IO is about conducting operations in the information environment in order to bring about change in the cognitive environment that will impact people’s decision-making in a way that contributes to the accomplishment of our mission. This is best accomplished, most of the time, by focusing efforts upon the most influential personalities in the AO.Originally Posted by Michael C
While good IO may sometimes resemble an advertising campaign, I am concerned that many people think that all IO should resemble that. Often times, it should not. An advertising campaign is effective when people are open to the information that you are offering. If we are conducting military operations someplace, then people are probably not open to receiving that information from us. There is probably a lot of unrest among the populace, which generally leads to hardened opinions, mistrust, and suspicion. Information is viewed skeptically, unless it is obtained from trusted sources. Those trusted sources are almost certainly going to be personalities from within the populace. They are your conduit to push information to the populace. Those individuals must deliver information to the populace to bring about a change in their decision-making. How do you convince those influential personalities to deliver that information? That, often times, is the most effective method of IO.
For example, suppose most of your direct fire engagements are 15-year-old kids who are paid $20 to fire a magazine of 7.62 at you. You could simply adopt a policy of returning fire. But then you’re going to have a lot of dead 15-year-old kids and a whole lot of angry families who are more concerned with the fact that their kid is dead than with the circumstances that led to you returning fire. Your best course of action, rather than adopting the policy of shooting back, is probably going to be to convince families to stop their children from engaging in this behavior. But how do you do that? An advertising campaign directed at the populace that says, “tell your kids not to shoot us – we shoot back” is probably not going to go over well. The general sentiment is going to be, “how about you foreigners get the F out of our country?” A better approach would likely be to find some influential personalities – perhaps the local imam(s) – and explain your quandary to them. Sway the imam. Then on Friday, let him tell the people why accepting payments to dump a magazine of 7.62 at the Americans will only lead to chaos and that going without the $20 payment is a better choice to make.
How do you sway the imam? Think about how you make decisions on contentious issues. Consider a contentious issue that we face. Suppose that a House Subcommittee that deals with budgetary issues for the DoD is asking you to testify before them. You are someone whose opinion they regard very highly and your input will significantly influence their decision. You are trying to decide what you will tell them. Suddenly a defense contractor with a significant stake in the F-22 shows up at your doorstep and explains to you why should tell Congress that the F-22 is the way to go. Are you going to buy what this guy says? Even if what he says makes all the sense in the world, you’re going to be keenly aware that he has a dog in this fight. And you’re probably suspicious of him due to the dubious reputation of his industry. But what if he tells you that the F-22 is uniquely capable of meeting threat X? And then, over the next week, you see articles in 5 different publications that say, “America has no capability to meet threat X.” He also tells you that it would be simpler for pilots of existing aircraft to transfer their skills to the F-22 with relatively little training. And then two days later you hear a roundtable discussion of Air Force and Naval Officers who say the exact same thing. Hmmm. Suddenly this guy’s argument is becoming more convincing.
In regard to the five pointers in the original post…
1. Honesty is the best policy. Agreed. Consider the defense contractor example. If anything that he tells you is untrue, then it is going to be much more difficult to match up his argument with other corroborating sources. Untrue statements also have a policy of eventually being found out and this will destroy the credibility of your argument and ensure that the targeted individual/audience rejects your message.
2. Think advertising campaign. Disagree. If there is anything to your IO that resembles an advertising campaign, it should be the supporting effort. Advertising campaigns do not alter decision-making. They only reinforce the specific tasks that you are trying to accomplish. Consider the imam example, above. An advertising campaign is probably not going to influence decision-making of the populace. However, it can help them to clarify how to implement their decision. Suppose that, while you are trying to convince the imam, you also begin advertising a phone number to the JCC, telling people, “Ali Baba knows that he will die if he shoots at Coalition patrols. That is why he offers your son money to do it – so that your son will die instead. If Ali Baba offers your son money to fire upon Coalition patrols, call this number and identify him. A $50 reward will be given if he is captured and convicted.” This alone will not influence the populace. It only informs them of how they should act if they believe you. But if the imam convinces them of your argument against conspiring with Ali Baba then they now know what to do. The imam is the main effort. The advertising is the supporting effort.
3. Get allies in the local community. Agreed – for the reasons you state and for the reasons stated above with the imam example.
4. IO is not a one-man job. Agreed. In the advertising example above, in bullet 2, the people must believe that calling the JCC will result in the promise made. If this belief is contradicted by their everyday experiences, then they’re not going to buy it. If they have a long experience in giving information to patrols and then nothing comes of that, then they will be reluctant to continue risking their safety to divulge intelligence. Patrols must realize that one of the essential perceptions the populace must have is that sharing intelligence with the Coalition leads to good things – reward money, safer streets, and more stability. If a patrol receives tips from locals, they must be able to immediately manage expectations. Rather than just writing down whatever is shared, the patrol must be prepared to tell the informant that, “this is not enough information for us to act upon – we need to also know x, y, and z,” or “this is good information, but it may take us a week or so to act upon it,” or “we will try to act upon this, but recognize that we are subject to your laws; if your courts do not convict this man, then he will not go to prison.” IO is difficult because it requires that everyone be on the same sheet of music, but most Soldiers don’t even know what IO is – commanders and staff included.
5. Include your interpreter. Agreed. It’s their culture, not ours. They know what is convincing, what isn’t, and how to convey what you’re trying to get across. The old rules of talking through an interpreter don’t really work in Iraq or Afghanistan. The interpreter is not just a parrot who speaks another language. You don’t speak through him in sentence fragments. You give him a complete thought and then have him convey it because ideas are expressed differently and much is lost in translation otherwise.
Bookmarks