Information Operations

[Stevely]

Influence is an art, something not subject to algorithms and cold logic. The current definition simply does not fit into current operations. IO will continue to be nothing more than a point of confusion until a relevant, current definition is provided.

Brilliant post. Your paragraph above get right to the point, but unfortunately it is cause for pessimism: institutionally we are obsessed with metrics-based thinking, and only really take seriously that which can be counted. Since arts can't be measured, expect us to remain in a state of confusion.

[marct]

Mao TseTong (sp?), if I may paraphrase, said the population is to the guerilla (insurgent) as water is to fish. Our initial efforts in COIN were something like standing on a riverbank with a fishing pole, congratulating ourselves on every catch and thinking somehow we would eradicate all fishes from the water. To eliminate fish (insurgents) you must make the water (population) untenable for them.

I have always had a problem with this metaphor based on a) the assumed stance of the perceiver and b) the assumption of non-action" by the "water". In regards to IO, again using this metaphor, it implies poisoning or draining the water such that the fish can no longer breath. This might make sense in some COIN situations (e.g. Bolivia), but does it make sense in places such as Afghanistan? Only to a limited degree I would suspect.

Influence is an art, something not subject to algorithms and cold logic. The current definition simply does not fit into current operations. IO will continue to be nothing more than a point of confusion until a relevant, current definition is provided.

Brilliant post. Your paragraph above get right to the point, but unfortunately it is cause for pessimism: institutionally we are obsessed with metrics-based thinking, and only really take seriously that which can be counted. Since arts can't be measured, expect us to remain in a state of confusion.

Actually, many "arts" can be measured, but the metrics tend to be meaningless to the particular institutional mind-set you are referring to Stevely. Let me give you an example of this: "music", as an art form, is composed of rhythm, pitch and timbre that are produced sequentially through time. Each of these three, let's call them "base measures", can be measured, as can several of the emergent properties coming out of them such as harmonics. Where we run into difficulty is with he measurement of the effects of such emergent properties on humans. In part, this is because the neurology of humans with regards to something like pitch is not fixed at birth but, rather, is fixed at the age of abut 6 months. Furthermore, the interpretation, at a psycho-neurological level, is conditioned by individual experiences with, or conditioning by if you prefer, a given musical genre over time. The reason why I chose the example of music is that, to my mind, it is a good analogy for the more generalized case of "Information Operation".

Let's consider how we should break them down analytically (and remember, I'm an academic, not an IO type ).

1. "Information" - defined as "a difference that makes a difference" (Gregory Bateson) is composed of
   1. something within the environment that may be so classed and,
   2. the perception (or sensing) of that something.
2. The interpretation of that information; which is composed of
   1. a symbol system that defined what is information within the system,
   2. analytic "tools" (actually symbolic manipulations) of that information to derive "meaning", and
   3. a prescriptive system for action based on interpreted "meaning" (all of this comes from Andrew Abbott's, the System of the Professions).
3. Actions taken based on the interpretation of that information.

Now, that is the simplified system, and it gets much more complex later on . In particular, there is another, cross-cutting, dimension to this which deals with the media of communications in all of these steps. All media, barring face-to-face (F2F; which I'll talk about latter), distort the default value of communications for humans (F2F is the default value in that we evolved as a species using this medium) in either (or both) time and space. These distortions effect how the gathering, analysis and conclusions of IO are conducted and interpreted.

Face-to-face communication is the basic form of communications we, as a species, evolved with and is our "default value" for communicative media. This doesn't mean that people tell the "objective truth" (if such a thing can be told!) when they are talking face to face. What it does mean, however, is that we have a lot of neural circuity that acts to detect "lying", "cheating". Also, F2F communications contains a lot more "information" that we have available for interpretation (e.g. tonality, body language, eye positioning, scent, pitch, rhythm, timbre, etc.). This additional "information" (actually, sensory output) allows for an increased number of emergent properties such as "charisma", "spinning illusions", etc.

You know, this is turning into a rather long response . I think I'm going to leave it there for now and write up a blog entry on it.

Marc

[Schmedlap]

I was surprised that there is so much confusion on this issue, but upon searching 3-24 I only found one passing reference to Information Superiority, and it was in Appendix E. However, in the old FMI 3-07.22, I found this, which sums it up pretty well, in my opinion:

The goal of IO is to gain and maintain information superiority at decisive points. Information superiority is the operational advantage derived from the ability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary's ability to do the same (FM 3-0).

I think that much of the discussion on this thread is borne of misperceptions of IO rather than of some defect in the concept of conducting operations in the information environment. The real issue is how we organize our staffs and how we task various assets to accomplish it.

[Ken White]

I was surprised that there is so much confusion on this issue...

Could that be because we're trying to pin down a process that is being learned on the fly and is in considerable flux?

I think that much of the discussion on this thread is borne of misperceptions of IO rather than of some defect in the concept of conducting operations in the information environment. The real issue is how we organize our staffs and how we task various assets to accomplish it.

True and as wm said:

...Like pretty much everything else in the world of operations, each is METT-TC dependent.

Could it be that the search for clarity and coherence in an effort to simplify (possibly oversimplify???) a very complex and conditional process might obscure the flexibility needed to adapt and cope with multiple changing environments?

Sounds like a way to inadvertently design a straight jacket to me...

Or is that a strait jacket...

[Bill Moore]

http://www.army.mil/professionalwrit...05/5_05_3.html

The "IO Roadmap" provides strategic-level IO guidance for the current security environment defined in the latest QDR and NSS. The draft update of JP 3-13 incorporates the "IO Roadmap" and a new DOD IO definition: "The integrated employment of the specified core capabilities of Electronic Warfare [EW], Computer Network Operations (CNO), PSYOP [psychological operations], Military Deception, and Operations Security [OPSEC], in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decisionmaking, while protecting our own."9 The "IO Roadmap" groups IO elements in the following categories:

-Core capabilities (EW, CNO, OPSEC, military deception, PSYOP).

-Support capabilities (information assurance, physical security, counterintelligence, physical attack).

-Related capabilities (public affairs, civil-military operations).10

http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/t...d_doctrine.htm

This post is somewhat dated, but contains some worthwhile observations:

The strategy of using IO within military operations has a long history. The Army focuses on IO as an overarching strategy with a variety of capabilities that influence an adversary. Sun Tzu focused on the mind of the opponent in much the same way one would moving chess pieces to attain checkmate in a game of chess. The ultimate objective is gaining information superiority.

IO is not just the current trend of technology—it is the use of many aspects information targeted to achieve a specific affect or influence the adversary. Examples of IO include electronic warfare (EW), computer network attack systems, deception, and psychological operations using human factors to target as pressure points throughout an operation. The information environment is an aggregate of individuals, organizations, or systems that collect, process, or disseminate information; this environment also includes the information itself. The use of information and information technologies to influence the outcomes of conflicts has become a hot topic in the military and intelligence community. The increasing number of computer “hacking” incidents in both the private and public sectors has risen exponentially. The legal and policy issues of IO in this technology-driven environment are also under review. The use of “information as a weapon” within this ever-changing state of technology involves a tremendous amount of collection and analysis to support a specific outcome.

Given this realization, what are the expectations of and support for each echelon regarding IO?

There is more at each link, but with the exception of computer network attack, which the J3 doesn't control (in most cases), what is new? It is still unclear (despite statement to the contrary in this forum) on the purpose and intent of lumping all these activities under the IO umbrella. Having worked on a few joint operations, I have not yet seen the pratical value of IO as a stand alone doctrine. It does force people to play lip service to it, but the overall integration has been relatively lame in most cases (despite some cool looking power point slides that indicate otherwise). In my opinion, the failure to fully realize the power of IO is the failure to clarify how it should be integrated successfully in planning and operations. Clarifying isn't simplifying it, clarifying a complex concept is hard work.

For those who say there is no problem, I doubt they are current planner or operators, because I still enjoy listening to the SAMS graduates, NPS graduates, and senior officers sitting around debating IO. All of the conversations are informative, but they also indicate a level of immaturity of our current IO doctrine.

Of course it needs to be done, and it always has, I'm not underestimating the power of what IO attempts to accomplish, but rather would we and could we accomplish it anyway without IO doctrine? Since at least WWII we used EW, PSYOP, Deception and OPSEC with varying degrees of success. Did IO doctrine make us better? If so, how?

By all means we should continue to develop/improve our doctrine related to influence and the incorporation of advanced information technology to support defensive and offensive operations, but is there really a need to lump everything under one IO umbrella or is it just operations?

[joelhar]

I think the basic problem for the JP 3-13 definition is that it starts off defining the components and then tells us what they do. I do not believe the definition of IO should list the components, plain and simple. If the definition for IO is too broad and vague, then deal with it, change it into something useful.

The components should be listed, but elsewhere in JP 3-13. Chances are, if this is done, the number of components will suddenly increase. The simple premise is that everything can influence, everything should be considered for its effect on the targeted decision-maker, group of people or a general population. Dropping a kinetic bomb on a target might take out a telephone switch, a fiber-optic hub or a bad-guy, ALL of these will have meaning to selected person(s).

The scary thing to many conventional thinkers is that this threatens the old style of thinking, it would present a Revolution in Military Affairs, of sorts.

One of the major drawbacks would be a huge increase in the wargaming efforts required for planning, and there can be no handwave for this. Not only will the S/G/J-2 be required to play the part of the enemy, but might have to represent the population - it might require a whole new player. Depending on the situation someone might have to roleplay a religious group, another might play tourists, another might play affected diplomats, another might play the population in surrounding countries.

This is more an eventuality, actually, IMHO.

[Bill Moore]

The scary thing to many conventional thinkers is that this threatens the old style of thinking, it would present a Revolution in Military Affairs, of sorts.

Joelhar, I think you made a couple of good points, but I'm not so sure this is a Revolution in Military Affairs. I do agree every action can influence behavior. Once upon a time we just called this operational art, and if the various specialists (deception, intelligence, Operations Security, Electronic Warfare, etc.) understood their commander's intent and the strategic through tactical objectives, they were able to effectively apply their trade. PSYOP and influence operations have always been and will remain paramount, the advent of IO doctrine didn't change that, if anything it created unneeded confusion.

I'm not hard set against IO doctrine, but I agree that defining it with a few components is very misleading and not helpful.

The simple premise is that everything can influence, everything should be considered for its effect on the targeted decision-maker, group of people or a general population. Dropping a kinetic bomb on a target might take out a telephone switch, a fiber-optic hub or a bad-guy, ALL of these will have meaning to selected person(s).

Thus if this statement is true, do we need a separate speciality area that requires its own doctrine or is it just part of operational art?

[Rockbridge]

Well, this is a fascinating discussion about what we think the definition of IO should be versus trying to figure out how to work with the definition that we've got. The longer we continue to debate "how come," the longer it will take to get things going in the right direction. All the debates about whether the definition of IO in JP 3-13 definition fits "what we're really doing downrange" appear to be lacking in the distinction among tactical, operational, and strategic applications of IO, which clearly employ different assets and different methods.

To answer the earlier question about whether or not IO should be used as shorthand for PSYOP and message management by Irregular Warfare practicioners, the answer is simple: "Only if you have no interest in being doctrinally correct." The Irregular Warfare Joint Operating Concept specifically states on p36 that Information Operations fits into the current concept for Irregular Warfare, thusly "Conduct information operations (operations security, information security, military deception, PSYOP, electronic warfare, computer network attack and defense; and physical destruction) in support of IW campaign objectives." Although the IW JOC itself got the definition of IO wrong (why should JOCs be constrained by doctrine??), the intent is clearly to employ a lot more than just PSYOP and message management. With regard to the use of IO as shorthand for "PSYOP and message management," it clearly sounds like a tactical (or possibly operational) application of IO by an element that doesn't have any other assets. In other words, IO for a unit that only has PSYOP and "messaging" assets will obviously only include those assets. Other units with more assets will conduct a wider variety of operations and use more assets when they conduct IO.

We seem to expend a lot of energy worrying about how "my IO doesn't look like your IO" when the real objective of IO is not to employ a specific set of capabilities, but to employ all available capabilities in order to influence the thoughts and actions of adversary and neutral parties. Fortunately, that includes killing those who need to be killed so they don't have thoughts or actions any more.

This stuff really isn't that difficult.

[Schmedlap]

Could that be because we're trying to pin down a process that is being learned on the fly and is in considerable flux?

My surprise was not that we are wrangling with process. I think that is one issue that needs to be fixed. As I wrote, "The real issue is how we organize our staffs and how we task various assets to accomplish it." Instead, I was surprised that there is a fundamental confusion/disagreement as to what information superiority is. How do we organize the staffs and C2 relationships with the assets if we can’t even agree upon what we’re using them for? But, upon reading the comments here and upon further reflection on the level of understanding that I have seen demonstrated in various units, I guess this should not surprise me.

What information superiority is, is pretty straightforward and merits very little discussion or elaboration...

The goal of IO is to gain and maintain information superiority at decisive points. Information superiority is the operational advantage derived from the ability to collect, process, and disseminate an uninterrupted flow of information while exploiting or denying an adversary's ability to do the same (FM 3-0).

I think if more commanders and staff know what information superiority is, then they will rather quickly figure out how to achieve it. Unfortunately, I doubt that most commanders or staff know what information superiority is. Otherwise, they would not be notorious for wanting to "sprinkle in some IO" with their operations as a last minute modification to a plan.

Maybe we need a PSYOP TPDD to print up some handbills as part of an awareness campaign. Do a leaflet drop over Leavenworth.

[Ken White]

...Maybe we need a PSYOP TPDD to print up some handbills as part of an awareness campaign. Do a leaflet drop over Leavenworth.

That and move the 'doctrine' writing out of the hands of the Snowbirds and Blackbirds. I kid, Guys, I kid...

Definitions are good but they can also be constricting. In an area of effort that really follows Moore's law with respect to development and major change speed, too much specificity might be a bad thing. Can a generic joint service definition for much of anything really be judged applicable to all services at all echelons in all environments? Perhaps -- but once you get out of hardware, I've never seen it work. Excessive centralization stifles creativity and initiative.

As Bill Moore said, this is operator stuff and it's not all that new, we just bundled some things. Every time we do that -- and we do it about every ten years or so -- it initially creates some confusion. That usually gets sorted out in a few months.

There are a lot of FlagOs getting big bucks and many hassles and they're smart guys with mostly decent staffs; they can work out what they need for their job without a lot of undue precision...

[Bill Moore]

Originally Posted by Schmedlap
...Maybe we need a PSYOP TPDD to print up some handbills as part of an awareness campaign. Do a leaflet drop over Leavenworth.

The real issue is how we organize our staffs and how we task various assets to accomplish it

I didn't see information superiority in the IO definition, but I think information superiority is a great "objective", but it will involve more than the five or so disciplines listed in the IO definition.

I like the term information superiority, simply state it as a goal/objective, and then organize the staff to accomplish it. I think that answers the mail? That allows for maxium flexability based on each unique situation. I'll still argue there is nothing "simple" about this. It is a very complex endeavor, and one that I have rarely seen done well. The "value" of IO and information superiority is its impact on accomplishing the mission, so lets say the definition is simple, that still doesn't equate to success in accomplishing it.

[wm]

IO is really A PAIN:

Availability
Privacy
Authenticity
Integrity
Non-repudiation

In its offensive form (nutshell #1), one denies one's opponent the above attributes of information.
In its defensive form (nutshell #2), one assures one's own side of the same attributes.

PSYOPS, OPSEC, EW, Fires, Information Assurance(IA)/Cyberwar, etc. are all TTPs one may use to achieve the above goals. Like pretty much everything else in the world of operations, each is METT-TC dependent.