This week our Information Warfare class has a change in the syllabus, with a guest lecture from special operations veteran Joel Harding (http://twitter.com/#!/joel_harding). Mr Harding is one of Washington’s best operational experts on information warfare and related fields. After long service in the US Army Special Forces, he later joined the AOC/Electronic Warfare Association and founded the Information Operations Institute. He brings both tactical and strategic experience to the field. He’s engaging, challenging and fun. You will have a great time both listening to him and participating in what promises to be a spirited and creative discussion.
Mr Harding will expand on last week’s topic of the information warfare of other countries, and if you help steer the discussion right, you will no doubt turn the class into a brainstorming session on getting really creative with I.O. and developing some neat Red Teaming approaches.
He will depart the class early, and then we’ll quickly go over the “practical issues” part of this week’s syllabus – the legal, moral, bureaucratic and policy constraints which will show you why it isn’t as easy as it might seem to develop some of the low-cost, high-impact, common-sense approaches that you likely have gone over with Mr Harding.
Continue reading the full texts of the assigned Paul book and any other book that you are not up-to-date in studying. Remember: If you do not master the required readings, well, you know the drill.
Recommended: A primer on just war theory. We will discuss the applications of information operations and information warfare to the Christian concept of the justice of warfare. The Wikipedia entry on just war theory is a good cheat sheet that boils down the key issues, even though you know that IWP does not generally accept Wikipedia as a credible academic source.
For the good of the order: Before things ended badly for him, Muammar Qaddafi wrote to President Obama, claiming that the war kinetic operation against his regime was “unjust.” We might discuss this argument.