Why don't we codify what we are learning in our real "Battle Labs"?
The S/G/J-3's coordinate Eng, Arty, Avn, AD, etc, but we take what is their most important tool in COIN and place it in a parallel staff section -- the 7. If we really believe that information ops is operations, it should be in the domain of the combined arms integrator, the '3. Our enemies support info ops with kinetic ops, so have clearly figured out that they are one in the same.
I know, the DCO/CoS can be the integrator, but isn't he running the rest of the staff? Who's coordinating logistics support with operations? Seems like we've taken the burden off of the warfighter to really understand IO by taking it away from him.
The successful Brigades I saw had commanders who were the IO officers. MNF-I is consolidating the IO folks into the 3 for better coordination. Afgh does the same (although they have different names, Strat Effects, etc.).
Seems like the battlefield is telling us loudly that IO is ops, so why don't we write our doctrine that way?
FM 3-13 Draft dead in the water
For those that haven't heard. It is not currently believed that this draft will go forward. There is still quite a bit of controversy within the field now. I just finished the 12 week FA30 Qualification Course and there was still no answer on the future of IO by the end. I would venture that IE (Information Engagement) will remain an important task headed up by the G7, but I don't expect it to be the end all, be all of an entire primary Staff member.
For the time being, the G7 or S7 realistically will define their own role on the staff based upon how they can add value to the Commander.
Doctine? We don't need no stinkin' doctrine!