Architecture speaks to the way bits are transformed into information. The commander in another may insist on a large group of analysts who look examine raw data, the relative influence of each analyst varying with the commander's estimate of their ability and with the correlation between the analysis and reality. Clearly, each commander has a different decisionmaking style, and a campaign of C2 warfare would have very different effects on each command apparatus. Information warfare waged without regard for the architecture of decisionmaking is no better than a shot in the dark. By 17 January allied forces had a fairly good feel for the way Iraq used information.
Architectural issues pervade civilian systems under attack from tomorrow's hackers.
Most issues of access and security are essentially questions of who the system will let talk to it. Issues of whether others can feed the system executable code or parsable text are questions of what the system can absorb without rejecting. Unerasable archiving schemes are connections between the possibly corrupted present state of a system and its past, presumably uncorrupted state. To say that a system is hackable because it is physically open is scarcely to offer an adequate description of a system with complex and often correctly thought-out architectures. Psychological warfare must correspond to media architectures, in multiple dimensions, if it is to have an effect.