Thanks for taking the time to express that - argumentative and contrarian have different connotations, but to each his own. I was critiquing the validity of the material presented because it did not logically provide a contra-indication to my point, not arguing for the sake of arguing.

To address your point, that's a valid concern, but if the DoD shut down simply because its was being denigrated in the media, where would be? CIA, School of the Americas, NSA, all sorts of government agencies get bad press.

The media hasnt picked up on the Joint PSYOP SE in Fl.

It was the Public Affairs office at the Pentagon that launched a turf war against the OSI

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar...25roots.b1.htm

that resulted in its media-driven closure.

I'm not resistant or closed to new ideas or attacks on my paradigm, I know I have new things to learn.

The assumption that a centralized organization would hinder adaptability on the ground doesn't hold water for me. Diplomats are expected to adapt to their unique situations, yet our diplomatic operations are centrally regulated. Same thing with kinetic and intelligence operations.

These examples all benefit from the sort of organization that we saw fit to employ throughout the 20th c. for Strategic Influence ops.

I don't see how we can ideologically confront Salafi jihadis through their media, social services, and educational networks simply by utlizing Army PSYOP (because essentially thats really the only place is resides in the military), the strategic corporal, and a rather small CIA office.