In war, the army succeeds by deception(surprising the enemy), by moving the enemy with benefits, and by divide or concentration of forces in variation.
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
In his first Italian campaign in 1796 and 1797, Napoleon was outnumbered by nearly 20,000 troops by the Piedmontian and Hapsburg armies. He was able to defeat them by using rapid, forced advances which separated the two armies, allowing him to fight them singly.
The American Civil War provides an excellent example of the “divide and conquer” strategy with Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign. While fielding only 17,000 men, Jackson was able to defeat three Union columns (60,000 troops) by using the difficult to terrain to ambush and fight each singly rather than facing all at once.
In warfare, dividing and conquering is a common tactic. It involves splitting the enemy forces into smaller groups, isolating them, and attacking each group separately to weaken their overall strength.
In politics, divide and conquer tactics typically involve creating divisions among opponents or within rival groups to maintain control or gain an advantage. By sowing discord, exploiting existing divisions, or creating new divisions using the method of synthetic controversies it becomes much easier to weaken opposition and consolidate power.
But how are divide and conquer tactics deployed during modern PsyWar and hybrid warfare?
In media, including legacy/mainstream, social and other alternative media, controversy sells. And it often seems like all media has become much more about sales than about sharing factual information. Controversy generates clicks, re-posting, and message amplification. The controversy can focus on either a substantial or a trivial issue. In modern PsyWar, with its emphasis on censorship, propaganda, and psychological shaping or manipulation, facts and reality are increasingly irrelevant. It is no longer necessary for the controversy to be fact-based. We all know about the power of “fake news” to capture the attention of the general public, and in many ways it is far easier to drive views and clicks with unsupported statements and speculation than by doing the research necessary to comprehend a topic. Facts can be difficult and inconvenient things, but when reality becomes defined by feelings and opinions rather than objective facts, then development and exploitation of false narratives becomes child’s play.
In the brave new world of hybrid warfare, comprehensive control of media and the information battlescape creates rich opportunities for dividing and conquering the enemy by actively crafting controversies which can then become amplified weapons designed to splinter opposition. In this embodiment, propaganda and censorship are transformed from reactive and defensive methods for thought and population control to become deployable advanced offensive weaponry useful as a component of active measures. And, like any other offensive weapon, specific tactics and strategies such as “divide and conquer” can be enabled by this weapon, alone or as part of an integrated “hybrid warfare” battle plan.
I think I am seeing a growing trend in the use of Synthetic Controversies to intentionally divide communities and turn them against themselves. In particular, I notice a rise in legacy media alarmism concerning the trendy new weaponized term “Christian Nationalism”. Which triggered me to invest time in trying to better understand how synthetic or made-up controversies are being deployed in both legacy and new media as a key component of current PsyWar strategies and tactics.
A case can be made that hybrid warfare is nothing new, but rather is as old as war itself. Nevertheless, it has gained significant currency and relevance in recent years as states employ non-state actors and information technology to subdue their adversaries during or—more importantly—in the absence of a direct armed conflict. So what is hybrid warfare? Basically, the intersection between PsyWar and kinetic warfare. A more detailed definition is provided in a November 2021 article published by NATO Review, which focuses on interstate conflict but overlooks the increasingly common deployment of PsyWar tools, tactics and strategies on domestic civilian populations by their own governments.
Hybrid Warfare and its Characteristics
To put it simply, hybrid warfare entails an interplay or fusion of conventional as well as unconventional instruments of power and tools of subversion. These instruments or tools are blended in a synchronized manner to exploit the vulnerabilities of an antagonist and achieve synergistic effects.
The objective of conflating kinetic tools and non-kinetic tactics is to inflict damage on a belligerent state in an optimal manner. Furthermore, there are two distinct characteristics of hybrid warfare. First, the line between war and peace time is rendered obscure. This means that it is hard to identify or discern the war threshold. War becomes elusive as it becomes difficult to operationalize it.
Hybrid warfare below the threshold of war or direct overt violence pays dividends despite being easier, cheaper, and less risky than kinetic operations. It is much more feasible to, let’s say, sponsor and fan disinformation in collaboration with non-state actors than it is to roll tanks into another country’s territory or scramble fighter jets into its airspace. The costs and risks are markedly less, but the damage is real. A key question here is: can there be a war without any direct combat or physical confrontation taking place? With hybrid warfare permeating inter-state conflicts, it is possible to answer this in the affirmative. This remains closely linked to the philosophy of war as well. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting, as the ancient military strategist, Sun Tzu, suggested.
The second defining characteristic of hybrid warfare relates to ambiguity and attribution. Hybrid attacks are generally marked by a lot of vagueness. Such obscurity is wittingly created and enlarged by the hybrid actors in order to complicate attribution as well as response. In other words, the country that is targeted is either not able to detect a hybrid attack or not able to attribute it to a state that might be perpetrating or sponsoring it. By exploiting the thresholds of detection and attribution, the hybrid actor makes it difficult for the targeted state to develop policy and strategic responses.
Grey Zone – The Complex Conflict Landscape
Recent studies on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate how costly all-out wars can be in terms of human, economic, as well as social and political losses regardless of how disparate the capabilities of the conflicting parties or adversaries are. Owing to rapid technological advancements and the rise of asymmetric warfare, all-out wars can be ineffective even vis-à-vis powers that have relatively less resources and clout. Victory might thus become an extremely tough proposition.
With the cost of war ratcheting up and newer tools being at the disposal of states, the will to fight all-out wars might be diminishing. This, however, does not herald the waning of conflicts, but changes the dynamics of war. It is against this backdrop that states are increasingly resorting to hybrid warfare below the threshold of an armed conflict in pursuance of their zero-sum security goals. In a nutshell, the overall security environment is radically changing despite the nature of conflict remaining the same.
“War is nothing more than the continuation of politics by other means,” the eminent military strategist Clausewitz said. While this might still be true, the means of war have expanded remarkably amidst the advent of contemporary hybrid warfare. This means that the politics-war matrix has become even more complex, since the dynamics of war are in a state of flux. War now means a range of possibilities. Sometimes, it might entail kinetic operations in conjunction with the use of non-state actors. Sometimes, it might involve launching cyberattacks targeting critical infrastructure together with disinformation campaigns. Such avenues are extensive and so are the ways in which they may be fused or juxtaposed.
Hybrid warfare makes conflict dynamics murky not only because it offers a large and expanding toolkit to undermine an adversary but also because it allows its security to be undercut on two fronts in tandem. This also relates to the overarching objectives of hybrid warfare. On the capability front, the vulnerabilities of the targeted state in the political, military, economic, social, information, and infrastructure (PMESII) realms are exploited insofar as it is tangibly and functionally weakened.
A second front on which a state’s security is undermined remains ideational in nature and relates to the legitimacy of the state. As a Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation report notes, “state legitimacy concerns the very basis on which state and society are linked and by which state authority is justified.” Thus, legitimacy intrinsically serves as the bedrock of the authority or the writ of the state.
In a bid to impair the social contract that binds the state and its constituents together, a hybrid actor attempts to erode trust between the state institutions and the people. This results in the state losing its legitimacy—which is largely a function of public trust in the modern era—and, in turn, the capacity to act as the Leviathan in the domestic sphere. As a corollary, both the ideational foundations as well as the capacity of the state to function seamlessly are damaged through hybrid attacks.
Synthetic controversy is often weaponized and deployed in the context of another social media trolling strategy known as “rage farming” or “rage-baiting”. Wikipedia defines these terms as manipulative tactics designed to elicit outrage with the goal of increasing internet traffic, online engagement, revenue and support. Rage baiting or farming can be used as a tool to increase engagement, attract subscribers, followers, and supporters, which can be financially lucrative. Rage baiting and rage farming manipulates users to respond in kind to offensive, inflammatory headlines, memes, tropes, or comments.
Rage-farming, which has become a widespread troll and bot tactic since at least January 2022, is an offshoot of rage-baiting where the outrage of the person being provoked is farmed or manipulated into an online engagement by rage-seeding that helps amplify the message of the original content creator. It has also been used as a political tactic at the expense of one's opponent. You are probably familiar with individual substacks, podcasters and self-styled online “independent reporters” who specialize in these methods.
Gregory Ciotti is an internet marketing specialist. Previously, he led content marketing on Shopify’s growth team and was executive editor on the communications team. His blog is oriented towards corporate internet marketing, but his insights readily translate into the PsyWar battlescape because propaganda and marketing are two faces of the same manipulative beast. In one of his blog posts, he has summarized his insights into “The science of creating controversial content”, and in this essay provides a window into a more sophisticated use of the logic, tactics and strategic considerations which are daily deployed by effective modern PsyWar soldiers when using controversy to advance their objectives by dividing and conquering their opponents. Greg focuses on creating and deploying controversy to maximize message penetration and improve marketing. To frame this using the language and logic which I use as a guide in my communications, his focus is on the persuadable middle, not on sowing division within a community.
If there is one rule that permeates the web, it’s that controversy is key if you want to get people talking.
Most of us recognize this, but we implement this strategy so poorly that it’s painful to watch. I’ve witnessed companies turn their publication into a vendetta machine, trying to stir up controversy by calling out individuals and other businesses.
That strategy is dumb because it puts you on a fast-track for being viewed as an attention grubbing sleazebag who lacks professionalism and the ability to keep their mouth shut.
And yet, I still advocate for creating the right kind of controversial content. So, how can we have our cake and eat it too?
According to research from Wharton Business School on When, Why, and How Controversy Causes Conversation, it turns out that people tend to avoid discussing things of “high” controversy in many instances because it can make situations and conversations become uncomfortable.
“Data shows that controversy increases likelihood of discussion at low levels, but beyond a moderate level of controversy, additional controversy actually decreases likelihood of discussion.”
In other words, people have no problem arguing about trivial issues, but will shy away from controversy that crosses the social line. That’s why an issue like toilet paper orientation works so well — it’s a topic everyone can relate too, it creates division in two very distinct camps, and it is an argument of “low” controversy, in that nobody’s feelings can get hurt.
If you’ve ever wondered why people love to argue about dumb stuff, well now you know. But how can you use this sort of argument to your advantage?
What does ‘controversial’ really mean?
While his blog focuses on corporate publications, Gregory Ciotti provides guidance and coaching which applies to all involved in the modern marketing-propaganda continuum. Gregory advocates that the optimally effective strategy for exploiting controversy is to develop, target and amplify more “low level” controversies, rather than focus on highly controversial topics.
If you’re a brand publication, you need to recognize that you’re not nearly as bulletproof as general purpose mainstream media outlets.
The news can call people out left and right. The news can talk about highly controversial topics like politics, religion, and tragedies.
Your company publication cannot, and should not bother with these topics of high controversy. This should be obvious to many, but when I say “controversial content,” many people confuse it with the things that news sites publish.
There is a much more specific definition that applies to business blogging, and even some research from Wharton that shows us that it’s this kind of “low” level controversy that we should pursue in the first place.
The “right way” to be controversial (from a marketing standpoint)
Any debate that takes a “This vs. That” stance on highly discussed things, people, or ideas can create the sort of argument and controversy that you are looking for, but there has also been some interesting research that shows people care deeply about their 3B’s.
Behavior
Belonging
Beliefs
So, if you create division within someone’s behavior, beliefs, or feeling of belonging, they will seek to either confirm your stance or disprove your stance, but either one is good for you because it creates buzz.
This is why I noted in the above section to get it into your head that your blog is not bulletproof… because at face value, these 3B’s might inspire you to start attacking deeply seeded beliefs of behavior that would cause outrage at your brand rather than a lively debate.
Let’s take a look at a few examples so you know exactly how to execute (and avoid massive backlash).
This was a post I did on the Help Scout blog, and after being published, it hit the front page of HackerNews and did about 9,000 unique views in the first 12 hours. What sort of controversy did I stir up?
Well, in the business world, there is a pretty big debate around customer feedback for innovation, or “sheltered” innovation. The argument that many make is that customers don’t often know what they want, and when asked, they’ll just ask for improved versions of what’s already out there.
The other side views customer feedback as essential to innovation, with customers providing insights about your product that would be impossible to gain without their feedback.
It’s a debate that people care about, but that won’t offend anyone.
No surprise then, when the post started picking up steam on social media, with most people sharing it with commentary (“I agree with this wholeheartedly” or “This is getting things wrong…”). The comments left were multiple paragraphs long, with some strong opinions being shared from both sides.
The Buffer blog has a wider reach than us, so this post really took off, and even got a Lifehacker feature. As you can probably guess, this post takes shots at a very common form of Behavior, but it turns things up a notch with a technique I love…
Instead of Leo making the argument against multitasking on his own, he instead serves as the messenger (ie, “Don’t kill the messenger!“), citing data and research and simply presenting the evidence.
Using research or a credible source as a shield allows you to deflect the debate away from a ‘Them vs. You’ battle into a ‘Them vs. the Data,’ you should definitely still take a side, but remember that an argument with relevant sources can go much farther (in terms of reach and controversy) than a an argument made purely on experience.
What does this have to do with deploying Synthetic Controversies to advance PsyWar objectives?
In general, the key difference between marketing and propaganda is intent. Marketing is deployed to sell a product or service, and so generally is designed to appeal to a broad audience while avoiding discord. Propaganda is a much harder proposition, usually deployed to advance the interests of one group engaged in a struggle with another. PsyWar is applied modern propaganda.
Gregory Ciotti focuses on marketing, and so in discussing the importance of the 3B’s (Behavior, Belonging, Beliefs) he emphasizes the need to recognize the power and impact of these while avoiding taking a stance which will divide and alienate customers. But if the objective is to advance a modern warfare-based battle plan as part of a comprehensive hybrid warfare strategy, and your plan involves the time-tested divide and conquer approach, tactics and strategies, then creating and promoting synthetic controversies involving “ someone’s behavior, beliefs, or feeling of belonging, <in which> they will seek to either confirm your stance or disprove your stance, … is good for you because it creates buzz.”
And so it is no surprise that we find politicians, biased legacy media, bureaucrats, Federal Agencies and pharmaceutical companies crafting synthetic controversy-based strategies designed to divide and conquer communities which they perceive as threats to their power, privilege, prestige, economic and political interests.
Chapter 3: Attack Strategy
Sun Tzu tells us how to strategize on the numbers between the enemy and us:
verse 10: If we are ten times the enemy's strength, we can surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, divide them; if equal, we can defend against them; if lesser, we can run away; if much lesser, we can avoid them.
No comments:
Post a Comment