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

[Hardrockxo]

Several book, articles, and even military strategists suggest that Psychological Operations are paramount in counterinsurgency. As a PSYOP Officer, of course I am biased, but I have to hypothesize that the mastery of information operations and the ability to influence through words, ideas, and actions is a key element that Brigade and below tactical commanders have to be exposed to.

I wonder though if this (for all intensive purposes – element of combat power) is not paid enough heed. Why are future Company Commanders not truly exposed to, and learn to integrate this asset into their maneuver plans?
As a young student at my respective career course, we had instructors from most of the branches of the Army – Field Artillery, Military Intelligence, Aviation, Signal. These officers were the subject matter experts in their respective fields – and their sole purpose was to teach how to integrate these supporting arms into the tactical plan.

Is PSYOP not introduced at the earliest level possible? Are we not arming our maneuver commanders? I have heard senior level officers comment on the need to get information and perception management queued into the fight. I have heard PSYOP mistaken for “IO” (really almost an interchangeable term now), but how many people really grasp the capability and capacity of persuading a target audience to change a behavior.

Sure, sometimes the best convincing argument is some 5.56, but what is the long term effect in a long, small war? How do the innocent eyes of today react tomorrow, and what about the lasting conversations once Soldiers leave the objective?

I would love to hear other likeminded professionals submit their ideas on how to influence the force on the skill set that PSYOP brings to the field. I would also love to hear the experiences (please be truthful) that others have had within the Perception and Influence realm of warfare. I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Regards,

Hardrockxo

[RTK]

Several book, articles, and even military strategists suggest that Psychological Operations are paramount in counterinsurgency. As a PSYOP Officer, of course I am biased, but I have to hypothesize that the mastery of information operations and the ability to influence through words, ideas, and actions is a key element that Brigade and below tactical commanders have to be exposed to.

I wonder though if this (for all intensive purposes – element of combat power) is not paid enough heed. Why are future Company Commanders not truly exposed to, and learn to integrate this asset into their maneuver plans?
As a young student at my respective career course, we had instructors from most of the branches of the Army – Field Artillery, Military Intelligence, Aviation, Signal. These officers were the subject matter experts in their respective fields – and their sole purpose was to teach how to integrate these supporting arms into the tactical plan.

Is PSYOP not introduced at the earliest level possible? Are we not arming our maneuver commanders? I have heard senior level officers comment on the need to get information and perception management queued into the fight. I have heard PSYOP mistaken for “IO” (really almost an interchangeable term now), but how many people really grasp the capability and capacity of persuading a target audience to change a behavior.

Sure, sometimes the best convincing argument is some 5.56, but what is the long term effect in a long, small war? How do the innocent eyes of today react tomorrow, and what about the lasting conversations once Soldiers leave the objective?

I would love to hear other likeminded professionals submit their ideas on how to influence the force on the skill set that PSYOP brings to the field. I would also love to hear the experiences (please be truthful) that others have had within the Perception and Influence realm of warfare. I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Regards,

Hardrockxo

Great post. I'd submit this plan. Unfortunately, the realist in me doesn't see it an out for a number of different reasons:

Get a CA officer embedded in the TDA for CCC organizations. I think doing it beforehand in BOLC II/III would amount to a counterproductive measure for two reasons.

1. The amount of information a BOLC student is required to digest in BOLC where they're learning the basic fundamentals of their branch-specific trade and basic leadership skills and traits is, to be honest, quite overwhelming. We shove a lot down their throats in a small period of time. As discussed in other threads, the biggest question at the TDA level for BOLC would be where you would embed CA training and at the expense of what other training (what would you take out of the current curriculum).

2. Most PLs will work with CA NCOs and very seldom with a CA officer. Even as a commander I was working with your NCOs. I don't know if I ever saw the CA officer at my level. A seminar style class could be added, but only (realistically) for around a 3 hour block. I'm not sure what benefits that would provide to the young LT in terms of practical use and experience if not followed up by some intergration into STX or FTX prior to commencement.

If included in the POI for CCC, those officers preparing for Troop/Company/Battery commands and BN/BDE level staffs could integrate lessons learned in the BN/BDE MDMP processes amounting to consideration of CA activities and planning factors in a number of practical exercises.

The downfall is that your branch is critically short. Like SF, Civil Affairs Soldiers cannot be mass produced. Emplacing a CA officer with experience in TDA would amount to around 8 different Officers/Senior NCOs spread to the major Centers of Excellence. While I think it's a viable option that should be considered, I fear that from a practical standpoint it may not happen.

I wish we could. I hope my skepticism is wrong. I guess we will see.

$0.02

[Mondor]

Q: How do you pronounce USACAPOC?
A: The POC is silent.

The downfall is that your branch is critically short. Like SF, Civil Affairs Soldiers cannot be mass produced.

In my experience this is part of the problem. Folks make no distinction between CA and PSYOP. So my answer to your question is no, officers are not being exposed to PSYOP early enough.

How many times have you sent your teams out to support a unit only to have them give their capability brief and have the supported unit commander ask, “So how is this going to help me kill bad guys?” How many other supporting units have to even give a full blown capabilities brief that goes into the detail of telling the commander where they fit into the staff, who they report through, and what their basic mission is? Through PME and MOS training, and pre-deployment train up the unit commander should already have a pretty good idea of what a TPT or TPD consists of and what it is capable of doing. However this is rarely the case. Our training system does not cover PSYOP at the tactical or operational level in near enough detail, if at all.

If an infantry commander did not know the basic capabilities, targeting process and LNO requirements of a supporting aviation asset or an attached artillery unit he would be relieved. However, not knowing about PSYOP as it has limited kinetic capability is almost a source of pride amongst some.

The number of units with commanders like that has gone down a bit, but when a TPT is linked with a platoon or company for an operation the LT or even CPT generally has no idea how to treat the team or how to use them to his own advantage.

I could go on, you touched a nerve with this one, but I need to get a bit of required reading in before attacking data interoperability issues in the morning. Data interoperability, yeah, that is where the glory is.

[AdaptAndOvercome]

Hardrockxo,
Platoonleader.army.mil and companycommand.army.mil would be great places to post some of your materials.

[CW]

RTK,

I'm not sure how CA entered the discussion, but please don't confuse them with PSYOP. They are different branches with entirely different missions which are often complementary. The way that I often describe the difference is that a CA officer needs a SECRET clearance just to have a commission, while a PO officer without a TS/SCI isn't even really in the game. Seriously, it's two entirely different career fields, so maybe we should educate our juniors officers early and often.

v/r
CW

[RTK]

RTK,

I'm not sure how CA entered the discussion, but please don't confuse them with PSYOP. They are different branches with entirely different missions which are often complementary. The way that I often describe the difference is that a CA officer needs a SECRET clearance just to have a commission, while a PO officer without a TS/SCI isn't even really in the game. Seriously, it's two entirely different career fields, so maybe we should educate our juniors officers early and often.

v/r
CW

I understand that.

I also believe the disconnect is just as appropriate with TPTs as it is with CAs, THTs, and other "non-lethal" enablers out there. My proposal is that there should be a PSYOPs Officer/NCO, a CA Officer/NCO, and a THT WO at each CCC.

I apologize for not making this more clear.

[ilots]

Q: How do you pronounce USACAPOC?
A: The POC is silent.

I thought the POC is pronounced "People Other than CA" giving you "Civil Affairs and People Other than Civil affairs."