The Two Rules of Information Warfare: Don't Rush and Don't Be Late

In the ever-evolving landscape of information warfare, Sun Tzu's timeless wisdom in "The Art of War - The Way of Deception" is often invoked.

However, its seamless application to modern American political and business realms requires scrutiny. As someone entrenched in the realm of reputation and anti-crisis management, I frequently encounter clients who have become casualties of information attacks. By the time they seek assistance, the missteps in their initial responses have compounded, often exacerbated by the absence of crisis PR specialists in their teams.

In the fast-paced world of modern communication, where misinformation can spread like wildfire, it is crucial to acknowledge that information warfare extends beyond the confines of a legal battlefield and demands a multifaceted approach that transcends legalities.

In the realm of information warfare, where narratives and perceptions shape the course of events, a prevailing misconception suggests that the one who lies most emerges victorious. However, the truth is far more nuanced. Lying, whether to others or oneself, is a precarious strategy with severe consequences. Lying to others damages reputation, erodes trust, and undermines credibility, while lying to oneself sets the stage for eventual self-destruction.

Victory in information warfare hinges on credibility. Firstly, your own people must trust you, and also your enemies. To be believed, one must be respected, and to be respected, goals and means must transcend pettiness. This necessitates a commitment to truth, avoiding exaggerations, loud rhetoric, and rash statements. Sacrificing the immediate allure of vibrant speeches for enduring weight is a strategic choice.

Once caught in a blatant lie or exaggeration, one's credibility is irreversibly tarnished. Partners lose trust, enemies dismiss threats, and the uphill battle to regain respect becomes steeper.

The cardinal rule, therefore, is not to lie. A mistake may be forgivable, but a lie is a costly indulgence. Lying to one's team under the guise of protection only accumulates a debt with high-interest rates, demanding future courage and confidence to cover the mounting costs.

Comparing two columnists—one prone to emotional and loud formulations and the other employing restrained and moderate language—reveals a critical insight. The former may capture initial interest but risks becoming irksome, while the latter, with balanced and reliable formulations, gains lasting credibility. Time plays a crucial role in distinguishing between fleeting sensationalism and enduring substance.

Respecting time involves eschewing haste and avoiding tardiness. Haste, a common pitfall in information warfare, manifests in preemptive justifications, the premature release of unverified information, and impulsive attacks on competitors. The rush to respond before accusations materialize often backfires, as does the dissemination of unverified information that later proves false. Patience, on the other hand, is a virtue that allows one to navigate the evolving landscape with wisdom.

Tardiness, the other peril, involves delayed or nonexistent responses, ignoring crucial issues, and neglecting weighty requests. To be late is to hope for a self-correction of the situation, a perilous gamble that can lead to irreparable damage. Punctuality in information warfare demands a timely and measured response, acknowledging the importance of swift and appropriate action.

In the annals of information warfare, the pages are marked with instances where political leaders either acted too hastily or belatedly in responding to information threats, leaving indelible imprints on their reputations and legacies. Examining specific cases from politics during the Cold War era unveils valuable lessons in the delicate dance of timing and strategic communication.

A prominent example from French politics is the Rainbow Warrior affair in 1985. France, seeking to maintain nuclear testing in the Pacific, made a premature move by orchestrating the bombing of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior. The rushed and covert operation intended to eliminate a perceived threat ended in tragedy when a photographer lost his life. France's haste not only resulted in an international outcry but also fueled accusations of state-sponsored terrorism. The premature and aggressive response not only failed to quell dissent but intensified global scrutiny. The incident tarnished France's reputation, illustrating the perils of acting too hastily in the face of perceived information threats.

Turning to U.S. politics during the Cold War, the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 stands as an emblematic case of tardiness and its consequences. The covert operation, aimed at overthrowing Fidel Castro's regime in Cuba, was launched without adequate planning or support. The ill-fated attempt proved disastrous, as Cuban exiles, unsupported and ill-prepared, faced defeat. The tardiness in reassessing the operation and providing essential support led to a significant setback for the United States. President John F. Kennedy, grappling with the aftermath, acknowledged responsibility but the damage was done. The delay in recognizing and rectifying the flawed plan exemplifies the repercussions of being too late in responding to an evolving crisis.

A notable example from the business world, the automotive industry is the General Motors ignition switch scandal in the mid-2010s. GM faced allegations of knowingly installing faulty ignition switches in certain vehicles, which led to accidents and fatalities. The company's initial response was criticized for being too slow and reactive. By the time they acknowledged the issue and initiated a recall, substantial damage had been done to their reputation. The delayed response not only increased public scrutiny but also resulted in significant legal and financial consequences for the company.

Turning to the pharmaceutical sector, the example of Johnson & Johnson's handling of the Tylenol crisis in the 1980s is instructive. In response to tampering with Tylenol bottles that led to several deaths, Johnson & Johnson acted swiftly and decisively by recalling all Tylenol products and introducing tamper-resistant packaging. This prompt and transparent response mitigated the potential damage to the company's reputation and is often cited as a textbook example of crisis management done right.

In the age of rapid information dissemination, businesses and political leaders must carefully balance the urgency of response with strategic patience. Whether facing accusations, crises, or disinformation campaigns, the principles of not acting too early or too late remain relevant. Modern examples, such as responses to cyber threats, misinformation campaigns, geopolitical tensions or client scandals, echo the enduring significance of these principles.

The two rules—take your time and don't be late—serve as guiding principles for a win in the information battle. By respecting oneself, valuing others, and navigating the intricate dynamics of social relationships, individuals and entities can emerge not only unscathed but fortified in credibility and respect, essential currencies in the ongoing battle for influence and perception.