Information Operations

[Bill Moore]

Failure to zero your M4, for example, can conceivably sort of ruin your day when you get into offensive operations... posted by Ken

Ken you are an old school Team Sgt, and I'm consider you a blog mentor. Your comment above was spot on. Now I can draft an article (lol).

the doctrine writers have to -- and hopefully will -- walk a fine line lest some of their words get adhered to rigidly by such people. Those types are dangerous but there are too many of them and they aren't going away so we have to be careful what we write. That's what I was trying to say... posted by Ken

This is too true and so sad. I recall a few in Special Forces, especially during the 90's who assumed being able to quote doctrine equated to competence. I even had one tell me he wouldn't do anything that wasn't in doctrine, I couldn't believe a SF Officer could be so simple minded, but the fact of the matter it is SF NCOs to make our force, not our officers. Anyway, everytime I saw him I would ask him what the doctrinal response was a to a particular problem, then I would tell him I was going to do something else. He would turn beet red and go through the roof, I loved it. I don't know if mind ever expanded, but if it didn't wasn't because we were trying to help to him along.

I would like to see doctrine provide a framework to work in (and it does in most cases), but I'm not happy yet with the IO doctrine, I think it does more harm than good in its current state. I do agree we're in new territory, important territory, so we need to evolve it into an effective framework. To do that you need a few naysayers out there throwing stones at the glass IO house, so we can rebuild it. I'm in that naysayer camp.

[Ken White]

Ken you are an old school Team Sgt

I dunno, I'm slow, took me too long to discover it was way better to seek forgiveness (even that's rarely necessary) than to ask permission (never a good idea and to be avoided at all costs).

...I don't know if (his) mind ever expanded, but if it didn't wasn't because we were trying to help to him along.

Heh. Been there, done that -- it's one of the paybacks for putting up with mind numbing stupidity from high places.

I would like to see doctrine provide a framework to work in (and it does in most cases), but I'm not happy yet with the IO doctrine, I think it does more harm than good in its current state. I do agree we're in new territory, important territory, so we need to evolve it into an effective framework. To do that you need a few naysayers out there throwing stones at the glass IO house, so we can rebuild it. I'm in that naysayer camp.

Agreed on all counts; my cautionary was directed at those who want too precise doctrine as opposed to sensible doctrine which leaves room for some flexibility, that and an acknowledgment that (a) it ain't easy and (b) it takes time when things change almost daily.