Strategic Communication: A Tool for Asymmetric Warfare

[Adrian]

If the so called GWOT is a true ideological confrontation that is critical to national security, shouldn't IO fall under the auspices of the DOD?

Plenty of things that are critical to national security aren't within DoD - intelligence/covert ops (granted 80% is DoD but still much is outside), state, the economy, etc. Just because something is national security doesn't mean DoD has to do it.

I'd favor bringing back the independent USIA instead, having a direct line to the White House rather than having to go through SecDef, who's priority won't be information operations or ideological warfare.

[invictus0972]

Plenty of things that are critical to national security aren't within DoD - intelligence/covert ops (granted 80% is DoD but still much is outside), state, the economy, etc. Just because something is national security doesn't mean DoD has to do it.

I'd favor bringing back the independent USIA instead, having a direct line to the White House rather than having to go through SecDef, who's priority won't be information operations or ideological warfare.

Hi Adrian,

As I understand things, the military is, in fact, involved in a lot of covert intelligence operations. The NSA actually coordinates these operations. I suppose I am thinking ther should be an NSA-type organization for IO. Thanks for your thoughts, and I look forward to your response.

[Adrian]

Yes the military is involved in a lot (not all) of covert ops, but my point was that not all covert ops - and not all national security affairs in general - are under control of the Department of Defense. If, for example, the economic aspects of national security (Treasury freezing the assets of terror sponsors, for example) aren't under DoD, why should IO be under DoD just for the reason that it's national security?

[invictus0972]

Yes the military is involved in a lot (not all) of covert ops, but my point was that not all covert ops - and not all national security affairs in general - are under control of the Department of Defense. If, for example, the economic aspects of national security (Treasury freezing the assets of terror sponsors, for example) aren't under DoD, why should IO be under DoD just for the reason that it's national security?

Good point! The difference is that the military does not have any core competencies that deal with economic aspects of national security, at least not that I am aware of. On the other hand, the military already has a lot of core competencies actively engaged in IO: PAO, Psychological Operations, OPSEC, etc. Now, the official party line is that the military does not do STRATCOM, but the lines between tactical and strategic IO is so blurry that I think it is time to relook the issue. Also, I am not suggesting that the DOD should be the only agency doing IO. DOS will always have a significant role to play, and they would necessarily need to work with any DOD organization. If the USIA were established, I could see an IO triumvirate composed of the USIA, DOS, and my proposed DOD organization. Using your example, it would be like the FBI, CIA, and NSA working together on intelligence.

[Tom Odom]

Hi Adrian,

As I understand things, the military is, in fact, involved in a lot of covert intelligence operations. The NSA actually coordinates these operations. I suppose I am thinking ther should be an NSA-type organization for IO. Thanks for your thoughts, and I look forward to your response.

Wrong agency when talking covert and again not to be confused with clandestine.

Best

Tom

[invictus0972]

Wrong agency when talking covert and again not to be confused with clandestine.

Best

Tom

So, NSA is clandestine, not covert? I never really thought of the semantic difference between the two. Is the overall point that the military is involved in strategic level intelligence, covert or clandestine, still valid?

[Rex Brynen]

So, NSA is clandestine, not covert? I never really thought of the semantic difference between the two. Is the overall point that the military is involved in strategic level intelligence, covert or clandestine, still valid?

Yes, the military widely collects strategic level intelligence. NSA's niche in this, of course, is SIGINT (and the cryptography necessary to exploit what it collects, plus the mandate to maintain the security of USG communications).

In popular culture, however, I'm struck at how NSA is so often (mis)portrayed as a super-secret version of the CIA, a sort of men-in-black stereotype.

The real men in black, of course, protect us from alien invasion...

[Penta]

Yes, the military widely collects strategic level intelligence. NSA's niche in this, of course, is SIGINT (and the cryptography necessary to exploit what it collects, plus the mandate to maintain the security of USG communications).

In popular culture, however, I'm struck at how NSA is so often (mis)portrayed as a super-secret version of the CIA, a sort of men-in-black stereotype.

The real men in black, of course, protect us from alien invasion...

This may, or may not, be related to the fact that the NSA's existence was classified til...1975 or so, no?

[Cannoneer No. 4]

At State Dept., Blog Team Joins Muslim Debate

[Stan]

This may, or may not, be related to the fact that the NSA's existence was classified til...1975 or so, no?

Been to Fort Meade lately ? If so, which side of the highway did you visit ?

Little has changed since 75 and rightfully so !

[Tom Odom]

So, NSA is clandestine, not covert? I never really thought of the semantic difference between the two. Is the overall point that the military is involved in strategic level intelligence, covert or clandestine, still valid?

Neither, "clan" is HUMINT is and the services and the CIA do that. Covert is black paramilitary as in ops in OEF I. As Rex states NSA is SIGINT all forms, Hollywood loves to play the N Such Agency game and assign it roles and functions it does not do. Certainly the services are involved in strat intel but NSA does not have a management function beyong SIGINT.

Best

Tom

[wm]

So, NSA is clandestine, not covert? I never really thought of the semantic difference between the two. Is the overall point that the military is involved in strategic level intelligence, covert or clandestine, still valid?

Invictus,
I'd love to tell you the truth about all this stuff, but then I'd have to kill you. (old intel joke)

All of the services have uniformed folks doing work for the various three letter national intel agencies. They all also have their own internal strategic intel shops. However, that said, I'm not sure that you and I have the same understanding of what strategic intelligence is.

[Norfolk]

Plenty of things that are critical to national security aren't within DoD - intelligence/covert ops (granted 80% is DoD but still much is outside), state, the economy, etc. Just because something is national security doesn't mean DoD has to do it.

I'd favor bringing back the independent USIA instead, having a direct line to the White House rather than having to go through SecDef, who's priority won't be information operations or ideological warfare.

I tend to very much agree with you here Adrian, and I particularly like your proposal of reactivating the USIA - with its chain of command going straight to the President and bypassing everyone else. But as I have been thinking about this, I am reminded of Rob Thornton's proposal on one of the other threads for a new SOE-type agency (that part may or may not be necessary for the role you propose in bring back the USIA) that is low on hierarchy and high on individual initiative and the creation of netowrks of contacts. SOE, of course, was highly involved in IO, but as Selil observed, much of the process of SC is similar to that of IO, just sort of in reverse. That sort of model may have some real potential for SC.

The real men in black, of course, protect us from alien invasion...

Rex, I am rather dubious about both the effectiveness and even the true loyalties of the Men In Black (and the fact that they seem to work hand-in-glove with the Men in (Little) White (Coats) - with butterfly nets: