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

[Ken White]

Kenneth,

I am logged in and filled out my profile, can you access it now?

Bob

for taking the time to provide that lengthy and very illuminating biographical sketch. Fascinating reading.

However, as you may have noticed, I suggested not that you fill out your Profile but that you might visit our "Tell us about you" thread and provide a brief outline. Also and more to the point, I said that adding some of your commentary rather than posting a link to your blog would be polite. Do as you will on the background info but don't expect much chatter if you merely try to post free ads.

As Ever,
Kenneth

[Bob W.]

All right, I think I filled out my info correctly, and please forgive my sarcasm; when I wrote that Kenneth crap last night I was half in the bag, celebrating the 75th anniversary of the end prohibition, so don't hold it against me.

Ken (not Kenneth), I posted some bio stuff where you requested, I think there are enough bonafides there now, no?

The point I tried to make over at my site the other day was what I saw a couple of people echoing in this thread: the various info disciplines need to synchronize their activities, at least when they are operating in a theater within a joint task force. Having an information cell (which I believe is what Nato Isaf was proposing and what the article was referring to) enables the PA to be synched with operations to maximize their effects and in a timely manner, rather than being a disparate action not linked into the rest of the info fight.

One other point I will make, this is more anecdotal from where I sit (especially now in five-sided happy land): Whenever people, even military types in the building, see the word PSYOP on some type of order, they freak out. If something has to get staffed with other agencies, it's even worse. PSYOP at this point has a terrible connotation, I think people would be more disposed to approving stuff that had "psychic warfare" written on it than PSYOP! I think it's a worthwhile idea at this point to scrap the term PSYOP than to rehabilitate the word. I also know that there are PSYOP guys out there that will kill to keep the term alive for some reason, too.

For my part, I would rather see an EXORD that attaches a MIST to a Task Force conducting humanitarian relief somewhere sail through the system, rather than have it stuck in limbo due to the handwringing, or worse yet, watch the MIST get pulled from the task force because the word "PSYOP" was there. It happens, I kid you not.

Thanks for giving me a second chance, I promise you my rehabilitation is complete, I am sober and on my 6th step, and I will remain humble throughout the rest of my tour on the council.

[Ken White]

...I promise you my rehabilitation is complete, I am sober and on my 6th step, and I will remain humble throughout the rest of my tour on the council.

Both the sober and the humble...

At least I sure hope it is or I'm in truh-bulll.

In any event and seriously -- welcome aboard.

Read your article and agree. Good to have you and be careful on 395. Do not be careful in the building, rattle cages...

[Voodoun]

Interesting thread. Reed, I think most of the criticisms of the article were accurate - Black PSYOP is not deceptive information, but deception of source. Military Deception is part of our toolkit, but from what I understand that's a battlefield thing (my insurgent brothers, I've heard those helicopters have been flying all night, we better keep our heads down).

I am personally a bit skeptical with the merging of IO and PSYOP, and its closer relationship with PA. But I've been biased by my instructors as SWCS. the PSYOP community, from what I've been told, rejected an offer to put IO under PSYOP, so PSYOP wound up being put under IO. I've heard rumor that this is going to change soon.

We're taught that the only limit PSYOP has is our creativity, so I can sympathize when PSYOPers feel like there's so much more that can be done.

[Jedburgh]

RAND, 30 April 2012: U.S. Military Information Operations in Afghanistan: Effectiveness of Psychological Operations 2001-2010

The U.S. Marine Corps, which has long recognized the importance of influencing the civilian population in a counterinsurgency environment, requested an evaluation of the effectiveness of the PSYOP element of U.S. military information operations in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2010 based on how well messages and themes were tailored to target audiences. This monograph responds to that request. It summarizes the diverse PSYOP initiatives undertaken, evaluates their effectiveness, identifies strengths and weaknesses, and describes the way forward, including making certain specific recommendations for improvements. Special attention is paid to how well PSYOP initiatives were tailored to target audiences, primarily the Pashtuns who are the dominant population in the conflictive areas and the main support of the Taliban insurgency. It contains reports of specific operations that were successful in achieving objectives, as well as examples of operations that did not resonate with target audiences and even some that had counterproductive effects. The biggest PSYOP successes were in face-to-face communication and the emphasis on meetings with jirgas (local councils of elders), key-leader engagements, and establishing individual relationships with members of the Afghan media. In addition, the concept of every infantryman as a PSYOP officer proved very effective. The most notable shortcoming was the inability to sufficiently counter the Taliban propaganda campaign against U.S. and coalition forces on the theme of civilian casualties, both domestically and internationally...