Dynamics of information warfare

And how Syria is succeeding in presenting an alternate narrative

Slavoj Zizek, a philosopher with global fan base, has recently declared Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as the “new heroes” for “shaming” super hypocrisy of the world’s most powerful hegemon. Manning is now serving a 35-year jail sentence, Assange is holed up in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and Snowden is in exile in Russia.

The trio’s revelations serve as an expose of the apparently innocuous and neutrally-charged terrain of information technology which is in fact controlled by individuals and institutions which have stakes in everything significant going on in the world. The saga of espionage continues and has entered the post-Echelon era, they remind us. What we access and what we perceive can be manoeuvred by the omniscient lord of the internet age who has deployed his Trojan creatures to pilfer information at his command.

But like all lords striving hard to sustain their monopoly over their territory, the US too has its adversaries. The internet may have its myriad advantages for those who hold its reigns, yet its essential participatory character has also provided an advantage to politically conscious and active entities to use it in their favor. The internet, thus, becomes a battlefield with various parties trying to harness its potential to stoke information storms against their opponents. Not only can it give them tactical advantage, but it can also enable them to win a war or defend themselves against a foreign aggression.

The Syrian government has so far been successful in presenting an alternative to the western narratives of the events unfolding in its territory. Its information warfare capability has been putting up intelligent defences to the perception-building might of America. It has been assisted by various alternative news media outlets and websites which have used tools hitherto employed only by the western powers. The Russia Today’s website has been very prominent in this regard.

The RT’s website has acquired significant popularity for showing the Syrian side of the picture. Not just RT, but countless other blogs and video sharing portals have also been crucial in providing pieces to the jigsaw of the conflict. Globalresearch.ca is another website based in Montreal and run by the Centre for Research on Globalization. What such websites have done is that they have exposed the hypocrisy of the world’s sole super power and have provided a bigger context for its actions and have invited readers to identify for themselves the true tenor of reality. Global Research, for instance, published a story recently connecting potential aggression of Obama on Syria with the “century-old white house tradition of engaging in foreign wars” from Woodrow Wilson to Harry Truman and from Lyndon Johnson to George W. Bush.

A lot has changed since the arrival of these alternative news and analysis portals. In the debate that rejected Britain’s possibility of a war on Syria, George Galloway, an MP, cited a YouTube video in his persuasive case against the war. No longer can the American or the British governments easily acquire their public’s consent with the help of their state or corporate-owned media to win assent for violent, foreign ventures. Referring to British parliament’s rejection of aggression on Syria, Roberk Fisk expressed his dismay at western rulers “in thinking that they could yet again bamboozle their electorates with their lies and trumperies and tomfooleries.”

In an effort to trump up charges against Syrian government, the US is “basing a tremendous amount of its conclusions on images from social media sources.” Deception in such videos cannot be ruled out which has always been used in war for strategic reasons and also has its utility in cyber warfare. A lot many of these videos are tagged as “false flag” by independent analysts: rebels pretending to be Syrian soldiers and committing deeds repugnant to viewers across the world.Thirteen videos, to similar effect, were shown to America’s Senate Intelligence Community and were posted on CNN’s website on September 8. These were prominently placed in the Editor’s Pick ribbon on the website, apparently, to strengthen the case for Congress’ nod for an attack on Syria.

The ongoing conflict is a grim reminder of how western media continue to offer selective detail and present information which is only suitable to their side of the story. Their insistence, for so many decades, on how their reporting of events is unbiased and objective is laughable. There definitely is an agenda behind reporting of significant stories and our smartness is tested every time we believe in the veracity of such items uncritically. Instead, we must acquire necessary understanding of the kind of world we live in to ensure that we consume information critically.

Let us play a game then to ascertain if we could discern the source of a news story just by analyzing its content. Which news website carried the story out of which the following excerpt is taken? BBC, CNN or RT?: While talking to the students of a university in Moscow, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov said, “We were shown some sketches, but there was nothing concrete, no geographical coordinates or details and no proof the test was done by professionals… There is only repetitive talk in the vein of ‘we know for sure.’ And when we ask for further clarification, we receive the following response: ‘You are aware that this is classified information, therefore we cannot show it to you.’ So there are still no facts.”

Yes, it’s RT for sure. Neutrality in reporting of significant global events is simply a myth. It is just a deceptive slogan used to win over gullible folks, who surely are aplenty.

The writer is a faculty member, GC University, Lahore, and can be reached at: [email protected]