Guest Post: PSYOP for everyone

Chris,
Great points. I recall the discussion you led the post with. Two days prior I was part of a debate between a NATO PAO, a PSYOPer, a UK IO'er (yes, that's now a term), and "New Media" leader for the DOD. While it sounds like the beginning of a joke, the discussion was serious. What I drew from the conversation was the content was not the issue but the tactics and more importantly the planning process. PAOs are generally (not absolutely) reactive and do not plan their informational activities as that would suggest the dreaded word: influence. Not generally being planners (the PAO admitted planning isn't his or his colleagues' strength) they are excluded from the planning process either because they don't want to be "tainted" by association or, as another colleague told me, they don't hold the security clearances to be in the room.

Informational-based activities are essential to success on the kinetic and non-kinetic battlefields. There must be a general acceptance that proactive engagement, that includes choosing a medium and informational preparation of the discussion space, is not by definition misleading or worse. It is smart engagement in a "now media" world.

Again, great post, Chris.

I'm surprised that a man who could write "Information Operations - Doctrine and Practice" doesn't recognize IO when it occurs!

PSYOPers are not the only people in the U.S. government trained to influence - that is also part of the role of IO, and why PSYOP is one of the core elements of IO. The example provided in the post is a perfect example of what IO truly is - the synchronization, coordination, integration and deconfliction (SCID) of activities in the Information Environment. It is not the role of PSYOP to help maneuver elements focus their influence actions, no more than it is the role of the CA Planner to coordinate Community Relations (COMREL) events. PSYOP should do PSYOP - that's what they are paid to do - and they generally do it very well. It is the role of the IO Planner to help the Commander shape the environment.

For the PAOs out there, this is exactly why you are invited to the IO Working Group (IOWG). It's not a question of trying to turn you to the "Dark Side", and you can't be "tainted" by something that is not released to the outside world. It is critical that all actors involved are aware. It is only through that awareness that you can avoid information fratricide ... and that will "taint" a PAO!

As a PAO, I am thrilled to hear anyone who works in the information domain reiterate that, "It is only through that awareness that you can avoid information fratricide." Indeed, it is only through the SCID my IO colleague describes that a commander can be certain his influence activities (yes, you too PAO) are enabling the force's realization of stated objective(s).

And for any of the PAOs who think this kind of SCID is prohibited in doctrine—or by some more obscure policy, such as the infamously poorly-written 2004 CJCS memo (CM-2077-04) on the IO/PA relationship—consider the current CJCS Special Areas of Emphasis for Joint Professional Military Education (28 Apr 09). In the discussion of building partnership capacity (SAE1), this area of emphasis is described to include "improving DOD communication mechanisms in domestic public affairs and influencing potential adversaries and non-state actors.”

I don't think you need to have a doctorate in English to understand that the use of "domestic" here is used to differentiate between PA's mandate to "inform" domestic audiences, and its operational requirement as one of the commander's influence capabilities.

So when it comes to Chris' point, I disagree that "PSYOP forces are the only personnel in the U.S. government who are trained to conduct influence." PA personnel are very much trained to influence... it's just that the Defense Information School has yet to confront the issue of influence with anything resembling intellectual honesty.

Hence, most PAOs graduate DINFOS thinking they have no role in influence and should avoid very necessary operational collaboration with all the other IO capabilities (which contributes to the unfortunate side effect of refusing to let other IOWG members so much as buy them a beer... which we all know is criminal.)

One more thing, Matt: For anyone (especially PAOs) to claim that PAOs are excluded from the planning process because they don't hold the security clearance to be in the room is a copout. The vast majority of operational planning takes place at a level where any commissioned officer has the required access. At levels where higher clearances are required, the PAO billets are coded accordingly. And if the PAO doesn't have the clearance, that's the command's own damn fault. It's not that the individuals don't possess the ability to be granted clearance; it's because the command is too short-sighted and/or ignorant to write the billet requirement accordingly.

Wow Matt ... how did you form the opinion that PAOs are reactive and don't plan? We're obviously a bit different -- we have a PR Corps (as much as I shudder when I have to wear the accoutrements) and no IO functional area. Over the past five years we've very much shifted our PAO training from media relations shite to information domain planning in the support of ops.
Our PAO's must complete our Army all-corps officer training (the Air Force and Navy don’t have a category) course (when I first swapped into the role they didn't have to which frustrated the hell out of me) up to and including competing for Staff College. Before they become eligible for 03 they must have completed an Intro to Joint Warfare course (How to conduct joint planning)as well as a heap of speciality courses. Before they hit 04 they need to have done Joints Ops Planning, Info Ops Planning either CIMIC or Psyops Plans and some other speciality stuff. By the time their at 05 they’re looking at campaign planning and usually have an appropriate Masters in Org Comms or similar tucked away.
Planning has now become much more important than reacting. We can use civvies to deal with media enquiries in most cases. The uniforms are out the back ensuring the synch and coord of activities to achieve intended effects.
By Default (From my opinion if is by design because that's where I want to go) some of our PAOs have become the lead IO Planners in the Army and across Defence.
From my Coalition experiences I know there are some PAOs that want to plan ... the issue is they get caught up in the day to day fight have dealing with media noise. In reality (and what we try to do) is make dealing with the media noise a command responsibility allowing the PAO to support the force and the commander with coordinated activities. The real issue is that there are 12-14 of us in the whole Army (and a similar number of Reservists)

All good points. I was recently asked to brief a group of non-influence folks heading to Afghanistan, at the NATO School; the topic was supposed to be "PSYOPS in ISAF." I was asked to brief on assets, line-and-block charts, the means available, sample products, etc. Instead I chose to ignore that, and instead spent my allotted time trying to (a) convince everyone in the audience that they were all PSYOPers (by their actions, policies etc) and (b) how they could best fulfill this unexpected role. I fully agree that limiting ourselves to "inside the box" thinking that only trained PSYOPers should do PSYOP is vastly underusing our potential as an organization. The challenge, however, then becomes getting the "informational objectives" (to avoid the dreaded 'influence' word) out to everyone, and - whether they're lawyers, logisticians or leaders - getting them to understand that they have a part to play in this fight. Thanks for your post.

JAS, from my discussions, your training is substantially different than ours. To Matt Morgan's point that billets are setup properly for the right access, he's closer but from many conversations that track nearly identically, it is a combination of the Command not demanding enough of the PAO and the PAO self-limiting participation to avoid 'tainting' or other reason.

More often than not, the "PAO self-limiting participation to avoid 'tainting'" is a convenient excuse. While there are certainly great PAOs out there who get it... all too often I find key billets occupied by lazy planners or, worse, self-important lords protecting their sad little fiefdoms.