Shaping an opponent’s expectations can change an entire operation’s course. Tom Spahr sits down with naval flight officer and strategist Mike “Quatto” Posey to break down the craft and impact of military deception.
Posey explains that deception is far more than a fun trick—it achieves real benefits through the manipulation of an adversary’s choices. From World War II’s ghost armies to decoys drawing fire in Ukraine, convincing the enemy to look the wrong way dramatically tilts the odds. Even in a world of ubiquitous sensors, satellites, and drones, human psychology remains the ultimate battlefield. Visibility does not equal understanding, and clever planners exploit confirmation bias by feeding opponents clues they already want to believe.
Adversaries can also target the larger public by exploiting these same cognitive vulnerabilities through social media and news feeds. Resisting manipulation requires sharpening media literacy and practicing critical thinking daily. It’s a great discussion of the history, art, and high-stakes psychology behind military deception.
So at its simplest, military deception is causing an adversary to perceive a situation incorrectly so that they take or fail to take an action that ultimately helps us achieve our military objective.
Throughout this episode Mike Posey referenced a number of publications:
Barton Whaley, Strategem: Amazon.com: Stratagem: Deception and Surprise in War (Artech House Information Warfare Library): 9781596931985: Whaley, Barton: Books
Mark Cancian, “Inflicting Surprise”: Inflicting Surprise: Gaining Competitive Advantage in Great Power Conflicts
Barton Whaley, “The One Percent Solution”: The one percent solution: Costs and benefits of military deception | 1
Ad Fontes Media Chart: Interactive Media Bias Chart
Michael Posey, “MacArthur and the Art of Information Warfare”: MACARTHUR AND THE ART OF INFORMATION WARFARE – War Room – U.S. Army War College
Podcast: Download
Michael Posey is an active-duty U.S. Naval Flight Officer with a subspecialty in Information Systems and Operations. He currently serves as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Military Strategy, Planning, and Operations at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA.
Thomas W. Spahr is the DeSerio Chair of Strategic and Theater Intelligence at the U.S. Army War College. He is a retired colonel in the U.S. Army and holds a Ph.D. in History from The Ohio State University. He teaches courses at the Army War College on Military Campaigning and Intelligence.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of War.
Photo Description: (L) Four soldiers assigned to 23rd Headquarters Special Troops — commonly referred to as the Ghost Army — move an inflatable tank. The 1,000 Ghost Army service members used a variety of unique deception tactics to fool the enemy during World War II. Besides inflatable tanks and dummy equipment, they incorporated sound effects, radio trickery and impersonation. Their efforts were classified until 1993,but are now being highlighted and taught via the Ghost Army Legacy Project. (R) AI generated
Photo Credit: (L) National Archives (R) Created by Gemini
At about the 25:40 point in this podcase, matters relating to “cognitive resilience,” re: opponents trying to manipulate the will of the American people, by way of social media, etc., this is mentioned — with items such as the Ad Fontes Interactive Media Bias Chart, and understanding confirmation bias and negative bias, being discussed as ways to counter same. (The difficulty, as noted by interviewee Michael Posey, is that, to counter same, this might cause one to have to go against one’s own “brand,” and/or one’s own “identity?”)
But what about what might be called “ideological resilience,” re: opponents trying to manipulate the will of the American (etc.) people; in this case, by way of a specific ideology, such as that discussed below?:
““In his annual appeal to the Federal Assembly in December 2013, Putin formulated this ‘independent path’ ideology by contrasting Russia’s ‘traditional values’ with the liberal values of the West. He said: ‘We know that there are more and more people in the world who support our position on defending traditional values that have made up the spiritual and moral foundation of civilization in every nation for thousands of years: the values of traditional families, real human life, including religious life, not just material existence but also spirituality, the values of humanism and global diversity.’ He proclaimed that Russia would defend and advance these traditional values in order to ‘prevent movement backward and downward, into chaotic darkness and a return to a primitive state.’
In Putin’s view, the fight over values is not far removed from geopolitical competition. ‘[Liberals] cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do over the recent decades,’ he said in an interview with the Financial Times in 2019. ‘There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable,’ he added. …
As Putin passes his 20th year as Russia’s president, his domestic and foreign policy appears intended to contrast his country’s ‘independent path’ with the liberal and decadent regimes in the West. The invented battle of Western values versus Russia’s ‘traditional values’ is part of a Kremlin effort to justify its broader actions in the eyes of Russian (and the world’s?) citizens, placing them in the context of a global struggle in which Russia is the target of aggression. Ignoring and violating the provisions of international organizations to which it is a party thus becomes a demonstration of defending its conservative values from European liberalism. … ”
(Item in parenthesis above is mine. See the “Open Democracy” article “Inside the Fight Over Russia’s Domestic Violence Law,” by Alexey Yurtaev, dated 17 February 2020)
Thought:
Might we agree that — since 2013 — Russia’s spreading of its “traditional values” ideology, this has had some significant, for example here in the U.S./the West, success?
Might we also agree that — in order to counter same — this is going to be difficult, this, also, given the “traditional values” “brand” — and the “traditional values” “identity” — that, for example, many rural Americans (etc.), and many working class Americans (etc.), claim for themselves?
(Thus, not just a social media manipulation/deception problem, but also an ideological manipulation/deception problem — and, indeed, a cultural problem — which we must find a way to deal with? In this regard, where is my — ideological equivalent — of the Ad Fontes Interactive Media Bias Chart, and the understanding confirmation bias and negative bias helpers?)