PDA

View Full Version : Do we not expose our young Officers to PSYOP early enough?



Hardrockxo
09-10-2007, 05:36 PM
Several book, articles, and even military strategists suggest that Psychological Operations are paramount in counterinsurgency. As a PSYOP Officer, of course I am biased, but I have to hypothesize that the mastery of information operations and the ability to influence through words, ideas, and actions is a key element that Brigade and below tactical commanders have to be exposed to.

I wonder though if this (for all intensive purposes – element of combat power) is not paid enough heed. Why are future Company Commanders not truly exposed to, and learn to integrate this asset into their maneuver plans?
As a young student at my respective career course, we had instructors from most of the branches of the Army – Field Artillery, Military Intelligence, Aviation, Signal. These officers were the subject matter experts in their respective fields – and their sole purpose was to teach how to integrate these supporting arms into the tactical plan.

Is PSYOP not introduced at the earliest level possible? Are we not arming our maneuver commanders? I have heard senior level officers comment on the need to get information and perception management queued into the fight. I have heard PSYOP mistaken for “IO” (really almost an interchangeable term now), but how many people really grasp the capability and capacity of persuading a target audience to change a behavior.

Sure, sometimes the best convincing argument is some 5.56, but what is the long term effect in a long, small war? How do the innocent eyes of today react tomorrow, and what about the lasting conversations once Soldiers leave the objective?

I would love to hear other likeminded professionals submit their ideas on how to influence the force on the skill set that PSYOP brings to the field. I would also love to hear the experiences (please be truthful) that others have had within the Perception and Influence realm of warfare. I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Regards,

Hardrockxo

RTK
09-10-2007, 05:51 PM
Several book, articles, and even military strategists suggest that Psychological Operations are paramount in counterinsurgency. As a PSYOP Officer, of course I am biased, but I have to hypothesize that the mastery of information operations and the ability to influence through words, ideas, and actions is a key element that Brigade and below tactical commanders have to be exposed to.

I wonder though if this (for all intensive purposes – element of combat power) is not paid enough heed. Why are future Company Commanders not truly exposed to, and learn to integrate this asset into their maneuver plans?
As a young student at my respective career course, we had instructors from most of the branches of the Army – Field Artillery, Military Intelligence, Aviation, Signal. These officers were the subject matter experts in their respective fields – and their sole purpose was to teach how to integrate these supporting arms into the tactical plan.

Is PSYOP not introduced at the earliest level possible? Are we not arming our maneuver commanders? I have heard senior level officers comment on the need to get information and perception management queued into the fight. I have heard PSYOP mistaken for “IO” (really almost an interchangeable term now), but how many people really grasp the capability and capacity of persuading a target audience to change a behavior.

Sure, sometimes the best convincing argument is some 5.56, but what is the long term effect in a long, small war? How do the innocent eyes of today react tomorrow, and what about the lasting conversations once Soldiers leave the objective?

I would love to hear other likeminded professionals submit their ideas on how to influence the force on the skill set that PSYOP brings to the field. I would also love to hear the experiences (please be truthful) that others have had within the Perception and Influence realm of warfare. I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Regards,

Hardrockxo

Great post. I'd submit this plan. Unfortunately, the realist in me doesn't see it an out for a number of different reasons:

Get a CA officer embedded in the TDA for CCC organizations. I think doing it beforehand in BOLC II/III would amount to a counterproductive measure for two reasons.

1. The amount of information a BOLC student is required to digest in BOLC where they're learning the basic fundamentals of their branch-specific trade and basic leadership skills and traits is, to be honest, quite overwhelming. We shove a lot down their throats in a small period of time. As discussed in other threads, the biggest question at the TDA level for BOLC would be where you would embed CA training and at the expense of what other training (what would you take out of the current curriculum).

2. Most PLs will work with CA NCOs and very seldom with a CA officer. Even as a commander I was working with your NCOs. I don't know if I ever saw the CA officer at my level. A seminar style class could be added, but only (realistically) for around a 3 hour block. I'm not sure what benefits that would provide to the young LT in terms of practical use and experience if not followed up by some intergration into STX or FTX prior to commencement.

If included in the POI for CCC, those officers preparing for Troop/Company/Battery commands and BN/BDE level staffs could integrate lessons learned in the BN/BDE MDMP processes amounting to consideration of CA activities and planning factors in a number of practical exercises.

The downfall is that your branch is critically short. Like SF, Civil Affairs Soldiers cannot be mass produced. Emplacing a CA officer with experience in TDA would amount to around 8 different Officers/Senior NCOs spread to the major Centers of Excellence. While I think it's a viable option that should be considered, I fear that from a practical standpoint it may not happen.

I wish we could. I hope my skepticism is wrong. I guess we will see.

$0.02

Mondor
09-11-2007, 02:35 AM
Q: How do you pronounce USACAPOC?
A: The POC is silent.



The downfall is that your branch is critically short. Like SF, Civil Affairs Soldiers cannot be mass produced.

In my experience this is part of the problem. Folks make no distinction between CA and PSYOP. So my answer to your question is no, officers are not being exposed to PSYOP early enough.

How many times have you sent your teams out to support a unit only to have them give their capability brief and have the supported unit commander ask, “So how is this going to help me kill bad guys?” How many other supporting units have to even give a full blown capabilities brief that goes into the detail of telling the commander where they fit into the staff, who they report through, and what their basic mission is? Through PME and MOS training, and pre-deployment train up the unit commander should already have a pretty good idea of what a TPT or TPD consists of and what it is capable of doing. However this is rarely the case. Our training system does not cover PSYOP at the tactical or operational level in near enough detail, if at all.

If an infantry commander did not know the basic capabilities, targeting process and LNO requirements of a supporting aviation asset or an attached artillery unit he would be relieved. However, not knowing about PSYOP as it has limited kinetic capability is almost a source of pride amongst some.

The number of units with commanders like that has gone down a bit, but when a TPT is linked with a platoon or company for an operation the LT or even CPT generally has no idea how to treat the team or how to use them to his own advantage.

I could go on, you touched a nerve with this one, but I need to get a bit of required reading in before attacking data interoperability issues in the morning. Data interoperability, yeah, that is where the glory is.

AdaptAndOvercome
09-11-2007, 04:08 AM
Hardrockxo,
Platoonleader.army.mil and companycommand.army.mil would be great places to post some of your materials.

CW
09-11-2007, 08:43 PM
RTK,

I'm not sure how CA entered the discussion, but please don't confuse them with PSYOP. They are different branches with entirely different missions which are often complementary. The way that I often describe the difference is that a CA officer needs a SECRET clearance just to have a commission, while a PO officer without a TS/SCI isn't even really in the game. Seriously, it's two entirely different career fields, so maybe we should educate our juniors officers early and often.

v/r
CW

RTK
09-11-2007, 09:02 PM
RTK,

I'm not sure how CA entered the discussion, but please don't confuse them with PSYOP. They are different branches with entirely different missions which are often complementary. The way that I often describe the difference is that a CA officer needs a SECRET clearance just to have a commission, while a PO officer without a TS/SCI isn't even really in the game. Seriously, it's two entirely different career fields, so maybe we should educate our juniors officers early and often.

v/r
CW

I understand that.

I also believe the disconnect is just as appropriate with TPTs as it is with CAs, THTs, and other "non-lethal" enablers out there. My proposal is that there should be a PSYOPs Officer/NCO, a CA Officer/NCO, and a THT WO at each CCC.

I apologize for not making this more clear.

Mondor
09-12-2007, 03:05 AM
Ok, I had my little rant and want to make it clear that my position is as follows:

1) We need to expose our junior leaders to PSYOP as a capability as soon as possible.

2) RTK is correct in pointing out the realities of the situation.

Now, for my constructive comments:

Never having been a sir type myself I am not that familiar with the normal POI for OCS or USMA types when it comes with giving an overview of the capabilities of each of the branches. I imagine that it is one of the areas that receive quite a bit of attention as everyone want to know what they will be doing for the next few years.

For the enlisted Marine types we have our “knowledge” tucked into our cargo pockets every day of basic. It is chock full of that sort of stuff. It was not as detailed as I would have liked but it gave me a starting point.

After basic I was able to take any number of PME correspondence courses, both Army and USMC, which gave me more insight into other MOSs, supporting arms, combat arms, and combined operations.

However, there were no courses or reference material that I could find that gave any detail on the purpose for, and capabilities of PSYOP. When one considers the fact that the Army only created the PSYOP branch a short while ago and that the USMC still has no dedicated PSYOP professionals (PSYOP NCO and PSYOP Officer are secondary MOSs that do not require any formal schooling to be awarded) it is not surprising that the material is not out there for people to use.

What I am suggesting is not world revolution, but simply making some of the information available to those who want to find it. There should be MCI or ACCP introduction to PSYOP course. The USMC does a great job with their PME correspondence program in introducing the basics of combined arms. Perhaps adding a module that covers the proper employment of PSYOP would be a useful piece of the pre-deployment training that will help the artillery officer who finds himself in charge of the IO targeting cell.

RTK
09-12-2007, 10:31 AM
Ok, I had my little rant and want to make it clear that my position is as follows:

1) We need to expose our junior leaders to PSYOP as a capability as soon as possible.

2) RTK is correct in pointing out the realities of the situation.

Now, for my constructive comments:

Never having been a sir type myself I am not that familiar with the normal POI for OCS or USMA types when it comes with giving an overview of the capabilities of each of the branches. I imagine that it is one of the areas that receive quite a bit of attention as everyone want to know what they will be doing for the next few years.

For the enlisted Marine types we have our “knowledge” tucked into our cargo pockets every day of basic. It is chock full of that sort of stuff. It was not as detailed as I would have liked but it gave me a starting point.

After basic I was able to take any number of PME correspondence courses, both Army and USMC, which gave me more insight into other MOSs, supporting arms, combat arms, and combined operations.

However, there were no courses or reference material that I could find that gave any detail on the purpose for, and capabilities of PSYOP. When one considers the fact that the Army only created the PSYOP branch a short while ago and that the USMC still has no dedicated PSYOP professionals (PSYOP NCO and PSYOP Officer are secondary MOSs that do not require any formal schooling to be awarded) it is not surprising that the material is not out there for people to use.

What I am suggesting is not world revolution, but simply making some of the information available to those who want to find it. There should be MCI or ACCP introduction to PSYOP course. The USMC does a great job with their PME correspondence program in introducing the basics of combined arms. Perhaps adding a module that covers the proper employment of PSYOP would be a useful piece of the pre-deployment training that will help the artillery officer who finds himself in charge of the IO targeting cell.

This looks like a job for Tom Odom in the form of a CALL Handbook! ;)

Tom Odom
09-12-2007, 12:17 PM
This looks like a job for Tom Odom in the form of a CALL Handbook! ;)


If anyone has materials, papers, or other such stuff send it and I'll look at it.

Best

Tom

Mondor
09-12-2007, 01:35 PM
I'll dig around and see if I can dig up any of my old lesson plans. Better yet, I'll give someone who works out at Bragg a yell and see if they can get the most recent stuff and AARs. In fact CW who posted on this thread is probably a good first point of contact.

Hardrockxo
09-12-2007, 05:07 PM
I am glad that this conversation has precipitated in this matter. Right off the bat (no criticism intended), we highlighted the initial conflict of associating PSYOP with Civil Affairs.

All too often, TPT's get lumped into the same boat as Civil Affairs and HUMINT. I personally think that it is a little bit of the following two conundrums:

1.) Out of sight, and out of mind. Instead of integrating these guys into a maneuver plan, they are thrown together to meet a force protection requirement, and sent out to do their bidding. This negates the impact of PSYOP, since being at the point of lethal operations allows them to mitigate/exploit lethal actions to the fullest extent. Additionally, it gives them exposure to the action so they have a full understanding of the audience's reaction.

2.) Education - both of the PSYOP Officer and NCO, and of the maneuver commander. Everyone understands effects, especially lethal effects. You can measure how many bullets and bombs it took to destroy a target, and you have a measureable effect. However, showing a change of behavior OVER TIME is more difficult to do. We do not educate our PSYOP professionals, nor equip them, with the tools to "sell" themselves.

I agree with some of the suppositions here - having a member of the branch available at the respective Centers of Excellence would "in theory" provide the subject matter expertise. We could do this by having an AGR position at the schoolhouse, hire through MPRI, put a retired PSYOP/CA/THT servicemember on staff. Currently, we do not have the force structure available to do so with active duty officers.

Mondor, you hit the nail on the head, regarding Field Artillery and IO. A peer working with me here in IZ had a quote, "A two hour block of instruction at FACCC, and now I am the IO Guy" - and he is one of the lucky ones.

We, as a force, should also consider formulating a block of instruction on Information Operations capabilities and functions into the respective CCC's, FA Officers (who unfortunately get tasked with IO) should be afforded the opportunity to have formal FA 30 training.

Tom - PM me, I am more than willing to help with CALL.

RTK
09-12-2007, 05:19 PM
I am glad that this conversation has precipitated in this matter. Right off the bat (no criticism intended), we highlighted the initial conflict of associating PSYOP with Civil Affairs.

All too often, TPT's get lumped into the same boat as Civil Affairs and HUMINT.

It was a typo. I was on the phone with a CA dude when I was typing it.:D

Hardrockxo
09-12-2007, 05:33 PM
It was a typo. I was on the phone with a CA dude when I was typing it.:D

Not a problem, as a PSYOP Officer, I understand and know that one can never underestimate the human factor in receiving a message.

(It was for that reason that I did not respond immediately.) ;)

JD
09-12-2007, 06:53 PM
I have been looking though some of the UK higher level doctrine, particularly the Future Air and Space Operating Conceptwhich makes regular reference to Cognitive Effects without really explaining it. Cognitive Effects is an attractive idea because that leads to a Coignitive Effects Based Approach and gets people thinking about the ultimate effect which happens in the mind. This implies that Psyops should have a leading role if not the leading role. Do you think a cognitive effects based approach philosophy will fly or get shot down? I am currently on Advanced Command and Staff College and plan to write a research paper along these lines. Would anybody be interested in reading parts of it as I get something down?

JD

marct
09-12-2007, 07:34 PM
Hi JD,


I have been looking though some of the UK higher level doctrine, particularly the Future Air and Space Operating Conceptwhich makes regular reference to Cognitive Effects without really explaining it. Cognitive Effects is an attractive idea because that leads to a Coignitive Effects Based Approach and gets people thinking about the ultimate effect which happens in the mind. This implies that Psyops should have a leading role if not the leading role. Do you think a cognitive effects based approach philosophy will fly or get shot down?

Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I think it will fly for all the wrong reasons: it sound "cool" and will be too difficult for most people to understand therefore it must be good. Could you post a link or two to some of that material so I could get a good idea of what they are really taking about?


I am currently on Advanced Command and Staff College and plan to write a research paper along these lines. Would anybody be interested in reading parts of it as I get something down?

Always happy to apply the red ink :D.

Marc

JD
09-12-2007, 07:55 PM
Marc,

This is the link for the FASOC. Do a CTRL F search for Cognitive and you will see what I mean.

https://83.138.136.216/rafcms/mediafiles/B59F2D16_1143_EC82_2E7E0EA0529ED1CD.pdf

Good to hear from you again.

JD

marct
09-12-2007, 08:09 PM
Hi JD,


Cognitive Effects. In seeking to influence the less tangible aspects of operations, particularly to achieve Effects in an adversary’s cognitive domain, the ability to exploit his perception using his own space-based capability is a growing area; significantly, space can realise Effect without physical encroachment.

Okay, I've scanned through it, but I just have to ask: how are they actually conceptualizing the cognitive domain? The quote above is the largest discussion of cognitive effects in the document, and it really does look like they are using the terms as gobbledygook.

Do they actually have a model at all, or is it all like this?

Marc

marct
09-12-2007, 08:13 PM
On a related note, and back to the PSYOPS / IO / CA discussion, I would suggest that one of the problems running around is the lack of a good unifying theory: a vom Krieg for the mind as it were.

If we were going to create such a theory, where would we start? Would it be on the pragmatic, applied side (if so,which one)? Would we build a theory out of psychology?

JD
09-12-2007, 08:14 PM
No, its all pretty much like that and there doesn't appear to be liknk to any other doctrine. Its almost viral or a wooden horse that some bright young thing has sliped in but isn't yet ina position to explain. It gets back toyour first point - if no-one understands it and its in a document it must be good!

JD

marct
09-12-2007, 08:19 PM
Hi JD,


No, its all pretty much like that and there doesn't appear to be liknk to any other doctrine. Its almost viral or a wooden horse that some bright young thing has sliped in but isn't yet ina position to explain. It gets back to your first point - if no-one understands it and its in a document it must be good!

That's what I was afraid of :(! Since I think that we can develop a theory that would cover the area (ref my last post), I suspect that this type of viral Bravo Sierra will only act as a barrier to getting a real science model accepted <sigh...>.

Marc

JD
09-12-2007, 08:36 PM
Where would you start with real scince? Is anthropology the relevant starting point? Or is there already a framework. You may want to look at some stuff by Richard Pech, an academic from Australia who has tried to apply scientific theory and structure to religious extremism. Worth a look but unfortunately I don't have a link and I only have the large adobe file.


JD

Cavguy
09-12-2007, 08:41 PM
We've started to discuss this on the BCKS forum at the thread here for AKO users.

The discussion started with an IO officer's dissent regarding the conclusions of the Army War College's "Shifting Fire" paper on IO, saying it wasn't capturing what IO really was.

So the question is there - What is IO?

I made the same argument at BCKS; quoted below:



[Post #1]

I think a lot of the positive reception [to "Shifting Fire"] is because it is the first "IO for dummies" paper I've seen, sort of like "28 Articles of Company COIN" is "Company COIN for dummies"

I think you are right, people don't understand I/O and what it really is vs. PAO/PSYOP/CA, which confuses lots of people. So we have an understanding problem.

We all know we need to be better at I/O, but few have seen a user's manual to IO at either the tactical or strategic level.

Post #2

We have a deficency in education of maneuver commanders about I/O - what it is, how to use it, and capabilities. A maneuver commander understands employment of lots of battlefield systems from his training - arty, air, engineers, to name a few. I have never seen I/O broken down for tactical commanders in a practical guide. I think this may be resulting in some of the FA 30 frustration.

I don't have to be a helicopter pilot to understand the principles of employing aviation, and the same understanding is needed for I/O, and I haven't really seen it. I gave [CALL Director] some feedback on his upcoming Division Level I/O handbook, but there is a gap, and I think the FA 30 proponent needs to address it if they want to be "better employed".


The lack of a easy to understand conceptual framework for IO at tactical, operational, and strategic level is hurting us. It needs to be understandable to the maneuver commander what the guiding principles and themes he should follow. The strategic commander also needs a unifying concept and set of principles. FM 3-24 CH 1 and the "28 Articles of Company Coin" are prime examples of what is needed for I/O.

marct
09-12-2007, 09:49 PM
Hi Folks,


Where would you start with real scince? Is anthropology the relevant starting point? Or is there already a framework. You may want to look at some stuff by Richard Pech, an academic from Australia who has tried to apply scientific theory and structure to religious extremism. Worth a look but unfortunately I don't have a link and I only have the large adobe file.

I probably wouldn't start with Anthropology, although there is some good and relevant stuff there. Is the Pech article "Religious fundamentalism and terrorism: why do they do it and what do they want?" from Foresight? I just downloaded a copy and will go through it tonight.


The lack of a easy to understand conceptual framework for IO at tactical, operational, and strategic level is hurting us. It needs to be understandable to the maneuver commander what the guiding principles and themes he should follow. The strategic commander also needs a unifying concept and set of principles. FM 3-24 CH 1 and the "28 Articles of Company Coin" are prime examples of what is needed for I/O.

I agree 100%! That's one of the reasons why I think we need a really good underlying theory behind all of these areas - so that we can develop these types of primers.

CW
09-13-2007, 12:32 AM
RTK, Mondor, ALL,

Wow, didn't realize that one little post could generate such a wave of response. As Mondor and I have experienced together, PSYOP soldiers are in a constant marketing and education mode with supported commanders.

Information Warfare is so important today but it's kinda like lighting a charcoal grill. When you go to light it, people show up out of nowhere to tell you how to do it, but they either aren't about to do it themselves, or they try to help and someone loses their eyebrows in the ensuing flash of excess lighter fluid...

Additionally, I wish that the PSYOPers and the IO guys could settle our differences once and for all and move forward. It's better than it was, but candidly we PSYOPers haven't always helped the situation and I'm pretty sure that seasoned IO Guys would probably say that there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone.

Six years and two days into this war, I wish that we had made more progress on the Information Warfare front.

CW

ilots
09-14-2007, 03:38 AM
Q: How do you pronounce USACAPOC?
A: The POC is silent.

I thought the POC is pronounced "People Other than CA" giving you "Civil Affairs and People Other than Civil affairs."

:D