Warning Orders: Strategic Reasons for Publicizing Military Offensives

I've read the article, and want to answer. But my answer has comes with an ethical dilemma. Back in the good old days, it was accepted that the content of press releases were pretty tightly controlled. Censors could redact, edit, or deny publication of reports. The media was somewhat willing (compliant) accomplices in the selective and creative "release" of militarily significant information and disinformation. Is it unethical in military operations today to use the media to deliberately mislead the enemy? I want to say yes, but I can see that having its own set of unintended consequences.

Is it bad to announce offensives that we know are never coming, if the intent is to "de-sensitize" the enemy? Or to cause them to needlessly expend effort? Or to get them to "expose their chin" to an operational or strategic uppercut? As a military leader I would have zero problem with it. As a citizen, and a big fan of truth, I don't like it.

It's OK to leave me out of the loop if I don't have the need to know. But you piss me off when you lie to me, even if I don't have the need to know.

There is a lot wrong with the piece that would be hard to type away at as it would take a while. First is the inexperience of the writer and the argument from only one side of the table. She seems to be ditching a thousand years of the strategic concept of operational security and/or not announcing intentions. It also mixes larger wars against more traditional armies and insurgency operations, not apples and apples.

Sometimes your intensions are clear. For example as allied forces moved across France and into Germany in WWII, the Germans knew we were going to Berlin. What they did not know was the exact nature of the forces arrayed against them, the nature of the attack that would come and how it would unfold etc. That was very different than letting the Germans know where operation Overlord would take place. I mean, why not tell them, it will not really make any difference, seems to be her argument.

She used Hue City as an example. Does she know that this was a NVA surprise attack on the city we had to repel? We didn't launch an attack, we had to repel one and take the city back from the NVA and VC.

She uses a thin veil argument that because there might be an occasion where you would let the enemy know your intension that in almost all cases letting them know would not be an issue. The argument about letting people know so they can evacuate before the attack may be valid in some cases, that does not mean it will be valid in all cases. Allowing your enemy the opportunity to harden targets, prepare defensive positions, booby trap building after building etc. has a human cost too. It also allows an insurgency the chance to slip away with the civilians leaving the city too or just slipping out under the cover of darkness leaving a token force to booby trap and ambush to slow us down.

There is also so much disinformation in war that many will not believe anything they hear about an attack/impending attack etc.

War is a business where there is always collateral damage and civilians are always caught up in it. That is not the goal but that is reality. That is why you always want these to be away games.

I think it really depends on the offensive planned and the enemy you face. If the enemy is a large army willing to stand their ground, announcing will help civilians clear harm's way. If it is a smaller, guerilla type force, announcing only allows them to leave the area to create a new stronghold somewhere else. Think of it like trying to kill a swarm of roaches by turning on the light...it won't work, they'll scatter.