Information Operations

[marct]

I think the definition of information superiority should be our guide. It is straightforward and makes sense. It gives equal weight to our engagement with the population, our control of the enemy's information flow and content, and attention to our own.

IF that is the goal, then it is unattainable. It's like "all-weather" and "information dominance." The idea that anyone or anything can "control" information in the Information Age is both illusory and highly damaging.

Actually, I agree with Wilf on this one - the illusion that there can be total control is probably more damaging that the recognition that there can't be, even if you do strive towards it. Having said that, however, there is nothing inherently wrong with holding it out as an ideal assuming that the means to achieve that ideal are ethically valid (i.e. no self-destructive).

[quote=William F. Owen;51105]The best I can ever believe is that IO is something BLUEFOR does to (an information product - a statement, spoken or written) that protects the legitimacy of it's own actions. Essentially it should either be telling the truth or saying nothing. As a military force, action should be primary conveyor of information.[/quote}

Personally, I'm not so much worried about protecting legitimacy of actions in terms of IO at lower levels. All to often, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that turns around and destroys higher level credibility and legitimacy. I certainly agree that either telling the truth (as ou perceive it; always a crucial caveat) or saying nothing immediately but coming clean afterwards is the best and most ethical policy. And you are also absolutely correct that actions will speak loader than words.

One of the things that bugs me about the entire debate (not here, but in general), is the apparent disconnect that is running around between, for example, message, medium and interpretation. Simple example:

• Intended message: we are here to help you
• Medium: kinetic action leading to deaths of civilians
• Interpretation: you ain't here to help us!

or a slightly more complex version:

• Intended message: we are here to help you
• Medium: provide jobs by building a school, location becomes target of AQ/Taliban kinetic action leading to deaths of civilians
• Interpretation: are you here to help us?

The message, actually the intended message - talking points as it were - is the same, the medium differs and so does the interpretation. The actual message being sent, at least at the population level, is the sum of all the single messages sent tied together into how an understanding (i.e. broad interpretive framework) is socially constructed.