June of this year was marked by a trio of significant military undertakings from three different corners of the globe: Ukraine devastating Russia’s strategic bomber fleet, Israel’s thorough and rapid neutralizing of key Iranian leaders and air defenses, and the United States’ extraordinary long-range bunker bombarding of nuclear sites in Iran. These operations not only conveyed a strong sense of audacity but were also backed by something unexpected: quick, detailed disclosures about the operations. This was not the typical restricted press coverage or carefully edited military reports we have frequently seen. Moreover, these disclosures were accompanied by an array of easily sharable media, demonstrating a significant shift in the performative aspect of warfare.
Warfare throughout history has held a performative dimension, with the actions taken often carrying deeper connotations than the mere devastation they cause. What sets these operations apart is not so much the nature of the actions, but how they’re communicated after the fact. In the same way that the ‘shock and awe’ tactics of the 2003 Iraq War and the CNN coverage of the first Gulf War held the world’s attention captive, these operations have made use of innovative tools such as social media, real-time distribution, and comprehensive disclosure to capture a global audience.
This trend extends beyond these particular operations. Russia’s significant drone operations against Ukraine, while perhaps not as globally riveting, have featured a lot of drone footage distribution, replacing the previous nuclear threats used by Russia as deterrence against more robust Western intervention. Iran’s response to the American strike appeared more symbolic than serious, essentially an exercise in domestic posturing that avoided any actual escalation. These developments raise an interesting question: Is warfare evolving to be more performative?
For the major powers in the 21st century, they have tended to separate their prominent operational agendas from their strategic signaling activities. This split is not absolute, as real-world military operations naturally place an emphasis on achieving a specific end state. Activities involving signaling and geopolitically relevant messaging operate through distinct channels. There is a logic to this separation – it provides means of control and limitation. Military operations necessitate withholding certain information to retain potential advantages for use in future missions, while strategic signaling requires controlled messaging to deliver clear intentions without inciting unintentional escalation.
Examples of strategic signaling include nuclear signaling such as the one largely utilized by Russia to deter the West from a more active role in the crisis in Ukraine, as well as military exercises like the Freedom of Navigation Operations, China’s joint exercise around Taiwan, or NATO’s combined maneuvers. These exercises serve to demonstrate their capabilities and intentions. Similarly, the unveiling of technological capabilities or significant platform announcements grab the attention of both the public and policy makers. The end goal for these is influence.
On the other hand, actual military operations, be they singular covert operations or wider warfare campaigns, focus on military objectives and coercion. When countries conduct high-impact operations, like assassinating enemy leaders or destroying important infrastructure, mission success takes precedence. Any signaling that does occur is often a by-product of action itself.
The operations in June, however, blurred this line. They utilized operational channels as the primary vehicle for strategic signaling. It wasn’t just the actions, but the means and methods used to achieve them that were highlighted. The details disclosed came not from third-party analysts or media correspondents, but directly from national authorities. The strategic communications previously delivered through established signaling formats were merged with tactical operations into a single operational framework.
Three such major operations being conducted by three separate countries in a short span of time suggest this could indeed be a pattern emerging, a shift in the approach to strategic information operations. As opposed to treating means, effect, and message as competing aspects, the operations in June displayed a deeper integration. Key military information was relinquished by Ukraine, Israel, and the United States in these operations – a decision that might limit their methods, capabilities, and flexibility for future missions, but in exchange, they gained immediate strategic communication benefits.
This recalibration of priorities leading to disclosure comes with intricate trade-offs. For example, Ukraine’s ever evolving drone technology, and the U.S’s intent to completely obliterate Iranian nuclear facilities reducing need for preservation can offset the conventional considerations of operational security. That being said, it’s also true that the opposite case could be made. Detailed disclosures have their downsides, such as the revealing of tactics and methodologies that could impact future operations.
However, the strategic communication benefits seemed to justify the information cost. The impact of these operations has surely been noticed. Ukraine sending a clear message about Russian vulnerabilities across 4,300 kilometers of its territory, simultaneously boosting Ukrainian morale and credibility. Israel’s revelation of its deep infiltration into Iran reinforced regional deterrence, while the United States underscored its technological superiority and global reach with its complex Operation Midnight Hammer, targeting a critical audience not just in the Middle East but also in the Indo-Pacific.
The evolution of performative warfare aligns with the trajectory of modern information operations. In the face of highly successful influence campaigns struggling to retain attention in today’s information-abundant environment, increasingly dramatic and credible demonstrations seem to be a necessity. Traditional campaigns struggle to keep pace with rapidly waning attention spans and opposing narratives.
However, the effectiveness of spectacular military strategies can decrease with repetition, as demonstrated by historical precedents such as World War I’s Q-ships initially successful in luring German U-boats into close-range attacks but losing their effectiveness once U-boat commanders adapted their strategies. Similarly, while Ukraine’s drone warfare revolution revived media attention in the topic, similar to the early years of drone strikes in the ‘Global War on Terror’, familiarity and routine can lead to media fatigue.
Despite these limitations, the June operations have shown that such detailed disclosure strategies could serve various strategic functions across different levels of power. This suggests future flexibility in their potential use as strategic tools, rather than the approach being limited to certain specific circumstances. The challenge for the United States now is to develop this tool of performative warfare in a considered manner, rather than allowing competitors to set the parameters.
Performative warfare appears innovative but could fit well within the arsenal of American strengths. Given the frequency with which the United States conducts strategically significant operations, opportunities for potential performative warfare applications are plentiful. Regular execution of these operations could qualify for performative treatment with the right disclosure strategies and authoritative endorsement. The infrastructure for this exists; what’s needed is proper planning from the inception of the operation. Strategic disclosure combined with America’s high-level, wide-ranging operations could create an influence advantage difficult for competitors to match.
The post Performative Warfare Marks Turn for Global Military Agendas appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
