. An individual’s digital footprint is established over time, and the accumulated data points are collected through years of internet activity. These data points are processed through machine learning and artificial intelligence-based computational processes, creating an online profile. Leaving a smartphone outside a particular office five days a week simply indicates that an individual works inside that office. Subroutines transmitting location data from devices are embedded in basic map applications, and one does not need covert surveillance infrastructure to access this information. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the analysis of any other interfaced app. Services like Flightradar24 provide information on Air Force C-17 flights, while geotagged selfies can reveal even isolated border locations. It does not matter whether the photo is shared on Facebook, WhatsApp, or emailed; the location metadata is embedded within the image and is independent of the app used.

While the military may isolate individuals, open, crowd-sourced information has become a simpler method for obtaining critical inputs. Recently, a Twitter handle posted an old photograph featuring officers from an elite unit. Although many individuals in the image may have retired, comments on the tweet from people eager to engage in discussion or seek recognition revealed the identities of several individuals in the photograph. Cases of people identifying areas and commenting on their military significance are common and cannot simply be ignored. Information about military capabilities, such as personnel and equipment numbers, can even be gathered from civilian and commercial sensors, including footage captured by publicly available or misconfigured traffic and CCTV cameras. It is not one event that poses a security risk; rather, it is the long-term information matrix that can be woven from such data points that raises concerns.

Defeating an adversary, by whatever mechanism, is a cognitive outcome. It is the accumulated stresses of combat and perceptions of the situation that lead to fear, flight, and other psychological responses.

Active, adaptive digital camouflage may be a viable option in modern military operations.

Camouflage is often confused with concealment. To camouflage means to blend in with the surroundings, making one undetectable to an observer, while concealment is simply protecting something from view. Digital camouflage aims to integrate military digital information with various types of 'noise data,' thereby preventing the enemy from honing in on specific information and interpreting it as intelligence. For this strategy to be effective, it must be both pre-emptive and adaptive.

Implementing pre-emptive measures that establish systemic resilience against the malicious use of digital information is crucial. Raising awareness about the adversarial risks associated with the social media information environment is an essential first step, but this general awareness should be complemented by specific educational initiatives, internal communication strategies, and evolving regulations. Militaries are likely to favor these countermeasures as they rely on fundamental deception tactics. 

Effective measures should protect critical information in several ways: by minimizing predictable online behavior patterns and by camouflaging indicators that cannot be avoided, pairing them with meaningless changes that provide alternative interpretations. Once military commanders incorporate these elements into their mission plans, technical specialists can take on the responsibility of implementing them.

Extracting information from the open internet, especially given the abundance of social media posts, presents an opportunity where a small investment can yield significant returns. To counter an adversary effectively, keeping them occupied within the OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) loop is essential. A strategically planned denial of opportunities should be integrated into the operational philosophy; this approach represents a significant advancement on the horizon. Camouflage serves a functional role in concealment, but it should not be seen as a substitute for offensive capabilities. Preserving forces in the digital realm must be a core part of our strategic communication plan.

Agile Military

 In the study of considerations of various military operations the phrase “Flexibility” comes up often. The word assumes greater importance as it is a critical feature when we discuss offensive or defensive operations, counter insurgency or logistics & administration. In execution of any of these, the key is flexibility for a favorable result. The limitations in warfare are multifold complex and, in some ways, complicated when compared to writing concepts, even logical ones. People involved in defense force know that in hierarchical organisations like the services, flow of info, orders and authority is linear. Most documents and execution follow the waterfall concept where steps are sequential and quantified.

 

One would expect military organisations to be nimble and adaptive, for the simple reason that they plan for variable situations including the one which is least likely as a contingency. In the execution phase, these ‘set plans’ bring in a realm of order enabling ‘control’ and ‘predictability’ of successive phases. This attribute of planning actually changes the ‘design flexibility’ to a ‘constrained flexibility’.

 

We continue to evolve our concepts of operations by reeling in perspectives from the Age of Information. The ever-evolving technology in this age and its applications, plus connectivity, have evolved from the limited access to cross-linked information-based decision support systems.

 

The challenges of the 21^st Century like HADR, Non-State Actors, Nationless Corporations, Asymmetric Warfare & even Rogue States, are problems beyond the ability of any single actor or even a small set of very capable actors. For a successful handling of these challenges, the solution must involve a large, heterogeneous collective of entities working together. This collective is itself, complex and dynamic.

 

A more reasonable label for today’s world is the ‘Age of Interactions’. The Compounding technologies that layer above the framework of networks have given us unimaginable real-time interactions. Resultantly, events that may once have had isolated consequences, now generate consequences that have ripple effects and can quickly spin out of control. The viral nature of today’s interactions requires changes considering uncertainties and risks associated with complex endeavors. They cannot be reduced to manageable modules. What is needed is, both, a new mindset and problem-solving strategy. The most promising approach is to increase Agility. While agility is going to be an existential capability in the Age of Interactions, it is not an end unto itself and thus not a capability that should be maximized. Reasonable agility that can be sustainably scaled is the balance point between agile and traditional approaches.

 

Militaries seek hybrid structures and yet constrain the evolution with ‘command & control’. The word "control" does not describe it best because it indicates the philosophy that complex situations can be controlled; a sort of checklist giving options & actions to counter any emerging situations. This is a dangerous oversimplification. In the emerging multi-dimensional battlefield, the best that one can do is to create a set of conditions that improve the probability that a desirable outcome will occur and to change the condition when what is expected is not occurring. “Control” therefore is an emergent property, not an option to be selected.

 

Mapping from Scrum values, it appears that Focus & Convergence are more reasonable versions of Command and Control. They capture the essential aspects of command and control. They can also easily be understood by individuals without any prior knowledge of, or experience in the same. It appears more reasonable in situations of rapid grouping / regrouping of modular combat entities in maneuver warfare or any other entity that will be self-organizing as the operations progress.  These words do not carry any preconceived notions of how to achieve objectives. The focus hints directly at what is to be accomplished while being independent to the existence of someone in charge. Similarly, convergence denotes what the phrase “control” is meant to achieve without asserting the sequence / path.  

 

Incorporating agility cannot be a task. Change for change’s sake is not Agility. Agility implies effectiveness. An entity’s capabilities and behaviors cannot be agile unless they enable the entity to maintain or improve it’s measures of value. Being agile requires responsiveness. In order to be responsive, an entity must be able to recognize, in a timely manner, potentially significant changes in the external macro and microenvironment (read an adversary, or to itself). It should be able to recognize what would be a proportionate response. An appropriate response would include timely acting. In the context of military, agility will always be uniquely defined as per the threats & the capacities or the enablers & impediments exclusive to us. Given this, within the framework, how do we ingrain agility?

 

The first key to agility is “People”. To have an agile force, scrumming needs to be done on this resource, to etch agile practices. The upgrade to an agile manpower to the military is a complex problem.  HR teams will need to continuously deliver on this. It’s a military force; there can be no down time to process the changes.  It might be easy to change the way people work but extremely difficult to change the way people think. Militaries are virtually living microcosms drilled in battle procedures, which are exact opposite of agile. There are existing aspects that can be leveraged for easing in agility, for example hierarchy. In making organizational level changes, like theaterisation & joint commands, frameworks like Scrum (a modified version customized for target teams focused on envisaged desired structures) can be gradually incorporated in the hierarchy. This could be done on manageable collectives to eventually cover the entire services. This would be beneficial as these hierarchies are grouped to train, operate & deliver as units.

 

We are a successful military with sound principles. Why do we need to incorporate organisation-wide changes that are so radical to our fundamentals?

 

This is not a call for change. It is a case for adapting, improving and getting prepared to avoid a ‘future shock’. It may appear to be a conceptual journey across the landscape. It comprises of Complexity with variables of people, networks and the nature of command & control. In the end no structural or functional change in a military organisation can be called sustainable if it is not agile enough for mitigating continuous change. The exchequer would prefer Adaptive Organisations for Effect Based Operations. These aren’t possible while using world war constructs and yet this is not something out of the blue. Special Forces are the ready examples of an agile outfit. They place Individuals and interactions over processes, mission success over milestones, resource collaboration beyond designated tasks & responding to change over following a plan.

 

That’s an agile military manifesto.