The traditional media has had a role in wars and international conflicts for at least a hundred years, e.g during the Armenian genocide it had some influence on the small humanitarian aid from the U.S. and afterwards influenced the trials against the perpetrators in Turkey. However, it was not until a half-century ago that it came clear that media hype can be far more effective than military combat success – as the Vietnam war amply demonstrated. It is said that Vietnam was the first conflict waged and won by the U.S. media.
The civil war in Yugoslavia lifted the media war to a more professional level when Croatian, Bosnian Muslim and Kosovo Albanian separatists employed PR firms to get U.S. public opinion and political leaders on their side, while the Serbs totally ignored the importance of the media. This proved to be a fatal Serb error in twentieth century hostilities, where public relations and media hype can be far more effective than military combat success.

This kind of media war is still continuing on the Internet. The difference with the old times is that while it is easy to create and publish (mis)information, it is just as easy for the public to detect photo manipulations and other fabrications.

Informaatio-/mediasota on nykyisin sotateollisen kompleksin olennainen osa siinä määrin että jopa termi ’military-industrial-complex’ voidaan jo korvata termillä ’ military–industrial-media-academy-complex’. Tätä puolestaan taustoitan kirjoituksessani ”BTW MIC Still Rules” [https://arirusila.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/btw-mic-still-rules/ ] seuraavasti:

Today besides traditionel weaponery there is two important component in MIC: First is academia – only in U.S. about 350 colleges and universities are agreeing to do Pentagon-funded research. In Academic world neuro-weapons and diverse applications of numerous branches of research – such as the software guidance systems, general communications networking systems and robotics technology – that blur the distinctions between government, military, and medical, technological and scientific research. The second important factor is the media – to keep on MIC side. Media has been essential part of wars and conflicts last twenty years and media wars have been implemented before, during and after open conflicts for benefit of stakeholders and MIC. Indeed nowadays an better offshoot of the MIC is military–industrial -media-academy complex (MIMAC) as these two components have been widely integrated to the old MIC.

Asian suuruusluokkaa kuvaa seuraava poiminta muutaman vuoden takaa:

Amid all this waste the Pentagon spares no effort to keep the media on its side, both in the US and elsewhere. The military allocated at least $4.7 billion this year to “influence operations” and has more than 27,000 employees devoted to such activities.

Ja tämä on hyvä suhteuttaa rauhanponnisteluihin:

War activities are producing high quarterly bonuses for owners of military-industrial-complex. Peace work has an opposite problem – it is not profitable, While global military spending is at least $ 1.7 trillion, the OECD Development tries to manage with some 100 billion, Peace work overall gets some 6 billion and 0.6 billion goes to conflict prevention. Peace Research, could help prevent conflicts, but development of tools for killing is much more lucrative. Against one peace researcher, is estimated to be more than 1100 researcher for weapon (and their use) developers.

Mika Aaltola:
”On oleellisen tärkeää, että ulkoisen strategisen vaikuttamisen keinoja tunnetaan ja tunnistetaan. Myös avoimen ja demokraattisen yhteiskunnan keskeiset vahvuudet informaatio-operaatioiden vastavoimana on hyvä selkeyttää.”

Minusta Aaltola toi vastauksessaan esiin tärkeän näkökulman joka on jäänyt infosota -puheen jalkoihin:

Informaatiovaikuttaminen on vain eräs strategisen vaikuttamisen muoto.

Vaikka infosotaan liittyvä keskustelu on sekin tarpeellista, termin ja erityisesti sodan määrittelyyn liittyvät ongelmat tuppaavat viemään keskustelua sivuraiteille jossa ei nähdä metsää puilta.

Olenkin enemmän huolissani valmiuksistamme liittyen strategisiin vaikuttamisoperaatioihin ylipäänsä. Tietoisuus näiden operaatioiden luonteesta, tarkoitusperistä ja eri ilmenemismuodoista vaikuttaa ainakin julkisen keskustelun perusteella olevan melko vähäistä.

Olisi mukava kuulla kyselyyn vastanneiden kommentteja tähän liittyen.