Truer words were rarely spoken. We may
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Well I don't limit this view to TV.
IO is the nothing to do with the application of force for the breaking of will.
It is therefore nothing to do with the military. It is entirely political, and thus the realm of civil servants and elected officials.
forget that but if we do it will be at significant downstream cost to the Armed Forces. I will caveat that by stating the obvious and noting that it IS imperative that said Armed Forces not contribute to the opposition's IO effort by doing dumb things...
Eets not our yob.
It's a new world out there my friend ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Well I don't limit this view to TV.
IO is the nothing to do with the application of force for the breaking of will.
It is therefore nothing to do with the military. It is entirely political, and thus the realm of civil servants and elected officials.
The traditional view of the military as an element that only applies force to break will became obsolete years ago because it was overcome by the reality of our national security requirements. While it would be really nice if national security responsibilities could be divided up and put into little compartments like eggs in a box, that's not the real world. In order to influence population groups in areas that are too rough for civilians, the military has to do the job.
I hate to return to a discussion on definitions of IO, but what definition are you referencing when you state that IO is entirely political? As defined by US and NATO doctrine, IO is a military operation. There are certainly other related activities out there such as Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy that fall outside the military realm .... but IO is clearly defined as a military function.
If you don't agree with the accepted definition of IO as a military op, then we're not speaking the same language and I'm willing to concede that your argument may hold some validity. However, if you are arguing that the accepted definitions are wrong, then you've got an influence campaign to wage yourself if you plan to change the doctrine of several dozen countries.
For over 25 years, doctrinally, the US Army
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tom Odom
Sorry doctrinely and historically you and Wilf are both wrong.
denied there was such a thing as counterinsurgency. For quite a few years, doctrinally, we were going to do Air Land Battle -- with Battle books...
At one time in the late 70s, that Air Land Battle bit had troops on the forward side of the Rhine and all their ammo offloaded from the tracks and in ASPs on the other side; conflict between tactical and security "Doctrine."
Doctrine not only changes, it is far from error free...
Quote:
IO is not merely passive nor purely non-lethal. It involves physical destruction of communications systems and networks as well as PSYOP.
I realize that. The issue is not the mechanics or the finite action, which do in some cases -- many, even -- have a military function. It is the direction and focus of the campaign itself.
Quote:
PSYOP is lethal and we do PSYOP as a military tool. If you have any doubt that PSYOP is lethal, look at the Rwandan genocide or the use of suicide bombers.
I have no doubt that PSYOP can be lethal and is -- currently in the US -- essentially a military tool (that was not true in WW II, nor is it necessarily the best solution outside of major war). Though I'd note that other agencies are even today also involved in PSYOP. My question is who's in charge?
Quote:
You can say it is not our job until the cows come home. We have always done it in various fashion and we will continue to do it.
The cows that will come home will be those that kick over the milk bucket due to excesses and screwups by the Armed Forces, predominately the Army, in the process of executing the broad IO campaign.
The Army has merely picked up the slack in times of peace because our system of revolving Administrations has been unwilling to provide continuity in the subject area. The fact that they have not does not mean they should not. Having a 'take charge' mentality can sometimes lead to taking charge of things that one really shouldn't be too enmeshed with.
The Army does a lot of thing by default that are not its job and most all of them detract from ability to do the things the Army should be doing...
Quote:
Where we fail in particular in this IO effort is a lack of synchronization between what occurs via the military, the political, and yes, the economic.
Wilf and I thank you for reaffirming our point... ;)
We do it by default but it's bigger than the Army -- and it is a governmental and political responsibility.