Do we not expose our young Officers to PSYOP early enough?

[JD]

No, its all pretty much like that and there doesn't appear to be liknk to any other doctrine. Its almost viral or a wooden horse that some bright young thing has sliped in but isn't yet ina position to explain. It gets back toyour first point - if no-one understands it and its in a document it must be good!

JD

[marct]

Hi JD,

No, its all pretty much like that and there doesn't appear to be liknk to any other doctrine. Its almost viral or a wooden horse that some bright young thing has sliped in but isn't yet ina position to explain. It gets back to your first point - if no-one understands it and its in a document it must be good!

That's what I was afraid of ! Since I think that we can develop a theory that would cover the area (ref my last post), I suspect that this type of viral Bravo Sierra will only act as a barrier to getting a real science model accepted <sigh...>.

Marc

[JD]

Where would you start with real scince? Is anthropology the relevant starting point? Or is there already a framework. You may want to look at some stuff by Richard Pech, an academic from Australia who has tried to apply scientific theory and structure to religious extremism. Worth a look but unfortunately I don't have a link and I only have the large adobe file.


JD

[Cavguy]

We've started to discuss this on the BCKS forum at the thread here for AKO users.

The discussion started with an IO officer's dissent regarding the conclusions of the Army War College's "Shifting Fire" paper on IO, saying it wasn't capturing what IO really was.

So the question is there - What is IO?

I made the same argument at BCKS; quoted below:

[Post #1]

I think a lot of the positive reception [to "Shifting Fire"] is because it is the first "IO for dummies" paper I've seen, sort of like "28 Articles of Company COIN" is "Company COIN for dummies"

I think you are right, people don't understand I/O and what it really is vs. PAO/PSYOP/CA, which confuses lots of people. So we have an understanding problem.

We all know we need to be better at I/O, but few have seen a user's manual to IO at either the tactical or strategic level.

Post #2

We have a deficency in education of maneuver commanders about I/O - what it is, how to use it, and capabilities. A maneuver commander understands employment of lots of battlefield systems from his training - arty, air, engineers, to name a few. I have never seen I/O broken down for tactical commanders in a practical guide. I think this may be resulting in some of the FA 30 frustration.

I don't have to be a helicopter pilot to understand the principles of employing aviation, and the same understanding is needed for I/O, and I haven't really seen it. I gave [CALL Director] some feedback on his upcoming Division Level I/O handbook, but there is a gap, and I think the FA 30 proponent needs to address it if they want to be "better employed".

The lack of a easy to understand conceptual framework for IO at tactical, operational, and strategic level is hurting us. It needs to be understandable to the maneuver commander what the guiding principles and themes he should follow. The strategic commander also needs a unifying concept and set of principles. FM 3-24 CH 1 and the "28 Articles of Company Coin" are prime examples of what is needed for I/O.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

Where would you start with real scince? Is anthropology the relevant starting point? Or is there already a framework. You may want to look at some stuff by Richard Pech, an academic from Australia who has tried to apply scientific theory and structure to religious extremism. Worth a look but unfortunately I don't have a link and I only have the large adobe file.

I probably wouldn't start with Anthropology, although there is some good and relevant stuff there. Is the Pech article "Religious fundamentalism and terrorism: why do they do it and what do they want?" from Foresight? I just downloaded a copy and will go through it tonight.

The lack of a easy to understand conceptual framework for IO at tactical, operational, and strategic level is hurting us. It needs to be understandable to the maneuver commander what the guiding principles and themes he should follow. The strategic commander also needs a unifying concept and set of principles. FM 3-24 CH 1 and the "28 Articles of Company Coin" are prime examples of what is needed for I/O.

I agree 100%! That's one of the reasons why I think we need a really good underlying theory behind all of these areas - so that we can develop these types of primers.

[CW]

RTK, Mondor, ALL,

Wow, didn't realize that one little post could generate such a wave of response. As Mondor and I have experienced together, PSYOP soldiers are in a constant marketing and education mode with supported commanders.

Information Warfare is so important today but it's kinda like lighting a charcoal grill. When you go to light it, people show up out of nowhere to tell you how to do it, but they either aren't about to do it themselves, or they try to help and someone loses their eyebrows in the ensuing flash of excess lighter fluid...

Additionally, I wish that the PSYOPers and the IO guys could settle our differences once and for all and move forward. It's better than it was, but candidly we PSYOPers haven't always helped the situation and I'm pretty sure that seasoned IO Guys would probably say that there is more than enough blame to go around for everyone.

Six years and two days into this war, I wish that we had made more progress on the Information Warfare front.

CW