Wayne made a very interesting point when he said that using doctrine to define IO was similar to using a Papal announcement. In one way, he is absolutely correct in this - it creates a self-limiting discussion; a semantic tautology if you will. At the same time, I think there is a real problem with not having a definition of IO and most of them come from doctrine.

So, in my usually modest way, I'm going to build one outside of doctrine, legal restrictions, etc. and see what we can come up with .

Let's start with some part defintions. First, what is "information"? My favorite definition of information, for a variety of reasons, comes from Gregory Bateson: "Information is a difference that makes a difference". From Steps to an Ecology of Mind (2000 edition):
"What is it in the territory that gets onto the map?" We know the territory does not get onto the map. That is the central point about which we here are all agreed. Now, if the territory were uniform, nothing would get onto the map except its boundaries, which are the points at which it ceases to be uniform against some larger matrix. What gets onto the map, in fact, is difference, be it a difference in altitude, a difference in vegetation, a difference in population structure, difference in surface, or whatever. Differences are the things that get onto a map.

A difference is a very peculiar and obscure concept. It is certainly not a thing or an event. This piece of paper is different than the wood of this lectern. There are many differences between them - of colour, texture, shape, etc... Of this infinitude, we select a very limited number which become information. In fact, what we mean by information - the elementary unit of information - is a difference which makes a difference (pp.457-459).
This is part of a larger discussion on the map-territory problem in epistemology; a problem that Wilf is alluding to when he defines IO as not part of the military sphere of operations (it's definitional).

Now, second definition; what is an "operation"? I would suggest (not require ) that an "operation" be defined as an "action which has the potential to transform some part of perceived or material reality". Note that there is absolutely nothing about intentionality in that definition, nor is there anything about who is acting or who is being acted upon - this allows for unanticipated consequences of actions in unintentional populations (the Butterfly Effect from Chaos theory if you will).

My earlier comments that mediaspace is a battlespace derive from this observation - it may not be part of the military "map", but it certainly has an indirect effect on military operations and hence must be part of an updated military map. This requirement, i.e. that mediaspace (broadly construed) must have a significant place in the military mapping of their battlespace is how I interpreted the argument by Frontier 6 on the SWJ blog. As to why it must be considered as part of the battlespace, I think Frontier 6 makes some good points, but I would add in a few others:
  1. The media, both "old" and "new", helps to define and shape the "national will".
  2. The "new" media allows for the rapid recruitment and deployment of pattern-based assets in the current conflict (a "pattern-based asset is any pattern of information that might "make a difference" to the current conflict, e.g. information on location, numbers, etc., recruitment, interpretation of current intelligence, PSYOPS, computer viruses, weapons construction plans, training materials, etc.).
  3. The fragmentation of the media (both old and new), along with the introduction of highly interactive media (mainly "new") has reduced the efficiency of operations based around broadcast technologies (e.g. TV, Radio, Newspapers, etc.; See Levinson, The Soft Edge for a really good discussion of this).
  4. The fragmentation of the media has also reduced the reach of any singular form of media and increased the formation of contingent and specialized communities.
If we combine these two definitions together, we end up with a definition of Information Operations that reads something like this:
Information operations are actions taken to produce changes in the material and perceptual realities of populations through the redefinition of those populations perceptual "maps".
Yes, I know that such a definition includes things such as propaganda, PSYOPS, strategic communications, etc. . In order to bring that definition down to something that is a little more manageable and usable by the military, it should be possible to isolate a sub-set of these operations that have a direct effect on what I called "pattern-based assets" in point 2 (above).

Having tossed the cat amongst the pigeons, think its time for another cup of coffee .

Marc