Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: Tactical Bloggers?

  1. #1
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Tactical Bloggers?

    I looked around for a moment and saw several places that this could be inserted into an existing thread, but then thought since there were so many places - better to start one where it would be a seperate conversation.

    I was looking at a DVD narrarated by Tom Hanks about the combat cameramen during WWII and the role they played within the Signal Corps. In many ways not much has changed. Thecombat reporters that occassionally come out on patrols or make it out this way are smart young men and women. They seem more focused on collecting IAW much higher echelon themes. Its a shame - they shoot some really good footage that could be used in local IO efforts - even if they did not come with their own interpreter (which mostly they don't), a sharp IO team at BN level could edit the footage on commercial software with a Local interpreter an produce somthing worthwhile. They could even assist the ISF (or whatever Host Nation we are currently working in) with managing their own site.This is something we could do right now.

    Now, take it a step further. There was one WWII Marine who landed with a BN CDR on and atoll who was told by the BN CDR, "I don't like having any Hollywood Marines along!". The reporter replied to the BN CDR, "Sir, I shot expert, I can handle my rifle." How important is the information war? How important is it to "be firstest with the mostest" when it comes to getting your message out in a form that is not just seen, but understood? Is it worth trading out other capabilities at different levels? When I was working FCS there were contractors telling us that robotics operator for the big 10 tons where going to be an "additional duty" - Having done the field tests, I told them they were barking up the tree of one thing well, or many things badly.

    You can't just add something I've found. Even small decisions impact all kinds of other things. Everything is a trade unless somebody is willing to start changing platforms for tactical through strategic mobility (it gets cummulative real fast). So how important would it be for example to have tactical bloggers who were trained and equipped (think of them as kind of a platoon FO in terms of low density MOS) and could tie in with the other higher echelons like functions/capabilities? They would not just be passive in the manner of "hey check this out", but active as in they'd be placed with the right element to collect on the event that fit the best with what the overall task and purpose was, and actively engage the enemy's IO, or create our desired IO effects. Its possible, but not a given by any stretch due to wireless bandwith constraints and competition, that they could even be given a window to upload immediately - where they or someone else (could even be at an HSOC) could manipulate it, thread it, hyperlink it, spam it, etc.

    This is in effect what the bad guys are doing, but could we do it better an faster then them by recognizing the importance and making adjustments & trades? Thoughts? Thoughts on trades? Thoughts on where our resources are best spent? Work arounds?

    Since the squad in my book is the most fundamental of organizations (the fire team is important, but does not have two elements to support maneuver - there is no battle drill - 'team attack', although there is a 'single team-single room'), this and questions like it should cause us to consider the nature of how we fight. Is information worth considering as a forms of contact, in a combined arms line of thought that merits changes at basic levels?
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 01-13-2007 at 10:41 AM.

  2. #2
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Marc,
    I had missed your post on the rifle squad - here may a good place to expand - I think we're headed in the same cardinal direction.
    Regards, Rob

  3. #3
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    It's all about resources (laptops) and data pipes. We already have too little of both to fully enable basic combat missions, so I think something like this would be a really tough sell (even to a guy like me) to higher.

  4. #4
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Question for anyone?

    Wouldn't the Land Warrior system essentially do what is being talked about here, since it will have a camera on every soldier so to speak. Couldn't you take the raw input and edit it and use for I/O purposes on the spot more or less?

  5. #5
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    JC is right about the bandwidth piece being an obstacle, but it depends on what your talking about doing. Competing with say a WMW waveform where we're sending targeting video from a CL I/II UAV back to a shooter, or doing something between commanders is competing for bandwidth on a military network - encrypted. I've purge allot of the headaches from working Future Combat Systems with its zillion Unmanned Systems, but what if you were not competing for military bandwidth?

    You're not competing for military bandwidth because you target audience is not your own military - they don't need to be convinced of anything.

    The enemy's target audience is not competing for your military either - but they are competing for the support of both your own population, the ones abroad and the one your operating in.

    Your target audience is on the WWW. Your target audience has satellite TV.

    A triband cell phone that does video and stills. A lap top with Commercial ISP. How many countries have the ability to access the WWW right now? How many cities and villages in those countries? How many in 5 years? A broadcast. A pod cast.

    I think it is doable. I think it is relatively cheap in terms of those resources. The question is how important is it to us to be able to do something like it, and what is worth trading - because you can't have it all - if you try to do that, you do it all poorly.

  6. #6
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default Going out on a limb

    I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that too often we confuse IO with psyop. More on that after I bang out this thought...

    Those of your who have been on the ground know all too well how difficult it can be to get an IO message approved and produced. I think for that reason, the only thing a tactical blogger could do is the "hey, look at this stuff." Even then, the question is what media do we use? What language do we use? Anyone able to come up with an educated guess on who long it would take to generate an accurate Arabic translation of a 500-1,000 word English story? I don't know the answer, but unless it can be accomplished within a very finite and short period of time, we've lost the bubble.

    The most effective IO product is a simple one, in my mind. It contributes a little bit to our psyop campaign because it presents a professional image of us, and can show that we care, but if it has any psyop value at all, that value is very subtle. Take for example the IO products that are handed out to articulate current curfews, restrictions on vehicle movements, or voting center information. Those products are pretty succint and to the point, and they pass information effectively.

    Right now, approval levels on psyop efforts are pretty high. Is that because psyop operations are doctrinally structured that way? I don't know. We've learned from our mistakes made in Iraq, but those mistakes highlights how complex the problem is when we decide to try to manipulate minds. While I think your ideas have merit Rob, we've got to overcome some of the tribal effect. An Iraqi might see an incredibly powerful message that show IAF kicking ass against true die-hard AQ elements, but simple shrug his shoulders because it's happening in Rawah, and it (in his mind) has very little to do with his problems in Hillah.

    Want to really take a huge risk, but do something with great potential? Allow Gen Petraeus to appear on an Al-Jeezerah or Iraqi talk show. I think that we fail to make aggressive enough shifts in this fight, and resort to packaging IO is familiar ways. Maybe it's time to step out of the paradigm we live with here in the US (military members staying out of public and possibly embarrassing situations) and let it all hang out. I think the man on the street, or the barber shop, or tea shop, would embrace a message from Petraeus if it came out in that venue. Everything else coming from us, I fear, simply sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher.

    If I'm sounding like the teacher on this reply, feel free to slap me around.

    EDITED TO ADD:

    Rob, I was still typing out my post above when you replied. I think your statement below would be very difficult to implement, simply because we would be such a cumbersome sloth if we had to determine if you proposed activity needs to happen over a covered net. The old hands are probably going to say, keep it all covered, until it gets to the higher echelons that do the manipulation, reproduction, spamming, etc.

    You're not competing for military bandwidth because you target audience is not your own military - they don't need to be convinced of anything.

    The enemy's target audience is not competing for your military either - but they are competing for the support of both your own population, the ones abroad and the one your operating in.
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-13-2007 at 05:17 PM.

  7. #7
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Slapout,
    The landwarrior could sort of do it. Its more of a question of getting what you get, or getting what your after. Imagine you have all these sensors out there (includes the Soldier), and they are moving around, potentially sending images, or other types of feeds back to a HQs. Are they active or passive? When I say that I mean in terms of are they providing context to the content? If they are doing another task, then probably not. Lets say you pipe those feeds (or some of them) into the IO Cell. Back to JCs observation about bandwidth, there is not enough of it. So how does someone no when push priotiy of bandwidth to the IO guy? This also comes back to the KO vs. NKO cultural thing - if its a question of watching a NLOS (Non-LOS) or BLOS (Beyond LOS) round impact some HVT - or looking for some IO materials who gets the bandwidth by default?
    When the UAV feed on the RV at the BDE TOC thinks they see a hot spot - why does everybody cease work and watch UAV TV?

    I still think its a question of how important is it that we win the IO and the supporting questions of at which levels and what are we willing to trade?

  8. #8
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Follow up

    Rob, I don't know that much about the Land Warrior have read some articles, but I compare it to LE Patrol Car Cameras. These are used for evidence collection,training, and public information messages. I am sure you have some "COPS" on TV. That was where I was coming from. None of this is real time or real fast which can be a benefit because you edit it for content, before releasing it. Also has an effect on Officer behavior (be nice your on candid camera). Down side is if you are wrong, you are busted!

    I don't know if they still do but NYPD (New York PD) used to teach a course on something very similar to this thread. In fact they started carrying hand held video cameras to film the news crews to make sure they presented the true picture of things on TV. If they didn't NYPD had the video evidence to counter with. Instead of bullets they shot video back and forth at each other. What a concept?

  9. #9
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    JC,
    That's just it. I am trying to say is it worth changing the way we see and do things to get out in front? Is it worth it to risk getting an unapproved message out? I don't care about if it gets approved - the discussion we're having now is not approved. However, I am within a Left and Right limit - I'm not being critical of my leadership by name or position, or trahing policy - what I'm saying is what if we offered tactical gus the same type of Left and Rights in order to gain a tactical advantage in IO. Can IO have PsyOp effects - sure.
    Perfect is the enemy of good enough. So you give "IO guidance" and turn them loose. You don't gain much if you are not willing to risk much. If the stakes are too high, then the CDR narrows the L & R limits.
    Its an extension of decentralization and the bad guys are whipping us at it. I asked the BCT to come up with IO stuff for the IA and they said "there is allot of restrictions on that, how about you go with what we have?" I told them thanks. I sat down with my IA coutnerpart, explained the concept and told him there was no way an American IO message can come close to resonating like one from a no kidding Iraqi. A few minutes on Adobe Photo Shop and .PPT and we had one in Arabic, sounding like it was written by an Arab (because of course it was), with the images picked by an Arab. I sent it up to the BCT and suggested they provide it to the IPs since I don't hve the resources to print for both the IA and IPs - they were shocked! Who approved this they said? The IA approved it - its their message - you CF don't get a vote. My boss supported me, and others did as well.
    By teaching them that, when they score a victory and want to get it out, they can now turn a good paper product that beats the pants off the AIFs in about 12 hours and start distributing. If I could get them an Internet connection they could start blogging.
    Our enemies understand this. They are infront of us I think because of our current evaluation of risk vs. gains. There are folks out there schooling their militaries in how to conduct Information Warfare - and it is a multi faceted operation.
    I'm still asking myself the question - do we need to change? How? What is it worth to us? At this time I'm not including the effect of how many folks might say we can't do this because... I'm more concerned about why we might, what it would cost and how we might do it. If the need to do so is there, then the discussion about getting people to accept it will progres.
    Regards Rob

    Want to really take a huge risk, but do something with great potential? Allow Gen Petraeus to appear on an Al-Jeezerah or Iraqi talk show. I think that we fail to make aggressive enough shifts in this fight, and resort to packaging IO is familiar ways. Maybe it's time to step out of the paradigm we live with here in the US (military members staying out of public and possibly embarrassing situations) and let it all hang out. I think the man on the street, or the barber shop, or tea shop, would embrace a message from Petraeus if it came out in that venue. Everything else coming from us, I fear, simply sounds like Charlie Brown's teacher
    .

    I like that allot, its another form of getting it into a package they can receive. Everybody has a TV. I think a guy like GEN Petreus can carry it off. But I want to carry it beyond Iraq. Part of our Insular IO philosophy is that we live in an Insular society. We project the Bay Watch image to the rest of the world - why is that? We do have access to everything, but mostly we choose KFC and Mickey Ds. Its culture by choice. We build our FOBs to be insular. In another post you or maybe it was RTK had said something about wrapping soldiers in pillows - we do the same thing in almost every aspect of warfare. Marc could probably shed some light on this one.
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 01-13-2007 at 06:23 PM.

  10. #10
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    There's definitely a need to do so, it it all revolves around your last post. Good efforts and I'm glad to hear that it had results. Sound like good material for a SWJ article...

    EDITED to ADD: At this point, I'm beginning to think that there are few ideas out there that are untenable. It already seems (from a whole view) that the US may be grasping at straws in Iraq. Our MSM doesn't help...hell, maybe the SWC doesn't even help.
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-13-2007 at 06:38 PM.

  11. #11
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Slapout
    I don't know if they still do but NYPD (New York PD) used to teach a course on something very similar to this thread. In fact they started carrying hand held video cameras to film the news crews to make sure they presented the true picture of things on TV. If they didn't NYPD had the video evidence to counter with. Instead of bullets they shot video back and forth at each other. What a concept?
    Our guys do do some of this now. most every patrol (hell almost everybody) has a digital camera. They take pictures of evidence, and almost all things that matter. Its a good thing. Many units make story boards using those photos to tell a story for different purposes - mostly they stay in house.
    Somewhere in the Kilcullen thread he mentioned something about an almost Kinetic sounding IO line of operation he was fleshing out. That has really stuck in my head in ref. to trades and gains vs. risks.

    Gents I'm not making an argument for this thing or that so much as I am the case for relooking the reasons why are willing to do somethings and are unwilling to do others. Why we are both reluctant and lethargic to changing organizational culture and other aspects that could benefit us. We have the biggest problem recognizing things, then acting in manner that quickly changes things in our balance. I think its especially important in an age where information has an edge and travels much faster through a myriad of mediums.

  12. #12
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Why we are both reluctant and lethargic to changing organizational culture and other aspects that could benefit us. We have the biggest problem recognizing things, then acting in manner that quickly changes things in our balance.
    I'd humbly submit that it isn't so much lethargy or difficulty in recognizing opportunites for change. The corporate knowledge also holds the burned-in images of those moments when we failed terribly; risk-aversion then comes into play.

    I remember something I learned about IO years ago. A Marine unit thought it had developed a pretty good flyer and pushed a lot of products out. The problem was that the message, while directed at the muj, was easily misinterpreted by the innocents as meant for them as well. It portrayed us as some omnipotent entity that would come after "you" at any time of the day. Screwed up thing was that who "you" actually was, did not get defined properly.

    We're afraid to fail in these areas. It does require a cultural shift from the top, perhaps all the way up to SecDef. I don't think there are too many battalion commanders (where the rubber really hits the road) who are willing to hang their hat on an unapproved message or technique. the top needs to define the left and right lateral limits, as you say, as allow more latitude. One question that I submit to you is this: Does the top know what the message is? When I use the term message, I mean the overall framework or theme of IO for a certain. You remember when the push was elections, or joining the IA, etc. What's the current theme? I don't think the top knows what the theme is, and thus we have stasis, outside of the run-of-the-mill products that say "hey, look at what we are doing for you."

    The issue of the surge or escalation is going to draw significant mental energy along with it, and other warfighting functions suffer.

  13. #13
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones, But Words

    Remember that saying in school sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me. It ain't true! But Americans outside of some professions (Law,Marketing) are not taught this, we think if there is no shooting or bombing there is no war. In contrast most other society's understand this very well, and they are quite a match for us in this realm.

    Images,audio,messages can be greater than the sword (updated version of the quote,don't remember who said it). This is why in many societies outside the US lying is perfectly moral if you are using it to protect you or your families interest, the concept of objective truth for all doesn't play that well. And Americans are naive alot of times in dealing with this because we think everybody wants to get along and play well in the sandbox together. It often doesn't work that way and the US needs to learn how to play the game better and understand war takes place across many mediums.

  14. #14
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Just outside the Beltway
    Posts
    203

    Default

    Hey guys, I don't think this blog is getting at your vision Rob, but I think it illustrates the potential of some of the media that could be used. For example, less on the Marine sniper and mortar teams, more paintings like the Red Cross/Red Crescent with an accompanying message.

    http://mdfay.blogspot.com/

  15. #15
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Does the top know what the message is? When I use the term message, I mean the overall framework or theme of IO for a certain. You remember when the push was elections, or joining the IA, etc. What's the current theme? I don't think the top knows what the theme is, and thus we have stasis, outside of the run-of-the-mill products that say "hey, look at what we are doing for you."
    That is an immportant question? Also - Do we understand when the message needs to change? Did we forsee it changing -like having an IO Decision Point? Did we put ourselve in a position to take advantage of the change? Did we have the criteria out there to recognize the change was coming (think CCIR). What should we do about it?


    The issue of the surge or escalation is going to draw significant mental energy along with it, and other warfighting functions suffer
    You are absoutley right. Nothing is free. The question is is it worth it? And if it is, what suffers the most? Doing things on the cheap will ammount to not really doing it. As for value, Slapout's remarks are a good start:

    Images,audio,messages can be greater than the sword (updated version of the quote,don't remember who said it). This is why in many societies outside the US lying is perfectly moral if you are using it to protect you or your families interest, the concept of objective truth for all doesn't play that well. And Americans are naive alot of times in dealing with this because we think everybody wants to get along and play well in the sandbox together. It often doesn't work that way and the US needs to learn how to play the game better and understand war takes place across many mediums.
    Shek,

    Hey guys, I don't think this blog is getting at your vision Rob, but I think it illustrates the potential of some of the media that could be used. For example, less on the Marine sniper and mortar teams, more paintings like the Red Cross/Red Crescent with an accompanying message.
    Good link - Marct must be hanging out watching Canadian football this weekend (does that mean Hockey ?), but his symbology line of thought is important

    I think we're getting there. I like Slapout's line about the sword. Words and symbols (words can be symbols or invoke them). So its a question of if you ha the right guy doing the right job with the right tools is he: worth 1 rifleman, worth a FO, worth a crewman? What do you get in return? What on today's and tmorrow's battlefield am I likely to need more? What skill set (if any) could be mitigated by technology - example - will Networked Fires with NLOS-LS (rockets in a box) - mean I may not need platoon FOs? What is to be gained and why??

  16. #16
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    That is an immportant question? Also - Do we understand when the message needs to change? Did we forsee it changing -like having an IO Decision Point? Did we put ourselve in a position to take advantage of the change? Did we have the criteria out there to recognize the change was coming (think CCIR). What should we do about it?
    I think we understand that messages may need to change, but we do not have, as you say, a definitive decision point that allows lower level IO managers to come to that conclusion.

    The other have to it is that IO is a collateral duty. For my old Bn's last go around, the FSC held that responsibility. Guess what he was doing when recognizing that decision point was probably most critical? He was monitoring the Regt Fires net and prosecuting fire support with the assistance of one Fires NCO. This was on the FJ peninsula, and I think the high-end COIN ops simply crushed his brain to the point that IO had to play second fiddle. Perhaps at times like these we do need to give up a personnel asset and install them as a general support IO asset, with a focus on nothing but IO and the variety of non-kinetic operations it can entail.

    That all goes back to manpower that we already sorely lack. Maybe the proposed force structure increases will be met with initiatives in the direction of establishing an IO/CAG element on the lines of ANGLICO.

  17. #17
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Good article from July/August 05 issue of Military Review about this subject.
    Here is the link.

    https://calldbp.leavenworth.army.mil...CUR_DOCUMENT=1

  18. #18
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Good link - Marct must be hanging out watching Canadian football this weekend (does that mean Hockey ?), but his symbology line of thought is important
    Nope, just sleeping a lot after a trip to Toronto on business .

    Good thread, Rob! I think we are "confusing" (was that the word you used JC?) 1/O and psyops - for the good reason that they are inextricably linked. I remember reading a proposal posted somewhere on the board (can't remember the thread or article) that argued for combining the two and why it would be a good idea.

    Certainly, the periphery of the MB, i.e. AQ, etc., are practicing a form of adaptive I/O-psyops, and I think we should be too. I really like the idea of tactical bloggers using commercial equipment, Rob. Part of the reason I like it is because our (i.e. the Wests') strength has always been in diverse thought rather than in following an approved party line. No centrally organized, monolithic organization can really stand against solid "random" attacks (think of a pack of wolves pulling down a moose). So, why do we restrict ourselves to the tactics approved of by the moose?

    In WWII, we won not by having better equipment than the Germans, but by having more of it, produced faster. Honestly, some of Rumsfelt's comments over the past years have reminded me of the Germans during WWII - "the superweapon is coming". Oh, yes, and how soon before the Land Warrior system is actually in the field? Tactical blogging, using commercial ISPs, pdas, cell phones, etc. uses our strengths.

    Would some get it "wrong" and produce something that makes some people mad? Sure, that's going to happen. Will any individual effort be as good as if it had been constructed by the best psyops people around? Maybe, but probably not. The point, however, is that that isn't a fair question or comparison; it's not a one tactical blog compared with one psyops campaign. The real ratio would probably be closer to 1000 tactical blogs to a psyops campaign.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  19. #19
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Would some get it "wrong" and produce something that makes some people mad? Sure, that's going to happen. Will any individual effort be as good as if it had been constructed by the best psyops people around? Maybe, but probably not. The point, however, is that that isn't a fair question or comparison; it's not a one tactical blog compared with one psyops campaign. The real ratio would probably be closer to 1000 tactical blogs to a psyops campaign.
    Marc,
    What if it was as good ass the PsyOps people could produce (at least in terms of how fast a trained PsyOps guy could do it in say an hour from the time he got the film or photo?). Why because the guys we might be talking about would be PsyIOSig (the combo - not the pretzel bit w/cheeses filling, but the one you spoke of higher in your post ) as a primary and a rifleman (or FO or what have you) as a second.

    Would the trade be worth it given what we expect out of today's an tomorrow's enemy. Yes, there would be a huge investment. Yes, they'd be low density guys, with high GT scores who'd get offered allot of money on the outside so we'd have to give high enlistment and retention bonses. Would their contribution to the GWOT over the next decade or two be worth it?

    JC, I like the ANGLICO analogy (My first three years in the Marines I was a NGF spotter), but there might be more value in having them organic to lower tactical echelons - they could get their low density concurrent training online, and attend semi-annual seminars (yep more $$)

    Regards, Rob

  20. #20
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Good thread, Rob! I think we are "confusing" (was that the word you used JC?) 1/O and psyops - for the good reason that they are inextricably linked. I remember reading a proposal posted somewhere on the board (can't remember the thread or article) that argued for combining the two and why it would be a good idea.
    Although the two may be inextricably linked, we (at least the Marine Corps) have not been playing that way. IO and PSYOP are two different realms. For the Al Fajr fight, we received an Army PSYOP attachment. We do not have organic capabilities within the Regiment or Division, and IO is sometimes treated as that undesirable uncle you like to keep at arms reach.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •