One key class of enemy were the online propaganda people, who were few in number. We tracked them down and killed them:
Unlike administrative and tactical leaders, who can be replaced with less skilled people who can still do the job that does not work with tech.
With Internet jobs the loss of a few key leaders and their technical staffs had an immediate, substantial and sustained impact. This could be seen most clearly with the ISIL Information War operations, mainly those operating largely via the Internet.
Which supports my argument that countering enemies online should never replace killing our enemies:
I'd focus on killing jihadis and smashing up jihadi organizations and sanctuaries, but that's just me. Did we really have a RadioOps information war in World War II to persuade potential Nazis to turn away from Hitler? Or did we pound the Nazis into the ground and delegitimize their ideology with our victory and their defeat? WebOps, indeed. Sounds like it is more funding-magnet jargon than a real part of the war. Be the strong horse and they'll slink away into the shadows.
LeadOps are ultimately how we kill jihadis. So hack enemies, by all means. Then kill them.
Mind you, the soft side of persuasion is necessary for the good guys to win the Islamic Civil War that is raging to decide who defines what Islam is. But on the battlefield, which is well downstream from that war, killing enemies is always a good thing to do.
Bonus discussion by Strategypage of drones that highlights the ridiculous "human rights" campaign against armed drones which are just a more effective means of killing enemies no more or less illegal than any other weapon used in war.
