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

[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?

[Schmedlap]

I wasn't on MNF-I staff, but I had high visibility of - for lack of a better term - our "IO" in Iraq. I reject even the most guarded suggestion that we are "losing the information war" or any similar claim. The fact that many people hold that pessimistic view is a tribute either to
a) our good OPSEC
b) the crappy intelligence gathering and propaganda development of our adversaries
c) both

Mullah Atari sure was a nice guy to reign in his militia in 2007. Lucky us! Good thing that AQI pushed their luck with the Sunnis - we were getting antsy waiting around and doing nothing, waiting for something to change the situation. And, of course, praise Allah that the pan-Arab media's negative coverage of US operations in Iraq significantly moderated (even before Obama burst onto the scene) - that was probably their "turn the other cheek" reaction to our unilateral, overbearing ways.

When the history of this war is written, after current operations are declassified, the skill and cunning of our leaders in navigating the media, culture, and political realm of Iraq since early 2007 will be as impressive to behold as the the mismanagement of the first three years was mind-boggling.

[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