Information Operations

[Schmedlap]

Bill,

We need the original definiton of IO for joint "warfighting", even if it doesn't fit nicely with small wars. For small wars we need something closer to information engagement and influence operations.

I think the definition of information superiority should be our guide. It is straightforward and makes sense. It gives equal weight to our engagement with the population, our control of the enemy's information flow and content, and attention to our own. That is a well-rounded view to approaching operations in the information environment. I think we agree that the current IO definition is a description of some staff functions that often are not integrated with one another in practice.

Randy,

I differ, however, in that I do see the potential need for the de-confliction of non-lethal factors in mission planning and execution... Caveat: Seen it in theory and war-gaming. Haven't seen it in real-life.

I think we actually agree, though I must throw in a caveat of my own: I've done it in real life, but I'm not sure about the doctrine . My understanding of a working group is that it is formed on an ad hoc basis for specific missions and it is not a permanent thing. My objection to a non-kinetic effects cell is that it makes no sense when it comes to day-to-day operations.

You are certainly correct regarding your examples of coordination issues between EW, intel, et cetera. I made daily coordinations with our EW guy at higher and this required deconfliction with ISR and various MI assets. None of those worked near one another, so I often worried about whether correct coordination was occuring at higher (sometimes it wasn't) and I double-tapped those deconflictions at my level, to make sure we didn't accidentally fry the S2's gadgetry, cause static on the movie screen on the JOC floor, or cause other issues.

I have helped plan operations that simultaneously leveraged PSYOP, EW, CA, and followed up with PA (and we incorporated measured to protect EEFI throughout). None of this required any coordination that I am aware of between any of those functions.

I see no issue with the CI, PSYOP, MILDEC, EW, and CNO folks getting together in an ad hoc working group for a little pow-wow if there is a major operation coming up where all of the "core IO" functions will be leveraged in concert with one another (I've never seen that happen in real life), but I see no need for a permanent standing cell that lumps them all together because they never have any need to coordinate. I actually think lumping them together is counterproductive. Regarding your example - I've never seen a situation where EW or MI activity had PA, CA, or PSYOP implications. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't happen, but I've never seen it and can't really envision such a scenario.

William,

I have always assumed that IO meant transmitting a message to the enemy, and target populations, by a variety of means.

I think most people share that view, which is why "IO" is usually assumed to be PSYOP or talking points. The goal is much more: the control of information content and flow, to include the information sent and received by the BLUEFOR, the enemy, and the population.