At its most basic level, information warfare is the use or manipulation of information to pursue a competitive advantage by influencing targets to make decisions in the interest of those conducting the operation. Military deception, psychological operations, and propaganda are but a few information-related activities that constitute the larger information warfare concept. The term information warfare is an anachronism for Colonial America, but its tenets are evident in Gen. George Washington’s war correspondence as it pertains to specific information threats and vulnerabilities. Washington demonstrated a keen awareness of the power of information and its capacity to influence combat operations and public perceptions, and sources indicate he deliberately pursued advantages at both the strategic and tactical levels of warfare through his use of information.
The role and impacts of propaganda during the American Revolutionary War have been thoroughly studied. Historian Philip Davidson argues that “propaganda was . . . indispensable to those who first promoted resistance to specific British acts and ultimately urged revolution,” and states further that “the evidences of a conscious, systematic effort on the part of certain colonial leaders to gain public support for their ideas are unmistakable.” Carl Berger writes that the conflict “was a war of words as well as gunpowder,” during which “the atrocity story, kidnappings, false rumors, and bribery stirred the people” in attempts by both Americans and the British to gain influence with specific groups. These scholars reveal propaganda as a significant component of the American war effort, including building anti-British sentiment, lobbying France for direct support, and reinforcing the French alliance domestically.
Davidson and Berger use propaganda as a catch-all term for different types of information-related actions, but do not account for the variety of ways that military leaders managed information threats and created and leveraged information advantages for specific purposes in a warfighting context. Berger states he is “much less concerned with the important military operations of the war than with what was said and done in support of them.” The information war should be understood as more than propaganda alone, especially because the military leaders that engaged in physical combat on the battlefield also fought information battles away from it, seeking influence equal to any pamphleteer or newspaperman. General Washington is a prime example. Washington faced a variety of information threats and challenges during the war, some tactical in nature while others were more strategic, but all of which required tailored and deliberate responses to prevent potential vulnerabilities from becoming major setbacks.