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

[Spud]

II reject even the most guarded suggestion that we are "losing the information war" or any similar claim.

Schmedlap I think you're reading between the lines too much mate ... the last thing that an IO guy is ever going to say is "we're losing the info war." That line is solely reserved for operators who screw up royally and then lay blame on the info team for not fixing it when they cop a caning in the press .

What I was trying to say is getting everyone back in the one room and working together is a fantastic success (but I doubt that it will last long now that it has negative media coverage). I've seen it work and I've also seen it not work when FA assignments and sheep stations get in the way of commonsense.

As for 2007 ... my experience in that year is the other side of the NAG. Having said that I did sit through a pretty good brief from the MNC-I IO chief at that period a couple of months ago who reconfirmed all the lessons we learned in 04/05. I still find it amazing that we can continue kinetic ops, log, int etc every time we have a headquarters changeover but we always manage to start the IO game from scratch again ... there has not (to date anyway) been any continuity in the ID&I BOS in either theatre. That unfortunately leaves me very

[Schmedlap]

... the last thing that an IO guy is ever going to say is "we're losing the info war." That line is solely reserved for operators who screw up royally and then lay blame on the info team for not fixing it when they cop a caning in the press

I heard it from the operators even when things were going well because they were convinced that we weren't exploiting success adequately, when in fact we were doing more than they ever thought to ask and it was entirely transparent to them.

[Bob W.]

FOr What it's worth, I wrote a little bit about this same sore subject the other day here. Cheers.

[Ken White]

FOr What it's worth, I wrote a little bit about this same sore subject the other day here. Cheers.

twenty five cents a word.

Got any comment to add here about your elsewhere expressed thoughts? That would be nice. Then ads are free.

You could also go to this (LINK)and tack on to the end of the Thread to tell us a little about yourself and your background.

[Bob W.]

Kenneth,

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

Bob

[Ron Humphrey]

Kenneth,

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

Bob

otherwise I'm flaborghasted that you called him Kenneth

[Entropy]

otherwise I'm flaborghasted that you called him Kenneth

Hey, at least it wasn't "Kenny!"

[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.