NATO to "Merge" Public Affairs, Info Ops, Psy Ops Offices in AFG?

[Schmedlap]

"This will totally undermine the credibility of the information released to the press and the public," said the official, who declined to be named.

Completely disagree. When I was the IO guy for my unit, I had the PA guy sit right next to me. He only had a secret clearance and I tried to get him a TS so that he could understand the rationale for why I restricted him in the manner that I did. We didn't get the clearance or even an interim initiated, but he at least appreciated that I was not attempting to hide information from him or manipulate him. Interaction between PSYOP, PA, and the OPSEC manager are essential to controlling information. I was frequently telling my PA guy not to put certain information in press releases. That was non-negotiable because it was an OPSEC measure. However, I would also request that he put other information in, and that was his call. Just as a fire request may be denied because some other unit has a higher priority of fires, the PA guy had the discretion to deny my requests if it threatened the credibility of PA. I relied upon his judgment in that regard.

So long as the commander makes it clear that the PA guy is answerable directly to him, but that the IO folks coordinate directly with the PA guy, then there is no issue. There was significant risk of the PA guy assuming a subordinate role to me because he was not an officer or senior NCO and he administratively was "mine." But I treated him as a peer and reminded him often that he belonged to the commnader, not to me or the S-3. Putting PA subordinate to IO or PSYOP folks would be dangerous and would likely undermine their credibility. So long as PA is treated as a primary staff officer, then putting PA and PSYOP in the same cell, next to each other, can work very well. They need to coordinate directly and often. I'm surprised that it didn't happen sooner.

[jmm99]

Others may agree with the Reuters terminology used here - I'd use the same terms differently.

Information Operations advises on information designed to affect the will of the enemy, while Psy Ops includes so-called "black operations," or outright deception.

Reuters equates "black operations" = outright deception. Possibly my antique usage, but the spectrum of white, light gray, medium gray, dark gray and black information hinges on the covertness of the ultimate source of the information. As applied to us, revealing or concealing a USG agency as the source.

As to white information (e.g., VOA, BBC), enlightened self-interest over the long haul requires truth-telling so that the white outputs retain absolute credibility to their audiences - a chartacteristic lacking in Radio Moscow if you kept up with the twists and turns of the SovCom party line.

As to black information (the ultimate dream being a planted piece in Pravda, Izvestia, Tass or RM), that also has to be true - or, if false, at least close enough to the black output's usual agitprop line to be credible. The best black story, e.g., a true story that the SovComs wanted to keep secret, would have been one published in one of their party organs (usually local third world).

The gray part of the spectrum leaves more room for deception and falsity of the story. The rest of the Reuters story involves intra-agency and inter-agency issues, which have always been a problem - as to which, I am dumb.

[Ken White]

more like.

That's a bad article and IMO it constitutes gray propaganda for the opponents. May not have been the intent but it is the practical effect. Schmedlap has the separation of church and state correctly ascribed and the Reuters lad merely shows his ignorance probably with an assist by his Editor.

The article does wrongly equate "black operations" with outright deception. Deception may or may not be the aim. The spectrum of white, gray and black propaganda -- not information -- does not hinge on the covertness of the ultimate source of the information but rather to the intent of the effort. White is effectively a totally honest effort to persuade; gray appears to support one view while actually subtly supporting another and black is aimed at total confusion and may be an honest or a totally dishonest statement that puts the opponent in a bad light. There are some technical errors in that but it's an effective simplification. The agency or origin has little to do with the shading, the intent is the determinant.

The NATO ally quibbling comes from euro social democratic governments who (a) aren't terribly bright when it comes to affaires militaire and (b) object to most anything the US does as a matter of course -- even if they want the US to do it so they don't have to. To believe that one can be totally honest in reporting the all the 'news' while the opponent is doing the exact opposite is the height of naiveté. More correctly, to think that the 'news' is not part and parcel of the Information Operation effort and that total separation is possible is just stupid.

Colombia is an example of how to do it. The Colombian Armed forces have a couple of hot teams that immediately go to the site of any incident involving the Armed Forces that may cause adverse publicity, document it thoroughly and honestly then rapidly get it to the media -- with evidence. That's a PA effort, not an information shaping effort -- yet it undeniably shapes the news. Such intertwining is absolutely unavoidable and to act like it can be avoided is dishonest in itself. Excessively sanctimonious, also...

As for this:

"What we are seeing is a gradual increase of American influence in all areas of the war," the NATO official said. "Seeking to gain total control of the information flow from the campaign is just part of that."

Very astute lad -- he figured it out. What is now happening does not work so the US, per usual gets to be the bad guys and fix it. No news there -- and none of note in that Reuter's article.

[John T. Fishel]

(at least when I was in the business - and I don't believe it has changed) defined the colors of propaganda in terms of source. White acknowledged the source; gray simply did not acknowledge it; black attributed it to a source other than the true one. US military Psyop doctrine never knowingly produced false information. Deception ops were not Psyop but were intel ops. That is not to say that Psyop resources could not be used but they were not run by Psyop organizations.

My favorite example of a black propaganda op is one I was told about that took Soviet anti-Islam propaganda designed for use in Soviet Central Asia and reproduced it verbatim for use in independent Muslim countries attributing it to the Soviet Embassy or local communist parties or both.

Cheers

JohnT

[jmm99]

about the last three posts - something about being separated by a common language - or, in this case, a common color scheme.

You all realize that everyone is right here.

Hat tip to JTF for his black example.

[Ken White]

You all realize that everyone is right here.

propaganda, information or an intelligence operation ?

However, as always, you are correct; not only in your declaration but also in the proper use of 'you all'

[Spud]

NATO to "Merge" Public Affairs, Info Ops, Psy Ops Offices in AFG?

Hallafu@#ingluyah ... The only time MNF-I actually got on the front foot in the info game was when BG Lessell smashed the IO, PA, and PD guys into one room and forced them to talk, and work together as MNF-I Stratcom. The info sucesses in Al FAJR are directly attributable to the synchronisation and coordiantion that occurred as a result. Unfortunatley as sooon as the BG rotated out it was white-anted ... mostly by the PA guys (and led by a nameless reservist pusser with rank that far outstripped his ability).

If everyone got over their stupid bloody capbadge issues and focused on the actual mission it is plain to see the there is no argument against having them work together. Doesn't mean they do each other's job ... just means they know what the hell is going on in the domain in which they are meant to be the SME.

I manage to be an IO guy/PA guy/PSYOPer and general ops planner all in one (and a pretty good looking one a that). Why the hell is it always so difficult for everyone else?