by Alfred H. Paddock, Jr.
Download the Full Article: The Future of MISO: A Critique
In his article for the January-February 2011 issue of Special Warfare, "The Future of MISO," Colonel Curt Boyd, Chief of Staff for the US Army JFK Special Warfare Center and School, seeks to demonstrate the rationale for changing the PSYOP name to Military Information Support Operations (MISO), and argues for a consolidation of MISO, Information Operations (IO), and Public Affairs (PA). His piece suffers from historical inaccuracies, unfounded assertions, and questionable logic.
Download the Full Article: The Future of MISO: A Critique
Alfred Paddock, Jr., was on active duty in the U.S. Army, 1957--1988, and served three combat tours in Laos and Vietnam with Special Forces. He also was the Director for Psychological Operations, Office of the Secretary of Defense. In June 2009 he received the inaugural Gold Award of the MG Robert A. McClure Medal for Exemplary Service in Psychological Operations, recognizing his lifetime of achievements and outstanding service to the Psychological Operations Regiment.
About the Author(s)
Comments
I absolutely agree with COL Paddock in his highlighting "COL Boyds fixation on 'truth." What COL Boyd is describing is will hamstring our operators in their mission to convey selected information to influence target audiences. Articulating a definition of "truth" is inviting an epistemological argument that will ultimately not lead to any concrete benefit to the operator. In fact, quite the opposite is the more likely outcome. Furthermore, while advocating the blending of IO, PA, and MISO COL Boyd, in evidently seeking to capitalize on doctrinal definitions of "inform and influence activities," is disregarding the very different ways the these communities conduct their missions. While obvious that public affairs is part of the overarching information engagement strategy, and they do articulate in their doctrine that truth is paramount, their main focus is keeping America and the Army informed. MISO, on the other hand, must continue to have the leeway to use information selectively, with the understanding that outright lies may cause one to lose credibility with certain target audiences. This, however, is part of the potential effects that need to be examined when crafting Courses of Action. Lets face it - even statistics can be perceived in subjective fashions and not convey true reality or depth of analysis to a target audience. Leaving IO out of the picture, combining these two entities (MISO and PA) and forcing such messaging constraints on the MISO force will effectively neuter their capability to support commanders in full spectrum operations. Furthermore, while leaving the "selected information" aspects alone, there is no conceivable way that a PA merger with MISO will be palatable to the individuals in either field, the Army writ large, or the fourth estate for that matter.
"The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government."
As the conversation goes maybe there is a middle ground as we attempt to keep our grip on PSYOPS and make sense of MISO.
What is PSYOPS really? If MISO is something more, then more than what? Is PSYOPS limiting? Apparently so if it can't be used effectively by non-PSYOP practicioners.
My read on PSYOPS given all that I have read and learned from those who do it, PSYOP describes a communication process? Today, this process has a brand challenge...do we PSYOP people we like or want to like, and if not then what is it called? Do we PSYOP the bad guy, the enemy or potential enemy only?
As discussed earlier, do MISTs conduct PSYOP? What happens in a natural disaster, do we PSYOP the American public then or do we call it something else?
And finally, what is the PSYOP branch called now?
Mr. Paparone - that story has only as much relevance as it involves PSYOP/MISO. There is no correlation between the discussion of the role of psychological warfare in the modern world to some 3-star general abusing his rank.
and Sisyphus is completely wrong: criticism is the only way to point out the inaccuracies and inadequacies in an organization. What good is loyalty to an organization that can't do the right thing? I witnessed blatant OPSEC violations on one of my tours downrange; my buddies and I voiced our extreme displeasure at such an obvious lack of professionalism, but to deaf ears.
Mr. Paddock is vindicated in his "nit-picking" of COL Boyd's article. Being a soldier on the operational level of this organization, I appreciate his honesty. Being an NCO, I take to task my fellow NCOs and my Officers who fail to understand the importance of psychological warfare on the battlespace environment. I am disappointed in even those I consider "friends" who just don't care about making an impact - if the supported unit requests 1500 handbills, regardless if they do anything or not, then that unit receives their 1500 handbills.
Print materials such as handbills, posters and leaflets, radio ads - all these "white" products are great face; it's the "black", the military deception programs is what the root of psychological warfare is all about. PSYWAR is as old as war itself, why then do we deceive ourselves to the true nature of what it is we are supposed to do?
This story has relevance to this conversation:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-…
COL Paddock's article was loyal to what counts most, the mission. COL Boyd's contention that MISO must be pure, unadulterated truth kneecaps the mission by casting aside two-thirds of PSYOP in the name of appeasement. There is and will always be a requirement for subversion, non-attribution, and false attribution. One of the pithier quotes of Sun Tzu alludes the requirement, "All war is deception." The requirement for ambiguity, spin, and misrepresentation is not going away. If MISO casts aside its roots for pure truth, some other organization will have to step up and fulfill the requirement.
Think I am crazy? At the core of the PSYOP process lays a serpent to MISO's truth quest; the very appeals and techniques in FM 3-05.301. Some are logical fallacies, as most good rhetorical tools are: legitimacy (Appeal to Authority) and bandwagon (Appeal to Popularity) for example. Others are blatantly misleading, such as glittering generalities and insinuation.
Its not only a matter of what MISO can do that PSYOP cannot, its also a matter of what PSYOP can do that MISO cannot.
Heck, Terry's initial response contained Ad Hominem (unnecessary inclusion of (RET) to imply a disconnect from the current discussion), Appeal to Authority (ADM Olsen's four stars do not factor into the validity of his decisions, only his authority to make them), and Appeal to Popularity (endorsed by many does not validate an argument), making it a PSYOP-type message, not a MISO-type message.
The MISO mission as envisioned by COL Boyd's article could be accomplished by expanding the mission of Public Affairs.
The simple solution would have been to rename the branch, not the function. Then when "Special Influencers" support the military, they provide PSYOP support per FM 3-05.301. When the customer is interagency, then it's Defense Support to Public Diplomacy per Strategic Communications guidance. When the customer is interagency CONUS its Public Information per FM 3-61.1. This is not a white wash of the same task with three names to placate the customers; it is three separate tasks with their own rule sets.
Read Sisyphus's statement for what it is and that is a "cover up". Failed organizations play the loyalty and circle the wagons tune when they're in trouble, instead of facing up to your troubles and fixing them.
It is also called the see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil spin. In practical terms it is pretending there are no problems, and those who publicaly speak the truth are attacked as traitors, when they should be embraced for identifying the problems that need to be fixed. This is weak PSYOP, much like the type you employ downrange.
Sisyphus's comments are a shameful, and pretend to protect an organization, but the reality is quite different, his type just want to sweep problems under the rug when guests come in. Since you don't seem to realize this, we all know there are problems with PSYOP. We all work with them downrange and we see the shortfalls in this much needed capability.
The article's criticism was admittedly harsh, but we're all big boys (and if we're not please pack your bags and go somewhere else) and should be able to take it. If you think he is wrong then comment about what he is wrong about, don't play the disloyalty crap.
For Anonymous: I don't see MISO (or the article) misleading anyone, not even congress. In fact it seems straight forward and honestly outlines what MISO might look like to make PSYOP even better. Paddock's critique however is a distraction and classically spins us away from moving forward. Regardless of his other publications and proclamations to counter the prevailing transformation of PSYOP, change has happened. So his true complaint isn't so much with the Boyd article but with his frustrated attempts to shape PSYOP as he has prescribed.
Darth and Ken: What you and others have discovered is Boyd's publishing the future of MISO is truly an unenviable task given the very real emotional connection many still have to the PSYOP term and career field including Boyd himself. No doubt, there remain many emotional ties and hurt feelings--Paddock's perhaps are the most obvious. So Paddock's claimed inaccuracies and lack of logic expose an underlying sentiment not necessarily an objective review...what's really at error might be depth in certain areas and ambiguity in others but this is not uncommon in many publications.
As for the term itself and other defense acronyms, there are reasons for these changes that might be beyond explanation.
I don't think Boyd, Paddock, or anyone else said that the people performing MISO are anything but PSYOP at present. As I understand, the enlisted and officer career fields remain unchanged (37 series?) and this is still open for analysis and no formal decision has been made as of yet. So maybe what we should be talking about, and what Boyd's article opens the possibilities for, is who are the talented people performing military information support operations that now--unlike today's PSYOP--encompass many different skills and facets of inform and influence operations.
Agent of Influence: I think you'd agree that no PSYOPS guy would really want to be directed by an IO guy, regardless of what Paddock suggests...Moreover, how do PSYOPS people become senior advisors to commanders and responsive operational contributors without a more expansive and inclusive career field that includes IO, combat camera, and other communication like skills and specialties--would this reduce OPTEMPO on today's PSYOPS units?
<b>K.L.:</b><blockquote>"One thing I have yet to understand about the military is the propensity for senior leadership to change names and titles on just about a yearly basis. Perhaps some day I'll get it.'</blockquote>Looks good on the Support Form, indicative of a 'take charge personality.' 'Substantive contriburtion to the Total Force.' Et cetera...
It's also generally easier than initiating or overseeing a 'major reorganization of elements and functions.' * ;)
* Not the same thing as moving people about, preferably to place triangular pegs in square holes...
For years, PSYOP Soldiers have been calling themselves "MISTs" in order to gain access and placement. MISTs - Military Information Support Teams.
Open up any PSYOP Manual, you will not find the term MIST listed anywhere..but, we continue to leverage Soldiers, money, time, and energy to support these MISTs.
Combatant Commanders and other decision makers recognize their importance - but the term PSYOP does not resonate well with the supported units(s). As a MISO Soldier, I can understand that completely. (Doesn't mean that I have to like it).
Progress - well, we are building a command that for the first time can provide the necessary and overdue support for employment, strategy development, and tackle the funding issues that are highlighted in order to effective conduct influence efforts.
We are growing another Battalion (in the Active Group); we are investing in Human Capital in the form of education and cultural immersion.
Progress is made because of vision and solution based discussion - not because of eye-poking and irrelevant discussion over past decisions.
If changing the name gets me out from under restrictive legislation, increases my funding, and sets the conditions to relieve a taxing OPTEMPO - then change it.
The name change does not impact my capabilities, as my capabilities are best delivered through my training and experience, nor does it change the history of organization that I am part of.
Okay agent of influence. So changing the name of PSYOP to MISO is progress? What about real progress? Why waste effort and expend political capital on cosmetics and semantics, especially because as that Navy officer said at last week's symposium in DC that MISO is still just a cover name for PSYOP - there is really no change to PSYOP!! Go figure.
What both of the articles, and subsequent comments show, is that Senior Leaders within the MISO Community continue to bicker and stall progress.
We have presented before us a discussion/vision of what MISO could do; and we have a discussion of how wrong that vision is...
As Terry pointed out, progress is being made at the direction of a Navy Special Operations Commander; it took a Navy Officer to ascertain that progress was made!
Complaints, without offering a solution, perpetuate the problem and continue to highlight the banter that continues to damage our Community.
While we're changing the names of things, let's partner signals inteligence with information operations. We'll call it Electronic Inteligence Effects and Information Operations (EIEIO).
One thing I have yet to understand about the military is the propensity for senior leadership to change names and titles on just about a yearly basis. Perhaps some day I'll get it.
Interesting opinions...seems MISO, like PSYOP-PSYWAR-Propaganda, is just the name in a historical sequence of terms of reference for the art and science of influencing foreign audiences.
That said, it is unfortunate that Col (Ret) Paddock seems almost visceral in his effort to attack what was decided by a four-star admiral, endorsed by many, and well on its way to establishing a command above the current active Group.
The article's main points are evident but not prescriptive. The reader is left to determine for him or herself what MISO can do that PSYOP could not.
Col (Ret) Paddock's nitpicking suggests an underlying sentiment that makes his critique personal, more subjective, and strongly emotional, which is suprising given his well documented and objective history of the origins of special warfare.
Bingo!
Agents of Influence says: "If changing the name _gets me out from under restrictive legislation,_ increases my funding, and sets the conditions to relieve a taxing OPTEMPO - then change it."
Hope the congerssional staffers take note of this. This is what it comes down to - getting out from under restrictive legislation. I am afraid this is what is going to come back to bite SOCOM. You exposed it agent of influence and now let slipthe dogs of war (or congerssional staffers). The irony is that with increases in funding comes more congressional scrutiny and the sham of MISO is going to make you operate under even more restrictive scrutiny because congress is not going to let MISO join the ranks of the amtuer cowboys of IO who have been trying to play PSYOP by another name.
Nicely played, agent of influence. But I guess MISO is all about telling the truth, and you hav ejust exposed what the SOCOM commander and all the other MISOs are trying to do by putting one over on congress, right?
Boyd was more worried about pleasing the public by being "PC" with PSYOP. It seems as if we are just worried about what the public thinks even though most of them don't even grasp the simplicity of psychological warfare in its crudest form. I have heard numerous rumors about why soldiers think this came around. Everything from too many Washed up SFAS soldiers who think they can still look cool in USACAPOC, but at the same time degrade our image as all they do is throw sh*t out and dress the part to the few isolated incidents that the outside media embellished such as burning bodies, detainee mistreatment, etc to the fact that "Well, the Brit's hate the term and they call themselves the 15 Information group and focus mostly on the media platforms of Information" so we are going to mirror that due to the publics image of the term. All of which were pretty far from the truth the authors brought about their own flavor to mix up the story.
Mildec, as an example, plays a huge party in conflicts. By saying PSYOP can no longer conduct this type of operation you've crippled us. Granted, most Team Chiefs at the tactical level don't understand these types of programs (even though they will lie and say they do), let alone how to implement and control them, for the proper desired effect. So, they are stuck with F2F, Dissemination, and Broadcasts (FOL, MANPAC, RADIO) never daring to expand on the basics of what they are taught (which realistically is fine if they know the basics, but just knowing how to hand something out or use the wail function proves that a caveman could do it). Which brings up another point. The reclass, since as far back as I can remember, sucks. I was a guest instructor there for 2 rotations and was extremely displeased as to the fact that the sole focus of the 2 weeks of classroom POI seemed to be LS Operations and TAAW's. Granted I was only there for a few days, but I got this distinct impression. Guess what? We were getting a lot of these soldiers for a nice span of 4-6 years where I can remember. Like a baby boom if you will. Severely affecting our image and their capabilities as effective psyop soldiers. We are in serious danger of pretty much being dealt away is what seems to be happening; slowly but surely. All of the activities conducted during WWII may have been conducted outside of this stupid color scheme (white, gray, black), but had greater effects than we will ever have in todays fronts. Why is that? It is because we are worried about the public image and of which the less conservative types who think the term is indicative of it's name when it's just a term.
I have been a psyop soldier for 9 years and fully plan on getting out of this job ASAP. I won't even touch on the lack of funding, the step son to the retarded IO chain, and the lack of quality officers/NCO's
This definition of white, gray and black propaganda was the way I was taught. Thanks for clarifying that my memory hasn't completely failed me or the doctrine changed.
I think this short article captured what many of us customers would like to see and that is better integration of all the influence capabilities (IO, PSYOP, PA, other) and IAW doctrine IO has the lead for that, but in practice we're not very effective in creating the desired synergy.
The most effective PYSOP is interacting communications with your intended audience (face to face or via social media) much like both the SF and VC practiced in Vietnam. The VC were especially effective because they knew their audience and hailed from the same culture so they had almost instant creds with their audience. What I always felt we needed, at least until we learned the about the people we were working with, was PSYOP planners integrated as advisors to the planning and operational staff so they could provide advice to the operators on how to effectively engage and get our message across in day to day discussions.
Mr. Paddock..for such a legend in the PSYOP community, I'm disappointed in the tone of your response and only demonstrates the continued canibalism that has plagued the PSYOP community for years. Maybe one day, we'll develop a sense of loyalty and now with so much renewed emphasis on MISO, it is time to circle the wagons and unify as a branch and not continue to attack our own in an open forum--especially attacking a man that at least has the stones to have a vision whether you agree with it or not. If anything, your comments squash initiative and creativity...it's risky having a vision and even riskier putting those thoughts on paper.