U.S. PSYOPS Doctrine

Saw this at Swedish Meatballs Confidential blog which picked it up from FAS Steven Aftergood's Secrecy News:

Psychological Operations Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures U.S. Army Field Manual FM 3-05.301, December 2003.

Interesting consideration of target audiences in a generic, functional, sociological manner (5-1 forward) rather than as organic and durable cultural entities. Obviously, I have not read the whole thing as I just came across it a few minutes ago but the premises in that section seemed clear. Does this approach hold throughout ?

Thanks Mark!

Hi Zen, I think it does. This is exactly how you work Ring #4 (population Groups) of Wardens 5 ring analysis. It is the least talked about aspect of EBO but one of the most important. In fact this is largely how EBO has been adapted to the business world with a great deal of success I might add. It can also be very economical as far as costs to desired effect.

The definition of COG's as people with a lot of power over other people is dead on in this type of situation and again this is part of good EBO ops as far as Ring #1 (leadership) often defined as just one person as opposed to how it is actually done, which is by targeting the entire leadership group!!

Texas Insturments developed a whole internal process on how to target COG's and then have them hit with simultaneous "Message Bombs" in order to achieve the desired effect on certain employee target population groups.

Quote:

---

"This is exactly how you work Ring #4 (population Groups) of Wardens 5 ring analysis. It is the least talked about aspect of EBO but one of the most important. In fact this is largely how EBO has been adapted to the business world with a great deal of success I might add. It can also be very economical as far as costs to desired effect"

---

Thank you, Slapout. I did not know that. Very, very, interesting. Leads me to a few other questions:

Quote:

---

"The definition of COG's as people with a lot of power over other people is dead on in this type of situation and again this is part of good EBO ops as far as Ring #1 (leadership) often defined as just one person as opposed to how it is actually done, which is by targeting the entire leadership group!! "

---

Is the presumed group structure hierarchical, by chance ?

Does the doctrine/theory account for decentralized structures ( tribes and networks) as well ?

Quote:

---

"Texas Insturments developed a whole internal process on how to target COG's and then have them hit with simultaneous "Message Bombs" in order to

---

achieve the desired effect on certain employee target population groups."

TI is targeting it's own employees ( working within a set of shared and implicitly understood cultural norms) correct? Or do they also use this technique against outside organizations like strategic partners, clients and competitors ?

Hi Zen, I will try to answer your questions. It does not matter weather the organization is hierarchical/tribal/or network. What matters is that you understand it as a system and ANY organization can be described as a system. The difference is that in a hierarchy vs. a network the leadership elements will probably be easier to identify. But there functions are the same and that is what you usually want to effect, their ability to perform leadership functions.

Some of the things concerning networks that John Robb has posted have been in Warden's classes for years!!! It ain't new. I have sent him(Robb) emails before about this and he respond to one but choose not to on the others. He is very close on some things but he misses or doesn't talk about others, why I don't know. I am just an old street cop without any ph.d's just my old BVD's so he might not think I am a COG:D


EBO as it was originally conceived has nothing to do with any particular service or weapons platform. It is a PROCESS used to develop a strategy that is all it was meant to be. However what EBO has turned into is something far more confusing than how it was originally presented to the LE community and how it is still used in Warden's civilian classes again with a great deal of success.


TI had a vice president that published a paper(The Prometheous Process) on how they targeted employees internally on the INTERNET some years ago (that is how old this is) and I don't know if it is still out there. But understand targeting does not have the violent military connotation in the civilian world, it is more on the order a target market, a targeted group of people or individuals you want to influence. Just like the PSYOP manual describes. Every organization has targeted groups internally and externally that will need to be effected in order to acheive certain objectives. Again what is important is the process used to do this is the same. Hope this helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

EBO as it was originally conceived has nothing to do with any particular service or weapons platform. It is a PROCESS used to develop a strategy that is all it was meant to be. However what EBO has turned into is something far more confusing than how it was originally presented to the LE community and how it is still used in Warden's civilian classes again with a great deal of success.

---

Yet another example of process becoming strategy by default....:wry:

We use Warden's The Air Campaign for a class offered by our AFROTC detachment, and I usually run the exercise portion. What always struck me about Warden's stuff was that his theory was often spot on, but the historical examples he used to illustrate it were almost always flawed. We're actually considering moving away from that book this time around, but we'll see what happens.

Steve, run the execise with an Army or USMC ROTC unit and compare the two.

Slap,

I'd love to, but I recently had to turn down a job with a Navy/USMC ROTC Det (can't afford to move...the joys of working for the state....:mad:), and our local Army battalion isn't too keen on 'joint' stuff. I'm developing a joint operations course and exercise that has the support of our det commander, and the Army cadets who've tested it love the idea...but cadre support within their program is problematic. I'm still working it, though.

Here is a quick piece of advice. Don't visit the Swedish Meatballs Confidential blog at work unless you have an office with a door. :D

Don't know what I expected from a site with a name like that but had a moment of panic as this open cube environemt is not all that priviate. Way to many gov't employees running around with nothing better to do than scratch a "naughty site" visiting contractor off the list.

I guess I'll just have to look at my own copy of the manual.

Hey Steve--

Somebody needs to remind the army det that we really are all joint now. For starters, the army has NO strat lift or strat sea transport. All movement to and from theater is courtesy of USTRANSCOM. Then, we (army folk) rely on the AF for close air support. Our SF ODAs integrate an AF ground controller. Etc. etc.... So where do we get these idiots for ROTC duty?

Cheers

JohnT

Well, John, I think there is a certain profile to them (although there are always exceptions to the rule...much to the benefit of all concerned). Many are on their last assignment before retiring and aren't necessarily interested in changing things. In other cases they focus more on their internal battalion/detachment goals (recruiting, Ranger Challenge, summer training, what have you) and don't look as much at the education of their cadets beyond the basics. In fact, the Air Force stuff tends to be touted as an "easy A" without much critical thinking involved.

That said, there are exceptions. The commander my det has now is very interested in getting his cadets to develop their thinking skills, which is one reason we're expanding the basic outline of the original exercise and developing one that would also involve the Army. We'll see what happens...