In 2005, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked whether the term psychological operations, or PSYOP, still had utility in the information age. His point was that the information age posed many branding challenges for PSYOP that adherence to the code of conduct and the Army values simply could not overcome. Earlier this year, absent any improvement in brand image, Admiral Eric Olson, commander of the United States Special Operations Command, directed that the term PSYOP be changed to military information-support operations, or MISO.
But the simple name change can neither eliminate the association of PSYOP with its pejorative predecessors - propaganda and psychological warfare - nor correct the contemporary perception of PSYOP as potentially underhanded and unethical. It is possible, however, that a better appreciation of the historical baggage might lead to a more complete understanding of the challenges facing the MISO force and its future.
The Future of MISO, Special Warfare.
Comments
Very Recent Former PSYOP/MISOer and Max T.:
Your thoughts are right on target IMO. Bottom line is that that three three facets of "MISO" (PAO, PSYOP, and IO) are different functions with different end-states of their operations. Combining all three may make sense in the eyes of the Good Idea Fairy (since they all involve the communication of information) but the target audiences and intent of disseminating that information are three things that I doubt can ever be properly combined.
I find the idea of combining PA, IO, and MISO personnel in an information branch fairly awkward. Would the military also lump in Navy Crippies, Knowledge Managers, Info Assurance Pros, OPSEC Officers, Army 24s, 53s, 29s, 35Gs? If not, then aren't we under-reaching "information support"?
Influence is something that happens not only when decision-makers get the message, but when they can't get any message, or get a garbled message, re-crafted/redirected message, false message, late message etc. and making all of this happen is an art unto itself.
G7s and G39s understand how to orchestrate all of these skill sets to provide an advantage to the commander in today's information environment. It is a distinct skill set. IO is not just an overgeneralization of PSYOP as the author suggests.
Moreover:
IO guys plan military deceptions. Do you really want them taking the CODEL through on a market walk and explaining the current commander's strategy?
PSYOP bubbas do target audience analysis to determine how compelling and effective their crafted messages are. Do we want them conducting focus groups to determine what resonates with US audiences prior to performing a PA role?
Public Affairs personnel help the commander communicate to public audiences based on their right to know what their military stands for and what its operations entail. Is this a task that Americans should entrust to those who are trained in manipulation of target audiences and selective truth telling?
"MISO has no business associating
itself with such ventures as deception that
rely on misperceptions and misinterpretations
of the facts among target audiences (MISO must and will be truth-based)."
Depends on the Target Audience. If we do it like this, we'll only further degrade our capabilities.
I agree with alot of the commentary on this but:
There has been a severe degradation in the capabilities/functions of PSYOP since the IO integrating function took hold in the arena. This is not the first, nor final blow to this practice area. It is a reminder that PSYOP now plays second fiddle to a most likely undereducated (on PSYOP) IO officer at every echelon.
There are no maneuver elements in the US Army that have organic PSYOP support, unless you count the one soldier at the BDE/DIV levels, which I dont, they are an LNO only. Most PSYOP units are in a direct or general support role to these units. I guess it depends on how the order is written, and I dont have a whole lot of experience with this to be honest.
PSYOP has a tendency to overpromise and underdeliver. They overpromise in the hopes that they can integrate into the unit they are supporting on deployment. Unfortunately, when they dont deliver due to lack of resources, skillset, etc, they end up losing even more credibility.
A skillful PSYOP team at the BN level (where I have experience) should at a minimum maintain and facilitate key communicators in their operational environment who provide access and credibility among the populace for disseminating PSYOP messages, and information that aligns with the supported unit commander's intent. If that PSYOP team can do this, all the while degrading the enemy's effectiveness through all the tools available to them, then I would say they have done a decent job.
If you are required to do this without the deception tools, then fine but attacking the enemy as a target audience wont be as effective.
Bill, Jimbo,
We should recall CA and PSYOP support to SF in Vietnam. This is an excerpt from the Vietnam Studies - U.S. Army Special Forces 1961-1971 - CMH Publication 90-23 (page 64):
"Psychological operations conducted in connection with the CIDG program began with emphasis on the direct day-to-day, person-to-person approach based on thorough knowledge and understanding of the ways of the local villagers and their leaders. Later, under Vietnam Army and Vietnamese Special Forces management, it became largely a mass-media program with one-time lectures to assembled groups, film showings (American westerns were very popular), loudspeaker broadcasts, and the distribution of printed matter. Until the 1964-1965 period, Vietnamese military participation in psychological operations was minimal; Special Forces provided most of the initiative, often without fixed guidelines, using their imagination in ad hoc programs. In the period 1964-1965 an augmentation of men qualified in civic action and psychological operations was provided to the Special Forces, with a resultant improvement in the program."
I actually have been an advocate of this for many years, due to years of false promises from the PSYOP community to deliver in this area. Now with the MISO construct it appears they'll never deliver the needed capability to support the darker but very real side of war that involves propaganda and subversion. Just because it isn't politically correct doesn't mean it isn't correct. We need this capability and we need to stop disarming ourselves to appease those who refuse to see things actually work in the real world.
Either step up and play ball, or we need to recruit new players.
Bill,
Interesting thought. As you and all of us in SF know SF grew out of Paychological Warfare. Whether deliberate or not we all practice some form of Psychological Warfare during our operations though we focus more on actions and activities than the development and dissemination of products. And of course all warfare is as psychological as it is physical if not more so. I think there is some merit to adding Psychological Warfare back into SF and in particular UW because as you know subversion is inherently psychological and it is dirty and and not always based on dissemination of the truth like MISO. As defined it almost seems like MISO no longer has applicability to UW.
Flame on boys!! :-)
Bill,
Interesting thought. As you and all of us in SF know SF grew out of Paychological Warfare. Whether deliberate or not we all practice some form of Psychological Warfare during our operations though we focus more on actions and activities than the development and dissemination of products. And of course all warfare is as psychological as it is physical if not more so. I think there is some merit to adding Psychological Warfare back into SF and in particular UW because as you know subversion is inherently psychological and it is dirty and and not always based on dissemination of the truth like MISO. As defined it almost seems like MISO no longer has applicability to UW.
Flame on boys!! :-)
As a member of the unserved domestic target audience, y'all have persuaded, changed, and influenced the hell out of me, but not in a good way.
Very sad.
Former Regular PSYOP'ers are potential leaders of <i>Irregular</i> PSYOP'ers, who appear to be the only PSYOP'ers my beloved Wesphalian nation-state is going to have left.
The one idea in Boyd's article which struck me in the face was his conjecture that MISO is pure truth, no misrepresentation or deception. If that is in fact the future of MISO then it is by default at best a neutered version of PSYOP, as the leadership is casting away both false attribution and non-attribution. More importantly, at the doctrinal core, the very appeals (band wagon, legitimacy, name calling, etc) used in product development are logical fallacies. For MISO to be unambiguously truthful requires casting aside the appeals and turning the products into little more than public affairs announcements. If turning PSYOP into little more than a robust PA capability is the desired endstate then simply revise the PA mission and reclass us, that would get around any issue of CONUS operations and would alleviate the concerns of all.
The sad, pathetic thing is we could have simply renamed the branch without renaming the function. Then when supporting military operations members of XX branch would conduct PSYOP, supporting disaster relief efforts... public information, supporting diplomatic efforts... DSPD.
Finally, given that every leader is saying MISO is more than PSYOP or different from PSYOP, when is MISO going to stop misappropriating the heraldry of PSYOP? Small quibble I know, but if the leadership truly desires to put to rest the idea that MISO is merely renamed PSYOP then quit using PSYOP heraldry.
Sounds like there is general agreement among the professionals that the name change is a minor issue and the professionals are going to endeavor to mature this capability to its fullest extent.
MIST performance in the many locations I have worked with them has been mixed, and it appears to me the biggest shortfall is the education piece. A school doesn't cut it on its own, what is important is what they teach and how they teach it. Do the give the students the ability to think critically and provide functional knowledge, or do they simply kill students with hours of powerpoint reinforcing outdated MISO doctrine?
The other issue that the author addressed is we need agreement (in the Joint world, agreement in the Army will not suffice) on how to best synchronize/integrate all the various skills/capabilities we have to effect influence on desired influences.
I can understand why PYSOPers are upset. We seem to bend over backwards to appease men who wear dresses (State Dept) over their sometimes ridiculous concern over semantics. They seem to forget we are the M in DIME, and our requirements for warfighting require PSYOP and propaganda. On the other hand, doing operational and strategic level influence for audiences we're at peace with is probably best called MISO. While it may be water under the bridge now, I don't see why MISO couldn't be a mission under the broader PSYOP term or vice versa. We require both, and MISO and PSYOP are the not the same (or shouldn't be).
PSYOP/MISO/IO - are they synonomous? It really depends on who you are talking to, and where you are in the world. Bottom line, who cares?
This debate will rage on for a while; while the true nature of the article focused on the future - the comments have been hijacked about the past and how "bad" it has become due to the name change.
As a PSYOPer/MISOer, whatever - I am really tired of the argument and would rather get on with the business at hand.
Fortunately - for those who are leaving the community due to low morale (read - shortsightedness and immaturity) over the name change, the small insurgency of committed professionals are going to eat this elephant one bite at a time and shape this career field into the true capacity that it really is.
When the Rangers were told that the Army was getting the black beret, a small minority left the Army over the color of their hat.
We can debate all day long the merits of it - but truthfully - the best stayed and continued to train the 75th into what they were already known as - the most elite light Infantry Unit in the United States Army.
I think that we need to keep in mind that all war (and politics) is about influence - in war forcing your will upon the enemy. Whether we call it Propaganda or Psychological Warfare (which I do not agree are pejorative terms) or Psychological Operations, MISO, Strategic Communications or Public Diplomacy, this "discipline" - the ability to influence others - is the most important among all warfighting and diplomatic functions. We have to get this right. My only recommendation is that we stop worrying about names and focus on strategies and campaign plans to accomplish our nation's objectives. We have many tools within DOD, DOS, USAID and others- the key is to synchronize, harmonize, and orchestrate all those tools in ways that achieve our nation's goals, objectives, and end states and help to protect our interests. Arguing over names detracts and distracts from the intellectual capital we need to expend on getting on with doing the job. I regret that we have spent so much time and energy arguing over terminology rather than getting on with business - the business of influencing others.
Um...TIME OUT....
First: if the job of PSYOP is influence, and they are unable to influence against the changing of their own name, then doesn't that speak volumes?
Second: Everything associated with "information operations" in all its splendor is being rethought right now. With the advent of cyberspace as the alleged "fifth domain" there all sorts of ideas out there of what that portends. The Cyberspace advocates don't tend to think so, but the acolytes and certainly the zealots see "content" of information as part of the cyberspace domain. In their view, MISO/PSYOP is a "cyber weapon".
So the battle continues to rage. Would "Cyber Warrior" be preferred to "MISO"?
The MISO Community would do well to spend more time making this brand name work and less time whining over the name change. If Officers/Soldiers are leaving the MISO/PSYOP community simply because of a name change, then was their commitment to this really that solid? While they do important work, the organization has had personnel/personality problems for a very long time; a name change is not the tipping point or root cause of "sudden" personnel drain.
I can assure you Bill, the MISO community does not want to defang its wartime capabilities. That is what has the most of the community up in arms with the current path. The issue is not names, units, or mergers- it is about how to conduct real influence. It truly seems the US Goverment has lost it way on what real influence is, and it has certainly lost its stomach and intestinal fortitude to conduct real, long-term shaping was done in decades past for WWI or the cold war. The MISO folks are just a small cog in a machine that appears to be broken. The issue is not about truth or lies, but about influence. Even if you tell the truth, if you suck at the art and science of influence there is no way to shape attitudes or behaviors.
"MISO as a means of informing and influencing foreign audiences, remains as relevant in peace as in war and as vital to our nations defense as ever before."
I generally concur with most of the author's views, and while the new naming convention may not be popular it was critical to do so in order to gain access and authority to do meaningful work at the operational and strategic level.
As for integrating MISO, PA and IO I think it makes sense from the ability to more effectively wield influence, but I'm not sure PA will want to be associated with MISO for legitimate reasons. I also thought IO was the integrating function of all associated capabilities to influence select audiences? I don't think those of us outside the community really care who wears the integration hat, we just want to see all the related capabilities integrated.
Influence is also more than just conveying information. Every action we take will be perceived and interpreted to mean something, so ultimately MISO/IO would play a much greater role in the process of generating strategy and operational plans, instead of developing just a supporting annex or appendix. If our ultimate goal is to influence behavior then the entire force and interagency should all be rowing in the same direction. Much easier said than done, but that seems to be the direction we should be moving in. I also thought that MISO would be on the cutting edge of multi-media influence and now starting to get smart on social media (twitter, facebook, etc.), if they're not, then the investment needs to be made or they'll become increasingly less effective.
One thing concerned me about the article though, and that is the MISO community seems to want to defang all of its wartime capabilities. Propaganda or propaganda like material still has a role in war as long as it is directed against the enemy only (not our homefront).
Changing the name, revamping the organizational structure, merging with other branches, or procuring new technologies will not fix the underlying problem - and that is the root function of PSYOP/MISO to influence and the US Goverment is getting worse at it. We refuse to ask the hard questions and focus on the root problem. Until we stop glossing over simple fixes like names, structures, and technologies and get to fixing the understanding of what REAL influence is, PSYOP/MISO, Strategic Communications, Information Ops (or Information and Influence Activities as the FA 30s are calling themsleves now), and Public Diplomacy efforts will continue to degrade and diw on the vine.
I have heard that PSYOP soldiers and junior officers are trying to get out of the new MISO branch as fast as they can. I have not met one professional PSYOP Soldier who thinks this is a smart idea. MISO is going to self destruct - or will be killed off by a SEAL. Looking forward to read all the comments from real PSYOP soldiers. Hope they weigh in here.
Probably will go down in the annals of military history as one of the most unwise, laughable, (and for the great PSYOP Soldiers around the world) the most professionally embarrassing decisions ever made. The logic and rationale for this decision boggles the mind. The press, foreign observers, and anyone with an ounce of common sense sees this as a heavy handed, intellectually bankrupt attempt to use MISO as a cover to continue to conduct PSYOP. Who do they think they are kidding? Only themselves. This is a sad time for PSYOP professionals.