I agree completely with this distinction between IO in Influops. I suspect that the confusion arises because of the inclusion of Psyops under the IO umbrella.
Psyops may be used as a tool to degrade an oppponent's information exchange capabilities, in which case one may wish to say that it falls under IO. However, I think Pysops' primary goal is to influence one's opponent's (and the non-aligned fence sitters') mindset using non-kinetic means. Consider this comparison. H&I artillery fires may well degrade enemy morale and cause an opponent to be more likely to surrender. Does this justify one in calling H&I a Pysops tool? I do not think so. Similarly, a Psyops message may well cause a C2/information breakdown (particularly if it is a black or gray message). However, that kind of effort would be more along the lines of what I was taught was manipulative deception, a component if EW, not Pysops.
What worries me is that folks may look at a Pysops asset like Commando Solo as a high powered jammer, hence an EW asset, rather than as a mobile media broadcast system. But, by using that sort of thinking, a Bradley or M113 is also just a fancy tracked cargo delivery vehicle.
Bookmarks