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

[milnews.ca]

Mods, if this isn't the best spot, feel free to shift it - shared for the purpose of research and discussion.

Press and "Psy Ops" to merge at NATO Afghan HQ: sources
John Hemming, Reuters, 290628EST Nov 08
Article link

KABUL (Reuters) - The U.S. general commanding NATO forces in Afghanistan has ordered a merger of the office that releases news with "Psy Ops," which deals with propaganda, a move that goes against the alliance's policy, three officials said.

The move has worried Washington's European NATO allies -- Germany has already threatened to pull out of media operations in Afghanistan -- and the officials said it could undermine the credibility of information released to the public.

Seven years into the war against the Taliban, insurgent influence is spreading closer to the capital and Afghans are becoming increasingly disenchanted at the presence of some 65,000 foreign troops and the government of President Hamid Karzai.

Taliban militants, through their website, telephone text messages and frequent calls to reporters, are also gaining ground in the information war, analysts say.

U.S. General David McKiernan, the commander of 50,000 troops from more than 40 nations in NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), ordered the combination of the Public Affairs Office (PAO), Information Operations and Psy Ops (Psychological Operations) from December 1, said a NATO official with detailed knowledge of the move.

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

ISAF spokesman Brigadier General Richard Blanchette said McKiernan had issued a staff order to implement a command restructure from December 1 which was being reviewed by NATO headquarters in Brussels, but he declined to go into details of the reorganization.

"This is very much an internal matter," he said. "This is up with higher headquarters right now and we're waiting to get the basic approval. Once we have the approval we will be going into implementation."

But another ISAF official confirmed that the amalgamation of public affairs with Information Operations and Psy Ops was part of the planned command restructure. This official, who also declined to be named, said the merger had caused considerable concern at higher levels within NATO which had challenged the order by the U.S. general.

"DECEPTION ACTIVITIES"

NATO policy recognizes there is an inherent clash of interests between its public affairs offices, whose job it is to issue press releases and answer media questions, and that of Information Operations and Psy Ops.

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

While Public Affairs and Information Operations, PA and Info Ops in military jargon, "are separate, but related functions," according to the official NATO policy document on public affairs, "PA is not an Info Ops discipline."

The new combined ISAF department will come under the command of an American one-star general reporting directly to McKiernan, an arrangement that is also against NATO policy, the NATO official said.

"While coordination is essential, the lines of authority will remain separate, the PA reporting directly to the commander. This is to maintain credibility of PA and to avoid creating a media or public perception that PA activities are coordinated by, or are directed by, Info Ops," the NATO policy document says.

"PA will have no role in planning or executing Info Ops, Psy Ops, or deception activities," it states.

The United States has 35,000 of the 65,000 foreign troops in Afghanistan, operating both under ISAF and a separate U.S.-led coalition operation, but both come under McKiernan's command.

Washington is already scheduled to send another 3,000 troops to arrive in the country in January and is now considering sending 20,000 more troops in the next 12 to 18 months, further tipping the numerical balance among ISAF forces.

"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."

[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.