In other words, we agree but have a minor
dispute about application of the word 'entirely' in Wilf's statement. Small matter.
More importantly, I totally agree with you on these:
Quote:
"...if we lump strat comms into strat IO we are indeed getting our asses kicked. In that regard I agree 110% that it is a national issue and we--the military--are but supporting actors on the greater stage."
"...at the operational and tactical levels we have made dramatic advances in IO since 2003 and especially since 2005. Some of those advances were luck but many were due to applied learning. We have learned -- again-- that COIN is not firepower dependent. And gradually we have incorporated non-military elements in that tactical and operational IO effort."
"...Soldiers on patrol are very much part of the IO effort."
Ain't semantics grand... ;)
IO as the shaping of reality
What one perceives is what one uses to categorize/identify reality. IO is largely, if not entirely, about shaping perceptions, and, as result, one's view of reality. Sometimes that is done by a kinetic restructuring of the perceptual field; sometimes it is done by a non-kinetic restructuring. As an example of the latter, OPSEC and camouflage preclude or limit observations/perceptions and, thereby, reorder what one's reality is.
No military force is able, uinilaterally, to so effect an another entity's perceptions in all of the aspects that would be necessary in order to get that other to reshape its view of reality sufficiently to change how it conducts its affairs. The military may have a lion's share of the IO operations pie at certain places and times. However, the full scope of IO operations between two adversarial nations far exceeds the abilities of the military. It is a case of all four pieces, not just a subset of DIME, talking the talk and walking the walk at the same time, and for the duration.
BTW, using a Joint Pub as a basis for defining IO seems to me to be a little bit of circular reasoning or an appeal to inappropriate authority--kind of like take a pronouncement from the Pope that Roman Catholicism is the true religion. ;)
Okay, can some one tell me
why I keep seeing ads for "Should Hillary Quit" in the google ad space? Honestly, the semantics behind that choice of ad being served in a thread on IO are truly fascinating :cool:!
Tactical IO and Media Relations
As a tiny vignette on Tac IO and media relations, this ain't bad at al...
Quote:
Captain as Maestro, Conducting Amid Crises
On a recent winter evening in Mosul, Capt. David Sandoval sat at his desk dealing with the day’s various crises.
Michael Kamber for The New York Times
Capt. David Sandoval in Mosul, speaking with his men out on a difficult mission. “I sleep at least three hours a day,” he said.
Insurgents had fired on one of his platoons, killing a 10-year-old boy nearby. The captain sent men into the neighborhood to make sure residents knew American troops had not fired, and “to get the message out that the insurgents only bring you death and hardship,” he said.
Radios squawked updates from the field, and a phone rang incessantly with changes to a battle plan.
Two laptops sat before the captain. On one he updated targets his men would capture and kill before the night was over. He switched to the second computer and tried to finish a letter to his soldiers’ Family Readiness Group, run by his wife in the United States.
If we must, then we can disagree. However, I'm not
at all sure we do...
Quote:
Quote:
Ken: dispute about application of the word 'entirely' in Wilf's statement. Small matter.
No Ken, I dispute the absolute pronouncement of Wilf's statement, meaning the entire statement and not merely the word entirely.
Even though you also said:
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.
Items which are abviously beyond the capability of the Armed foreces to integrate...
I also said ""Ain't semantics grand...;)""
You further said, in response to WM:
Quote:
What would you use to define doctrine other than the capstone doctrinal reference? I used the definiion to add some clarity to what is being discussed in discussing doctrine, perhaps seeing a doctrinal refence might help.
Could I possibly and respectfully suggest that you are discussing Doctrine as it stands while some of us are discussing policy as it should be?
Okay, now I'm going to get everyone after me...
Wayne made a very interesting point when he said that using doctrine to define IO was similar to using a Papal announcement. In one way, he is absolutely correct in this - it creates a self-limiting discussion; a semantic tautology if you will. At the same time, I think there is a real problem with not having a definition of IO and most of them come from doctrine.
So, in my usually modest way, I'm going to build one outside of doctrine, legal restrictions, etc. and see what we can come up with :cool:.
Let's start with some part defintions. First, what is "information"? My favorite definition of information, for a variety of reasons, comes from Gregory Bateson: "Information is a difference that makes a difference". From Steps to an Ecology of Mind (2000 edition):
"What is it in the territory that gets onto the map?" We know the territory does not get onto the map. That is the central point about which we here are all agreed. Now, if the territory were uniform, nothing would get onto the map except its boundaries, which are the points at which it ceases to be uniform against some larger matrix. What gets onto the map, in fact, is difference, be it a difference in altitude, a difference in vegetation, a difference in population structure, difference in surface, or whatever. Differences are the things that get onto a map.
A difference is a very peculiar and obscure concept. It is certainly not a thing or an event. This piece of paper is different than the wood of this lectern. There are many differences between them - of colour, texture, shape, etc... Of this infinitude, we select a very limited number which become information. In fact, what we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference (pp.457-459).
This is part of a larger discussion on the map-territory problem in epistemology; a problem that Wilf is alluding to when he defines IO as not part of the military sphere of operations (it's definitional).
Now, second definition; what is an "operation"? I would suggest (not require ;)) that an "operation" be defined as an "action which has the potential to transform some part of perceived or material reality". Note that there is absolutely nothing about intentionality in that definition, nor is there anything about who is acting or who is being acted upon - this allows for unanticipated consequences of actions in unintentional populations (the Butterfly Effect from Chaos theory if you will).
My earlier comments that mediaspace is a battlespace derive from this observation - it may not be part of the military "map", but it certainly has an indirect effect on military operations and hence must be part of an updated military map. This requirement, i.e. that mediaspace (broadly construed) must have a significant place in the military mapping of their battlespace is how I interpreted the argument by Frontier 6 on the SWJ blog. As to why it must be considered as part of the battlespace, I think Frontier 6 makes some good points, but I would add in a few others:
- The media, both "old" and "new", helps to define and shape the "national will".
- The "new" media allows for the rapid recruitment and deployment of pattern-based assets in the current conflict (a "pattern-based asset is any pattern of information that might "make a difference" to the current conflict, e.g. information on location, numbers, etc., recruitment, interpretation of current intelligence, PSYOPS, computer viruses, weapons construction plans, training materials, etc.).
- The fragmentation of the media (both old and new), along with the introduction of highly interactive media (mainly "new") has reduced the efficiency of operations based around broadcast technologies (e.g. TV, Radio, Newspapers, etc.; See Levinson, The Soft Edge for a really good discussion of this).
- The fragmentation of the media has also reduced the reach of any singular form of media and increased the formation of contingent and specialized communities.
If we combine these two definitions together, we end up with a definition of Information Operations that reads something like this:
Information operations are actions taken to produce changes in the material and perceptual realities of populations through the redefinition of those populations perceptual "maps".
Yes, I know that such a definition includes things such as propaganda, PSYOPS, strategic communications, etc. ;). In order to bring that definition down to something that is a little more manageable and usable by the military, it should be possible to isolate a sub-set of these operations that have a direct effect on what I called "pattern-based assets" in point 2 (above).
Having tossed the cat amongst the pigeons, think its time for another cup of coffee :D.
Marc