Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
I still believe we get too caught up on the task verbs when we plan IO effects. ie Influence must be a PSYOP task , Inform must be a PA task etc. This doctrinal/legal firewall about specific organisations to create specific effects simply dilutes the IO effect in that it can't be fully synchronised, coordinated and integrated if aspects keep throwing up a red card.
I also agree wholeheartedly with you on this. I've said before that I see everything as being connected to [I]everything else[I]. Everything we say/don't say and everything we do/don't do influences somebody or something in various ways. I would like to see the "I" in IO stand for 'INFLUENCE' primarily because of its holistic nature. That way ANY activity or resource coodinated/integrated/synched with the intent of changing behaviors and affecting decision-making would be considered to be part of the overall INFLUENCE operation. Here is a snapshot of what I mean:

COMMANDER'S INTENT: Decrease violence, establish security, ensure regional economic stability [hypothetical generic situation].

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: PA focus is on informing international consumers of news media (OP/STRAT). It could publish/broadcast a lot of info, but also hold back certain facts until later that could potentially affect an ongoing operation, special mission, PSYOP campaign, etc. PA integrity is never compromised.

PSYOP: Focuses on regional target audiences - conduct TA analysis, determine atmospherics, develop/implement campaigns and products IAW current themes/messages approved through POTF channels, inform target audiences with the intent to influence via means tailored specifically for those TA's, etc.

MECH INF BN: Plans and executes physical actions that also support command intent - patrols, raids, searches, lethal actions, etc. The planning of these actions and the manner in which they are executed (pre-, during, post-) also influence and inform audiences in the area of operations. A unit that continues to go into local communities and interacts with populaces even in areas of imminent danger can change the way a potential bad guy sees an insurgency...maybe he'll change his mind and support actions against the group that was actively trying to recruit him. And another thing - sometimes you have to kill some folks to make a point [send a message]. That is part of the nature of armed conflict. Everything WILL NOT be non-lethal in an environment where we are ordered to carry loaded weapons. But again, detailed planning and targeting will mitigate having to explain extreme collateral damage, fratricide, etc. The innocent citizens without weapons probably want you to kill the bad guy to protect his family. The result might be deterrence of further hostile actions, and the earned and active support of the family that now feels protected - that's influence also.

CNO: During all this activity there might be increased activity on the internet as bad guys coordinate retaliatory ops...the CNO gurus could disrupt their communications with computer network attacks, making it difficult to prevent the realization of commander's intent.

EW: Because we are capturing/killing key adversary leaders and making the bad guys look bad in the international press, they increase their use of satellite communications as they request assistance from international terrorist groups across the globe. EW, along with the SIGINT guys, can lay the smack down on these communications…and now we’re really spanning the spectrum from tactical to strategic. Communications intercepted in a local city through EW means could lead to a requirement for assistance from the NSA, CIA, or even INTERPOL.

MILDEC: Somebody has to be able to go into the deption cave and talk to the MILDEC planners without compromising their activities - and THEN be able to synch it with all the overt stuff.

The possible players and scenarios are endless…

But where is IO in all of this? The IO officer(s), as a representative of and advisor to the commander, MUST be able to understand individually each of the above mentioned activities…+ even more…and be able to understand how they can complement or conflict with one another. He/she also must have the knowledge, experience, intuition, etc, to anticipate the effects of these activities and then mentally orchestrate their integration/implementation/execution IAW the commander’s intent. Each of the SME’s can dedicate focus on their areas without spending lots of time trying to figure out who else is doing what – that’s what IO is for.

Each individual area or resource produces any number of individual effects. IO does not dictate what these areas do; it considers ALL of the activities and internal/external influencing factors in a holistic context, and ensures their coordination/synchronization as a CONSOLIDATED effort in terms of the most important desired effect --- the Commander’s Intent. And this goes above and beyond and deeper than traditional staff responsibilities. And depending on where you sit the “commander” could be a BN or BDE commander on the tactical side, or the POTUS on the strategic end.

I apologize for the length of my post, but I am sincerely dedicated to breaking the stereotype and reputation of IO as an additional means of simply informing an audience…it’s so much more…