I tend to agree with Andrew's comments about IO. First, definitions are obviously very important, since we can't comunicate clearly without them. Of course we live in a gray world, but words still have meaning, and should provide as much clarity as possible, and you don't do that with the incorrect use of terms. Unfortunately, the definition of IO presents problems based on its current scope as defined by DoD.

When IO first developed, it was DoD's response to the rapidly emerging Information Age (largely technology based). It was offensive and defensive in nature, but technically focused. Somehow PSYOP got thrown into the mix, which I think was a serious mistake because we took a needed technical speciality and turned it into the overall art of war. Now IO means everything, so it really means nothing.

I tend to like the new terms in the Army's FM 3-0, and hope that eventually DoD will develop Joint terms along a similiar line of thought to help clarify the confuse that IO creates.

Influence Operations: to effect the behavior of the intended audience through coercion, information engagement, presence and conduct.

Information Engagement: the government's use of integrated employment of public information programs, psychological operations, and support leader and government activities (reparing a school, security force behavior) to influence a target audience.

While not perfect they are closer to what we are actually doing, but we still a definition for the high technology side of IO for computer attack and defense, etc. Everyone now has their biases, so it will be hard to fix this, but ideally would go to a clean slate and start over with these terms. I really wonder if there is any utility in lumping all those activities under one blanket term to begin with?