Comments for Public Affairs and Information Operations

Public Affairs and Information Operations

2008-12-30T13:53:49Z

[Cross-posted at Small Wars Journal]

Public Affairs and Information Operations are seemingly competing and complementary missions and agendas, complicated by regulatory language created in a much different strategic communications environment, overlain with a frisson of the biases of persons of sensitive politics - from both ends of the spectrum.

The "Flies in Amber" and "Dueling Information Operations" posts, regarding the decision of CJT-101 to aggressively get ahead of a story out of Afghanistan have produced some discussion on the issue of Public Affairs and Information Operations. I for one have been pleased to see the change that started appearing when CJTF-82 was running the show has been continued, and arguably accelerated under Colonel O'Hara's CJTF-101 PAO section {Update, I was informed that HQ ISAF made the call to release the video, with Colonel O'Hara's shop as the packager and distributor]. I just wish they would write the stuff so as to be more readable and less stilted.

I invited Jack Holt, of the OSD Public Affairs office offer up his *personal* view on the subject as an insider. As that was done as a comment to a post, I decided to make it a post - and to post Cannoneer #4's response to Jack's comment, as a favor to my 60-odd Twitterers and those who follow the blog via Facebook and RSS readers, to see if we can't generate some more discussion on the topic. I invite those few professional wordsmiths who visit to weigh in as well - we're all players in this, in some fashion or another. We'll start with Jack, and he's followed by Cannoneer #4. Pass it around to your buddies and people with an interest in the topic, we're looking for some discussion.

I now hope I was paying close enough attention in the "Negotiating a mine field" class...

And I also must caveat this with the disclaimer that this is my opinion only and not necessarily the view of the Dept. of Defense, and is based on my 20+ years in communication, public affairs, and the U.S. Army.

That said, let's see if we can understand what's going on ...

We're talking about perceptions and semantics, for the most part. First we must understand that public affairs is a function of leadership and information operations a function of, well, operations. In the organizational structure, public affairs works for the commander as part of the special staff, along with the Chaplain, the JAG and to some extent the Provost Marshall. IO is a function of the J/G/S-3. The terms "propaganda" and "counter-propaganda" are the language of IO. "Counter-propaganda" is NOT a responsibility of public affairs.

Now we get into the really tricky areas of discussion which is going on not only here, but in many different areas and levels of our government. I don't have the room here to go into the history behind why some things are the way they are, and papers are in the process of being written both in government and academia laying this out, hopefully some will be published soon, but for now:

Public affairs derives it's existence from Title 10 of the U.S. Code as a primary function of the offices of the various service secretaries. It is separated from "publicity" and "marketing" in the wording of the appropriations from Congress and the Code of Federal Regulations and is broken down into three specific focus areas: Public Information, Command Information, and Community Relations.

IO derives it's existence from military doctrine and has many aspects all of which are operational in nature. For example when it comes to deception operations, a legitimate military operation targeting the population of a contested area, any documents released for that operation is not considered "public information" even though in this new Global Information Environment with our New Media technologies anything published can be replicated on the Web for all the world to see.

PA and IO must work together, but must also remain separated. For PA to engage in "counter-propaganda" it would give legitimacy to the adversary's "propaganda."

The dynamics are changing and we are adapting, hence the DoDLive Bloggers Roundtables and the ability to release the video of the attack which has brought us to this discussion. Our recognition, as an institution, that we have the ability to show what actually happened and to release that video documentation in a timely manner is a great step forward in our attempts to streamline our communication abilities.

Now let's hear from Cannoneer #4:

Good to see you over here, Jack. CJTF-101 did great coming out with a product so rapidly. It is not my purpose to detract from the impact of this story.

When I first read

One of Public Affairs' primary responsibilities is to ensure factual reporting of events to the public and to counter enemy propaganda.

I thought I as a member of the domestic target audience was being strategically communicated with and assured that somebody is indeed conducting counterpropaganda, which has been a pet peeve and perpetual blog topic of mine for some time. It was always my understanding that Psychological Operations conducted tactical and operational counterprop within an operational area and Other Government Agencies were supposed to perform the counterprop mission and attempt to mitigate some of the damage enemy propaganda does to the will and morale of the American people (domestic TA). IMO, OGA's have not covered themselves with glory on that, giving rise to civilian irregular virtual militias and People's Information Support Teams in the Counter Insurgent Supportive blogosphere.

Communication of operational matters to internal and external audiences is just one part of PA’s function. In performing duties as one of the primary spokesmen, the PA officer’s interaction with the IO staff enables PA activities to be integrated, coordinated, and deconflicted with IO. While intents differ, PA and IO ultimately support the dissemination of information, themes, and messages adapted to their audiences. PA contributes to the achievement of military objectives, for instance, by countering adversary misinformation and disinformation through the publication of accurate information.

I hope the young journalist at Bagram who slipped that new PA mission into the first sentence of the story doesn't lose too much of his fourth point of contact over it.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2009-01-02

2009-01-02T16:06:35Z

I suspect the allowance for in-country blogs is but one aspect of this new awareness.

If you are correct, Sanger - then you're making Jack (and Lyndie's) day. Jack works at OSD-PA and is the Godfather of the Blogger's Roundtables, and Lindy is his DA equivalent, at least as far as my interactions are concerned, anyway.

Now, how to go about *measuring* that impact, to confirm that hypothesis.

Any grad students needing a thesis project out there reading this?

Comment from SangerM on 2009-01-02

2009-01-02T15:54:38Z

I just went back and re-read some stuff that I'd missed last night, that from Jack Holt (another true practitioner without doubt). He wrote:

"Military leaders do not just lead the troops in front of them, but the families and friends, the community, that support those troops as well....Traditionally we engage through the media, but today's global information environment gives us other opportunities when the communication doesn't rise to the level of a "story" for the media. It is the PAO/IO team's job to find those opportunities for the leadership and get them engaged."

THIS is partly exactly what I was talking about above, part of what I learned from the "Cluetrain Manifesto," (www.cluetrain.com) and another monograph titled "The Reputation Society" (http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1158). There is no one-source of information, no true gatekeeping possible by the stakeholders, and it is for this reason that the military is not mistrusted as much as it might be otherwise.

To be honest, I hadn't really thought the PA folks were working this or really understood it, but clearly I was wrong, and while knowing doesn't mean doing, I suspect the allowance for in-country blogs is but one aspect of this new awareness.

Sorry I missed that Jack.

V/R

Comment from SangerM on 2009-01-02

2009-01-02T07:30:53Z

Sorry to come back to this so late, but the past two days have been end-of-year hectic, and sadly, I've kind of lost the ball on what I was thinking when I wrote some of the stuff above. Even so, here's my thoughts on all that's been said and what I was trying to get at, if badly.

[But first I want to say, I have really been impressed and given a LOT to think about by all of this, but especially by C4, who is clearly a practitioner of the first water. This has been fun AND informative.]

I wasn't really trying to refute John's point about the stats, my focus was on what I see as a lack of their relevance to whether or not PA should be used for deception. In fact, not only did I make John's point in a roundabout way, but I could also have expanded on something I wrote above that about the need for public support for war efforts. If the numbers are accurate, and I believe they probably are, that explains why people are angry at the President and Congress, and maybe even the Press some, but why there is not a greater distrust of the Army. BUT, and this is a big BUT, IMO PA has almost nothing to do with how much or how little Americans trust the Army or the military because the message just hasn't really been getting out--at least not because of anything special the military has done, and in spite of the best efforts of the MSM and the anti-war coalitions of the mostly left. At least not at home, and as to the foreign folks, their opinions are being shaped for them by the people in charge....

Which begs the question Why is the military supposedly trusted more than ever when all most Americans really hear about is cruel prisons, and tortured non-person POWS, and rogue Marines, and etc? In fact, as I see it, most people are NOT getting the same msg as we who care or who spend time visiting places like Argghhh. And they are not getting the msg from military PA, either, not in sufficient quantities to offset the MSM by a long shot. No, what I think is happening is that the off-broadway news networks, i.e., the unofficial websites and mail postings of 'people we know' are what's keeping the military in good graces with the public. That and digital imagery and cell phones and all the rest of the stuff that keeps soldiers closer to home, and allows Americans to see for themselves what the people they know are doing. The digital world has revitalized the "Reputation Society" because there is no way for anyone to hide truth for long, and so DoD has to be more circumspect because censors can no longer clip the bad news from the mail. I imagine most Americans know at least one person who is serving in some capacity, and through that person, they become acquainted with others, and then the world of the military is no longer the bastard step-child of American society, all boys-club secret and therefore inherently deceitful and self-serving. And of course, it doesn't hurt that a lot of those soldiers are women, which I'd bet changed the perceived nature of the military in a lot of folks minds.

And of course, I realize I just added weight to John's argument that "perception is reputation, and it's hard to regain your reputation once you've lost it." I agree completely, but what I think has changed is that--in terms of major organizations, agencies, or institutions, at least--there are no longer any official gatekeepers of truth about reputation, because the members of those organization are no longer prevented from having contact with the outside world, and it's this aspect of the digital age that informs public opinions, at least as much as any official efforts. It's the reason the media couldn't completely ruin the reputation of the military in spite of its best efforts, and why it can't protect its own. I've written before about a document called the Cluetrain Manifesto; it's in there that I first read about the notion of communications across organizational boundaries--and out of the control of the organization--changing how people interact and share information about those organizations. You should read that if you haven't.

All of which brings me right back to my belief that what I wrote is still valid: 1) Truth is relative (and a matter of perception and packaging) and 2) lying for the greater good IMO has little or no real effect on how people actually feel about the liar. And I don't think individual lies have any effect on opinions like those represented in the polls. In other words, I don't think it really matters all that much if PA were to lie or not, given the right circumstances and the reason for the lies, and as long as there wasn't evidence of a propensity to lie. And THAT said, I think the use of PA to support war efforts, either by outright lies or by lies of omission is nothing more than deception plans in action, and is absolutely appropriate, even if the rules don't allow it.

--

And now for the caveats and flaws I can see in my own thinking:

1) I really like the idea that PA is close to PsyOps. I'm not sure there is a 1-to-1 correlation, but I can see how they would be interleaved to accomplish certain similar objectives. But that said, all this same discussion could be had about PsyOps. Call it deception or thought-influencing, but sometimes it's just lies.

2) Lying out loud about military activities for the purpose of deceiving an enemy is NOT, IMO, the same as doing bad things, no matter who is doing the lying. Yes, certainly, the U.S. leverages honesty and fairness and adherence to international standards to influence the behavior of the enemy. You all know the discussions: We don't shoot or harm prisoners, we don't steal their personal effects, we don't rape the women or pillage the village, we don't murder or torture, and etc.... And we don't do those things because we want people to not be afraid to surrender, and to do the same for our folks, etc. True, we do try to live the ideal, but the payoff for being humane and fair and honest is greater than just feeling good at the end of the day. But for all that, deception, propaganda, and outright lying to befuddle an enemy is not in the same category as doing bad things that ruin reputations.

And that's it for now.

V/R

P.S. Happy New Year!

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-01-01

2009-01-02T05:44:02Z

SWJ ate my comment with TypePad games so I'll put it here. The following is in response to schmedlap's comment at SWJ.

I reject the notion that the counterpropaganda element of our IO is going well. Somebody has been asleep at the Perception Management switch, or totally ineffectual at giving me as a member of the domestic TA the warm and fuzzies I have been desperately seeking for two and a half years. The leadership at echelons above DoD failed to mitigate the damage done to the national will by uncountered enemy propaganda amplified by our own Old Media, who were protected from prosecution for leaking classified information and sedition by domestic oppositional elements who spent eight years successfully undermining that leadership.

Much of the Counter Insurgent Supportive New Media becomes Former Regime Loyalists in 18 days because the cognitive dimension between the ears of the American voter was not defended.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-01-01

2009-01-02T02:04:24Z

The things that erode our ability to do those elements of Information Operations other than Psychological Operations; (Electronic Warfare, Operational Security, Computer Network Operations, and Military Deception,) . . .

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2009-01-01

2009-01-02T01:53:56Z

I won't flip out, Grumpy. I will merely congratulate you for your outstanding civic responsibility as demonstrated by devoting your New Year's Eve to study of this issue. I, too, hope, as a Nation, we are willing to re-examine all the issues and do our homework, but hope is not a plan and much of the Nation is sadly ill-equipped emotionally and intellectually for such a re-examination.

What are those things which ERODE our ability to do IO, PA and PSYOP, you ask? The things that erode our ability to do those elements of Information Operations other than Psychological Operations, Electronic Warfare, Operational Security, Computer Network Operations, and Military Deception, are as varied as the disciplines lumped together under the IO umbrella, and may be beyond the scope of this discussion, which IMHO John should have titled Public Affairs and Psychological Operations. The commentariat here have discussed the legitimacy issue which makes PO about as popular as the small pox with other Strategic Communicators. It took the American people from 1917 to 2009 to come to this level of national revulsion at the concept of their Government or their Army trying to influence their opinions during an undeclared war against non-state actors. Perhaps a new Administration that is not tragically inarticulate, that is not undermined at every turn by Oppositional Elements, that is so enthusiastically supported by Old Media that most of it serves as the Majority Party's version of As Sahab, will be able to reverse 92 years worth of negativity and persuade, change and influence The People to accept being persuaded, changed and influenced. Perhaps.

That would certainly make information engagement -- the integrated employment of public affairs to inform U.S. and friendly audiences; psychological operations, combat camera, U.S. Government strategic communication and defense support to public diplomacy, and other means necessary to influence foreign audiences; and, leader and Soldier engagements to support both efforts -- less contentious.

Comment from Jack Holt on 2009-01-01

2009-01-02T00:02:49Z

Thanx Grumpy, we now enter into the heart of the matter. I also cross posted a response similar to this at the discussion on the Small Wars Journal dealing with this matter. Grumpy asks:

We have agreed that WORDS MATTER.. What are the other things that REALLY MATTER? What are those things that really FORTIFY our position to do IO, PA and PSYOP?

The one thing that FORTIFIES our communication, the one thing that legitimizes our communication is the engagement by leadership. Engagement at all levels by leadership at all levels. Military leaders do not just lead the troops in front of them, but the families and friends, the community, that support those troops as well. As you rise in the ranks, the size of community you lead grows also. Failure to engage that entire community is a failure of leadership. Leadership is communication and communication is leadership.

Traditionally we engage through the media, but today's global information environment gives us other opportunities when the communication doesn't rise to the level of a "story" for the media. It is the PAO/IO team's job to find those opportunities for the leadership and get them engaged. It is also the PAO/IO team's job to stay engaged for the leadership to reinforce, or to fortify, the communication of the leader.

We'll be seeing more engagement, I'm sure, as the officers now going through CGSC under the command and guidance of LTG William Caldwell take command. It's a different way of thinking about our communication.

Comment from Grumpy on 2009-01-01

2009-01-01T23:00:58Z

Please, somebody grab C#4, he's going to flip out. I agree with him there is a place for these concepts and they can be very POWERFUL. We have agreed that WORDS MATTER.. What are the other things that REALLY MATTER? What are those things that really FORTIFY our position to do IO, PA and PSYOP? But equally so, the question becomes, what are those things which ERODE our ability to do IO, PA and PSYOP? First, do yourself a favor, get rid of the phrase, "In a perfect world, I'd do ....." Well, I hate to surprise you, BUT, we never did, so get past it! As I look at this idea, I see a large computer folder called "GWoT.FLD". I open it and find two additional folders, plus a "read,me.FIRST" file. The names of the folders are "HERE.FLD" and "THERE.FLD". I open the read.me file. It says, "No matter where you have a war, there is an equal counterpart on 'Main Street, USA.' Forgetting is a recipe for disaster." So I close the file and open the two folders, side-by-side. It was like opening a "system folder", each one. You begin to think out loud, I'll never get all of this, Then, in the back of your head. you get that little heads up display, "You got it! The admission of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom. Grumpy, do you realize how many people refuse to come down this path? But they do so at the Nation's peril.

I would hope, as a Nation, we are willing to re-examine all the issues and do our homework, By doing so, we will become much more effective in IO, PA and PSYOP. If you will, to find the "Best
Lessons Learned". Why do we write "Army Field Manuals"? In my view, they are written, in part, to help the Soldier to accomplish his mission and yet stay within the International Laws of War.

LTC Meissner, Thank you, for your input to this thread and your Service to this Nation, especially in this world of mind games.

V/R Grumpy

Comment from JOSEPH MEISSNER (LTC-RET) on 2009-01-01

2009-01-01T15:58:05Z

TO: Everybody

First, I am a member of the PSYOP Community and have been for several decades. Currently, we publish a Journal, entitled "Perspectives," and we distribute a daily PSYOP Email publication entitled, "Frontpost." These are both open for anyone to join. You can simply email us your decision to join.

Secondly, we do want to thank everyone who has been participating in this discussion about the roles, missions, uses, characteristics, and differences of IO, PA, and PSYOP. This is one of those eternal debates which I have encountered forty years ago in Viet Nam and then again in Europe throughout all the years of the Cold War, including on the many exercises held at all levels of NATO. There are some solid doctrinal answers to some of the issues, some "may be" anwers on others, and endless conflicts on still others. Please, keep up the debate. I personally and our PSYOP Associaton generally appreciate and learn from all of this. We do forward all of this to our email PSYOP address list.

Yours in friendship,

Joseph P. Meissner, LTC-RET, Editor, PERSPECTIVES

Comment from Grumpy on 2008-12-31

2009-01-01T04:08:53Z

As I look at this discussion, It was an honor to be involved as much as it was right to step back and for me, to learn. This is the question we all must ask of ourselves, "Are we willing to learn?"

As I have read, there are three terms, they surround the discussion and are very important.

1. What is an objective statement? It is a consistent statement compliant to the laws governing it. An example would be, to put it simply, 1+1=2 on a base 10 scale. No matter how many times you do this you'll always get the same answer. There is no discussion, interpretation or debate. There may be questions, but they, in no way change the objectivity or the accuracy of the statement, answered or not. The facts are the facts, nothing less. An objective statement is the only actual factual statement.

2. What is a subjective statement? This is anything short of an absolute objective statement. There will be an inferred compliance to the laws governing it, but many times you will find shortfalls. These are most times times opinions based on personal experience, therefore you will find these to be the subject to discussion and interpretation to determine factual accuracy.

3. As I was reading the discussion, I came to Jack Holt's input. He quietly highlighted an absolute essential to the learning process. In fact, we as males dread this thing called, "doubt". What is "doubt"? The word comes from two French words meaning, "double-minded". How many of us have had the feeling of being "Hung on the Horns of a Dilemma". Guys, what did you feel, FIRST? First, it's fear, when you are alone then it become anger.

To All, I spent most of today, with a cup of coffee and reread this whole thread. I had one objective, TO LEARN! This means taking any sacred calf of ideas (Subjective) and being willing to sacrifice it. But you must realize, there are some areas which cannot change, they are a part of the objective history of this Nation.

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T17:54:37Z

Sanger actually makes my point in his attempt to refute my point on the poll data, really. Perceptions change over time, and I argue that perception is reputation, and it's hard to regain your reputation once you've lost it.

As for this: I do believe those numbers represent the answers given by the survey respondents, but I don't believe they are indicative of anything other than the focus-du-jour of the media and others. In other words, there is almost certainly no correlation between what people believe and the degree of trustworthiness of the institutions listed.

Got it. But we're not talking about a putative objective reality, where the uninvolve observer sees and objective truth.

We're talking a subjective reality, which is the one we live in, and, more importantly, make decisions in.

I didn't put the Harris Poll numbers in there to say "Look! See! The unwashed masses say that Congress and the Press are 'toopid!" and hold that up as an objective truth about the institutions.

I put it up there to show that that is the perception of the institutions, and PA and IO are all about perceptions.

And that part of the reason people hold the military in higher esteem is that they are perceived as holding to a higher standard, and are therefore accorded more trust.

And that the PA folks are very wary of losing that trust through expedience.

That doesn't make them right, necessarily, but it's a central facet of this discussion.

It took a long time to win back DoD's reputation after Vietnam, and it's been a struggle to keep it during the ongoing unpleasantness.

Comment from Jack Holt on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T17:29:10Z

Some really good discussion here. I'm going to refer to JP 3-61, exsum pg xi:

Although both PA and IO require planning, message development and media analysis, the efforts differ with respect to audience, scope and intent, and must remain separate.

Timely, accurate, truthful information helps to counter an adversary's propaganda but counterpropaganda is not the focus of public affairs. Again to JP 3-61, Chapt. 1, sub sec 2, pg I-3:

2. Mission

The mission of joint public affairs is to support the JFC[Joint Forces Commander] by communicating truthful and factual unclassified information about Department of Defense (DOD) activities to US, allied, national, international, and internal audiences.

Effective communication is a complex activity. It is built on knowledge, experience, trust, character, intent, and every other factor that makes us human. Most of us can tell when someone is lying to us, we all have a BS meter just that some are more developed (experience). Are you ever able to trust that person again? What about when it really matters, when your blood and treasure is on the line? How much doubt are you willing to accept?

As I told one of my commander many years ago in repsonse to his dislike of information in my report: "Sir, It's not my job to make you like it, it's my job to tell you." I strive to be honest even to my own hurt. That pain is weakness leaving.

For the USG the complexity is orders of magnitude above what we individually encounter. Syncronization must not only be internal between an oganizations departments (PA/IO) but also between agencies (DoD/DoS/DoJ/DHS/etc.) and in contested areas our allies. The only tie that binds us all is trust.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T16:53:56Z

I'm not gone, just busy and trying to synthesize all that followed what I wrote.

I will say that I am a huge believer in the principles laid down by Machiavelli (and others like him)--almost entirely--but I am not at all a fan of Ayn Rand or her many-muddled notions, which some folks actually claim are very much like Machiavelli's. Of course, one has to truly understand his purposes and his intent (as elsewise, context does matter when reading him), and I am certainly still learning, but after 3-4 readings of The Prince, one of The Art of War, and a rambling through Discourses, I find his ideas and advice to be sound and meaningful in the real world, which is far different than the ideal world we all wish we lived in.

Bottom line: I firmly believe in the use of propaganda (as lies and otherwise) and all manner of deception as it applies to winning a war, both for domestic and foreign consumption. I also believe, however, that an element of integrity _must_ inform and constrain decisions to do 'wrong' for the greater good, and that more than anywhere else, less is more. Two things come to mind here.

1) Machiavelli is often derided for saying a leader should lie or break a promise if it will benefit the greater good. Taken out of context this really isn't a good thing, just as PA lying to help IO, taken out of context, is not a good thing. I am not, however, a black and white person, as Grumpy may believe, and I absolutely do believe truth is mostly relative to perception and understanding. I also believe that lying is sometimes the right thing to do, both in the long and the short term. Certainly, I believe truth is the ideal, and I am one of those people who tells the truth as often and ruthlessly as I need to because that's the kind of person I want to be. I am not, however, above lying in support of great need, whether it be for good or bad, although I am more willing to face consequences of truth when it is only me who suffers than if my truth might harm others. (I suspect I'm rambling, and if so, sorry. I'm squeezing this in). Ultimately, leadership has a responsibility to the greater good, and while truth is better most of the time, I believe it would be irresponsible to be truthful all the time, regardless of consequences. I have no doubt Washington, Adams, Lincoln, Roosevelt(s), Reagan, and many other highly esteemed leaders lied when it was necessary, but what set them apart, and made that 'ok', so to speak, is that it was understood that the lying was for the greater good, vice Nixon and Clinton, who only lied to hide their own misdeeds.

2) Just like politics, all truth is local. Real, useful, truth--the kind that helps inform decisions, vice all that philosophical truthspeak nonsense--is often unavailable or unknown, even after exhaustive examination and investigation. We see what we expect to see, and what we expect to see is colored by all manner of filters, and finding truth is seeing without the filters, which is often hard to do. As I have been told more times than I care to remember, truth is just a matter of perception and perspective, all of which means, IMO, that truth is whatever is least 'spun,' OR is perceived to be the least spun. That's what makes Fox news so appealing to conservatives, who like to believe that Fox is spinning the news less than the other networks, while liberals tend to like CNN for much the same reasons. Of course, I think they're all full of crap, including the folks on Fox.

And therein lies the basis of my notions that PA does indeed have a war-support function, and sometimes that function legitimately includes lying. And yeah, I understand about long and short term and etc., but I don't buy all that stuff about cultural differences determining when it's ok to lie and not ok to lie, etc.

And finally, for now at least, regarding those statistics, they're as suspect and specious as anything I've read. Why? Because the opinions of the people who responded to the polls were shaped by the people taking the pool, often the media. The Army is no more nor less honest today than it was during Vietnam, I think, but because of people like Kerry and Fonda and alot of other so-called opinion-leaders, the Army was believed to be riff with liars, baby-killers and etc. Same thing for Congress. I don't believe the average Representative or or Senator is any more nor less honest than they have been in the past, but we're still dealing with post Nixon and Clinton fallout, and people still remember Chappaquiddick (some of us don, anyway), and so on. Bottom line, I do believe those numbers represent the answers given by the survey respondents, but I don't believe they are indicative of anything other than the focus-du-jour of the media and others. In other words, there is almost certainly no correlation between what people believe and the degree of trustworthiness of the institutions listed.

Which just makes the point, IMO, that truth is relative, and lying for the greater good has little real impact on the understanding of most folks, and is appropriate in measured doses. For my part, I think most people don't really care if they are lied to, as long as they don't have to acknowledge it, the lie is not intended to harm them, and ultimately no bad comes of it. I mean, look, we just elected Obama, and his hope and change rhetoric is what people wanted to hear, not the grim truths they needed to hear.

But 'nuff said for now... Got other stuff to do.

Comment from Argent on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T16:48:25Z

We need not focus on the word 'propaganda'. I think we can focus on the actual information flows and why we do them more than focusing so much of the word 'propaganda' which is, after all, a title.

There are many words we could try on for size but to me propaganda will do. 'News' as John was itching to say, but also things like branding, marketing, persuasion, information control systems. These words should not be the primary focus. What matters is what the PA etc actually do. Even more it matters what the PA should do in order to grant a strong, safe United States of America. Not what it's called.

One thing I can say for sure is the intellectual level of the ME thinks the US a propaganda machine. Ironically aided by their domestic propaganda. They see that US have done things encouraging few to doubt this conclusion. The loss of integrity is part of the cause of 9/11 and from that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It got so silly anything said about the US could be deemed true because the US had lost credibility. The US became a convenient punching bag and scapegoat.

Even worse the same sort of activity has occurred at home in the US. You have large numbers of illuminati, area-51, truther, people all partly generated by lack of Governmental trust. These are the dangerous fringes but it's eaten at the mainstream too. Parents teach their kids to be suspicious of the government by default. The areas of distrust are numerous and deep. Distrust in freedom, elections, domestic intel, economics. Distrust in motives for war.

Have you seen the surveys of people who think the twin towers did not fall due to the two aircraft. The numbers are frightening.

That's how expensive propaganda is.

What to do about the situation.

In some ways you answer your own question John. “Be willing to go out and get things done”. Mother Teresa has grubbed in the dirt. She may be chaste but she probably talked to and touched whores in the furtherance of her work. The PA can't play the fairy godmother without getting her shoes dirty. ie take some risks.

If propaganda is expensive we need to budget for counter propaganda accordingly. Frankly I don't know the PA budget but it should be considerable to cover the considerable work it has to do. It is at least as important as the next billion dollar deal for the latest military hardware.

There also has to be a ground level improvement beyond the military about citizenship and responsibility. This is not really a PA responsibility but it still has to be done.

Mike L why have most of the MSM reading audience/targets lost the ability to THINK? The answer is part of the solution and the deeper problem I feel. Has the saturation of propaganda become so heavy we lack the time to unthread the truth and the lies? As I see it the problem is everywhere. I wrote recently about the issue of “do you know what you paid for?” These days the answer is often no and it's sickening capitalism.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T16:39:45Z

􀁺 The cognitive dimension. The cognitive dimension encompasses the mind of the decision maker and the Target Audience. People think, perceive, visualize, and decide in this dimension. It is the most important of the three dimensions. A commander’s orders, training, and other personal motivations affect this dimension. Battles and campaigns can be lost in the cognitive dimension.
Factors such as leadership, morale, unit cohesion, emotion, state of mind, level of training, experience, situational awareness, as well as public opinion, perceptions, media, public information, and rumors influence this dimension.

One tentacle of the octopus is trying to persuade, change and influence reconcilables so as to reduce the number of irreconcilables that need killing to a managable figure. PA is not a core IO capability, nor even a supporting IO capability, but a related IO capability operating in the same cognitive dimension as PSYOP. They have to coordinate and deconflict their messages or they step on each other's nether regions with golf shoes.

My perception has been managed by somebody to think that PSYOP and PA play together nicely down range until they get to the senior field grade level at echelons aboved reality. At that level PA can always find a sympathetic journo to throw a turd in the punch bowl for them.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T15:37:03Z

PA and IO must be coordinated and synchronized to ensure that personnel communicate consistent themes and messages to maintain credibility. As with other core, supporting, and related IO capabilities, PA has a role in all aspects of DOD’s missions and functions. Communication of operational matters to internal and external audiences is just one part of PA’s function. In performing duties
as one of the primary spokesmen, the PA officer’s interaction with the IO staff enables PA activities to be integrated, coordinated, and deconflicted with IO. While intents differ, PA and IO ultimately support the dissemination of information, themes, and messages adapted to their audiences. PA contributes to the
achievement of military objectives, for instance, by countering adversary misinformation and disinformation through the publication of accurate information.

Comment from Mike L on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T14:44:20Z

Hmmm.... I believe that the only reason this is a story/discussion is because most of the MSM reading audience/targets have lost the ability to THINK. We live in a world of spin. Any form of advertising and persuasion is, well, propaganda. The media, industry and government have become spin artists, and present their products to a naive America. Not that I've become a cynic, but the TRUTH is, in addition to what Sanger said, the best lie is 98% true. The spin, deception, propaganda lies in the remaining 2%. Public Affairs has an element of IO and vice versa. That has to be the case or neither can be successful. In a different lifetime, a LONG time ago, I majored in Speech Communications with a concentration in propaganda, persuasion and influence. Bottom line - there's not a lot of difference; everything is in the packaging. The reason there's a discussion about this is all because of perception. Just sayin'. ML

Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T14:36:58Z

I was going to jump in here with a simple snark in answer to C#4's question to Grumpy - by saying that in much of the mainstream press, the euphemism for propaganda is "news." Unless it's from the other guy, then it's propaganda and agitprop.

And look at their credibility in the eyes of much of the public.

Argent chimed in with his take in response to Sanger: I realise you're talking about selective, rare lies but politicians think the same way and in practice lie far more often than they hope to. Look at their credibility.

Indeed. Let's look at the Harris Poll of citizen confidence in US Instiutions, with a simple comparison of the military, the press, and politicians between the 2006 and 2008 polls.

In March, 2006 the confidence numbers ran thusly:

Press: A great deal: 14% Some: 51% Hardly Any: 34%
Congress: A great deal: 10% Some: 56% Hardly Any: 33%
Military: A great deal: 47% Some: 38% Hardly Any: 14%

In March of 2008, the numbers have shifted thus:

Press: A great deal: 10% Some: 48% Hardly Any: 41%
Congress: A great deal: 8% Some: 50% Hardly Any: 39%
Military: A great deal: 51% Some: 34% Hardly Any: 15%

Argent made this point:

You make some good points SangerM, especially about how lies, truth and credibility work. I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with your benefit of lying assertion. Instead, I'll just point out my concerns. A greater good based on a lie can happen but it's treacherous waters and could undermine the PA (or whatever agency) more than expected. I realise you're talking about selective, rare lies but politicians think the same way and in practice lie far more often than they hope to. Look at their credibility.

This is the crux about which this whole discussion revolves - Sanger's triangular bayonet:

But PA is a three-edged blade. First, it must appear to be an honest broker. It must be seen as reliable and trustworthy, and it must NOT be seen as a propaganda-generating effort--especially in the U.S. as Grumpy points out, because if we hates anything, we hates being manipulated, and we hates being manipulated by our government the mostest! Second (and conversely), PA must not do anything that undermines the war fighting effort, which means it must not only be careful about framing bad news in a least harmful way (staying as subjective as possible), it must also avoid giving away any information that might be useful to an enemy. Balance is most crucial here. Third and most important, PA must be able to be used--as needed and necessary--to support IO and other military operations by providing intentionally false or misleading information when it really truly matters.

When you look at those poll numbers above, you begin to understand why the PA side of Sanger's coin roll fights the sharpest flute on Sanger's bayonet:

Third and most important, PA must be able to be used--as needed and necessary--to support IO and other military operations by providing intentionally false or misleading information when it really truly matters.

Poliiticians (since time immemorial) and, more recently, the Mainstream Media, have sacrficed the truth-telling function for what is arguably short-term gain, they have severely damaged their brand (the subject of a different post coming up).

That is a powerful argument for those in the PA business who don't want to be caught up as stooges in an IO plan.

And, of course, I don't offer a solution - and the argument is still raging, which is one reason C#4 lives in a state of perpetual frustration, and guys like me sit out here pulling their hair, as well. Because PA, while jealously guarding their virginity, are in danger of becoming pinch-faced old maids with little legacy other than a good name and societal irrelevancy - vice figuring out how to be, for lack of a better analogy, a Mother Theresa of Information - chaste, but willing to go out and get things done.

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T13:45:05Z

I take you to mean then , Grumpy, that you believe USG should eschew the use of all

forms of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly

because it violates your idea of integrity.

Stanley Cunningham and MAJ Timothy R. King have similar concerns. Do we misunderstand propaganda because of propaganda?

There are people and organizations out there conveying selected information that influences your emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately your behavior, Grumpy, towards propaganda and many other subjects, most of whom are not USG and don't share your notions of integrity. Do we disarm ourselves in the War of Ideas because the word "propaganda" fills us with fear and loathing?

Comment from Grumpy on 2008-12-31

2008-12-31T11:42:49Z

Cannoneer, I woke up and just decided to read and see the replies to the comment. You are caught up on a euphemism for propaganda. First, what is a euphemism? The term means a polite word for a rather distasteful word. An example would be "downsizing" versus "job cuts". My view, is we should not be looking for a euphemism for propaganda. There may be a misunderstanding on my part. Do you see simply giving the most accurate information available at the time as propaganda? This is without any political spin, at all. There are places for politics, but there are places in Government which should never become political, at all. When politics enter these worlds, the door is left open for monumental failure of Government.

When I think about propaganda, where do I see it? I see it right next to Cold War Era Nuclear Weapons. Have these costly options a place in our arsenal of of weapons? Hey, Grumpy, what do you mean by, "Propaganda being costly?" It only costs you, your integrity. Maybe the question should be, can we ever integrity back?

Sanger, I had the honor of knowing one of Albert Einstein's students as a mentor. One day we got talking about "truth", as a young man we see good and evil, white and black issue with zero tolerance. But as you get older, you see very little of this and much more of the gradients of grey.

Einstein had quite a sense of humor, my mentor raised one of his riddles, He asked, "Are you smart enough to be dumb or dumb enough to be smart?" I thought for a second and replied, "Yeah to both." with no qualification or explanation. "Grumpy, how do you figure?" My answer, "You have given me two equally true answers, but diametrically opposed to each other. If I take away from one, I have made the rest a lie." This is called an antimony. The point of this whole discussion is this, we need to search for the whole truth and not just parts of it.

PLEASE HAVE A SAFE NIGHT AND A VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR. - Grumpy

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-12-30

2008-12-31T05:38:33Z

What euphemism for propaganda do you recommend, Grumpy? You never did answer the question.

Comment from Argent on 2008-12-30

2008-12-31T04:57:02Z

Thanks Grumpy I don't think anyone here has said anything about me quite as positively as you have.

You make some good points SangerM, especially about how lies, truth and credibility work. I'm not sure how much I agree or disagree with your benefit of lying assertion. Instead, I'll just point out my concerns. A greater good based on a lie can happen but it's treacherous waters and could undermine the PA (or whatever agency) more than expected. I realise you're talking about selective, rare lies but politicians think the same way and in practice lie far more often than they hope to. Look at their credibility.

The US is also very now-centric. Instant gratification is part of that but some parts of the world like the ME think much longer term. A lie for a good here and there is no good at all in the bigger picture for those with long term views if they discover such lies. I'm emphasising that having too narrow a view when lying is disastrous. Let's say a good believed lie can win Afghanistan. It seems great, but what if the cost is losing Iraq 3 years later and another attack on a US city?

Counter-propaganda goes beyond shining the light of truth on a lying propaganda operation. Even truthful propaganda can be countered. What matters are reactions. Let's look at the corporate world which I believe is a fantastic example. Lately there have been numerous product failures. In some cases companies have folded from the consumer reaction to bad publicity. In other cases they have recovered. The difference is often the way they react. Most of these stories are quite true and denial mostly landed them in deeper water. Often open admission is a better call. The smarter ones have been quick to show they protect the consumer by recalls, aggressively finding causes, covering the health bills of the affected etc. Not only does this help ease consumer fears it shifts the focus from the corporation being bad to the corporation is working to fix things. It transforms negative into positive. This is all about skilled marketing. Marketing studies might be a good way for the PA/IO to go.

You last point about knowing the truth is a concern too Grumpy. A complex sticky matter. In my experience the greatest lies are usually those told to the self.

Comment from Grumpy on 2008-12-30

2008-12-31T03:18:31Z

@Cannoneer and @Sangor, I read both comments an #4's attached article. But, I don't believe it to be accurate. A writer needs to consider two questions, "Who is the target audience?" The second question is "Why are you writing it?"

#4, There are many who have absolutely no knowledge of this very complex region. The question the article raises, "Propaganda: Can a Word Decide a War?" Now, if I write something which causes, a prominent family, tribe, region or Nation to "lose face" or cause embarrassment, they are ready to start war. Therefore, from the title of the article and its question, the answer is YES, A WORD CAN DECIDE A WAR.

Sanger, you talk about the complexity of the region, in my view, you did a GREAT job. You do a good job of getting inside my mind. You make the point about "counter-propaganda" as equated with lies, me included. If you are talking about replacing the enemies' lies with truth, do you factually know? Are you sure? It makes a big difference, even in this closed-loop discussion. I have reasonable doubts, not just any doubts, just for the record.

Comment from SangerM on 2008-12-30

2008-12-31T01:44:26Z

As has been said so well above, there are many layers and many cross-cutting interests at play in any conversation that includes both information operations (defined here as a function of both offensive and defensive war-making) and public affairs (defined as providing information about military activities for public consumption). The problem is Context--much more than content--and this is the first, and most important thing, that needs to be understood by every stake-holder (defined by me as anyone who has an interest in the information being 'touched' in some way by someone, i.e. by collectors, producers, processors, deliverers, and consumers).

That may sound simplistic, but really IO and PA are two ends of the same coin-roll, with the coins in between being more of one (and less of the other) the closer one gets to an end of the roll. Data is collected and collated and processed, and the end result is information that may or may not qualify as intelligence. Each item of information is seen differently--many different ways, in fact--depending on context(s), both as it pertains to the item and as it pertains to the stakeholder. Context can mean: info source, source reliability, user mission, Item value, degree of importance (as perceived by the viewer), purpose and legitimacy (how gathered, why collected, how used), urgency of the need, durability or shelf-life of the info, etc.

So why does the distinction between PA and IO matter? There are a number of reasons, and again context determines the answer. At the most basic level, both IO and PA help the military do its job. IO is the military part, while PA is the public support generating part. Both are crucial to the big-picture successes, but PA is especially (and IMO at least as strategically) important because public support is as crucial to a national war-fighting effort as is industrial, agricultural, and manpower capacity.

But PA is a three-edged blade. First, it must appear to be an honest broker. It must be seen as reliable and trustworthy, and it must NOT be seen as a propaganda-generating effort--especially in the U.S. as Grumpy points out, because if we hates anything, we hates being manipulated, and we hates being manipulated by our government the mostest! Second (and conversely), PA must not do anything that undermines the war fighting effort, which means it must not only be careful about framing bad news in a least harmful way (staying as subjective as possible), it must also avoid giving away any information that might be useful to an enemy. Balance is most crucial here. Third and most important, PA must be able to be used--as needed and necessary--to support IO and other military operations by providing intentionally false or misleading information when it really truly matters.

I realize some people might recoil from the last item, seeing it as lying, betrayal, destruction of credibility, and etc., but sometimes, the greater good must be the focus. And yes, the ends do sometimes justify the means, especially when it comes to this particularly category of military activity. The public may be owed honest information, but only the most insipid and asinine person would want information released that helps an enemy, or would have a problem with information being released to support an American war effort that resulted in an enemy's defeat.

You know, a universal truth of successful lying is that to get away with the really huge lies, one has to be mostly honest--almost ruthlessly so. Telling the truth 99% of the time, even when it is inconvenient and makes one occasionally look bad, means that when one really has to lie, it will be believed. Why? Because credibility counts, and after a while it becomes inconceivable that such an honest person would lie; therefore the lie stands even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, which most really accomplished liars are too careful to allow for anyway. PA can tell lies once in a while and be believed because it 'never' does so, and if it is caught out, PA can claim a mistake, which is ok, cause we're all human, and most people have low expectations of the PA folks anyway. In fact, a good liar (and a good PA operative) will let himself get caught in a small white lie or an information slippage sometimes because this makes it all seem human. Moreover, no one really trusts a mistake where none have ever been made. What intel analyst worth his salt would ever believe an intel slip where none have been made before? And if PA is known for being scrupulously honest and if what it releases inadvertently supports an IO deception operation, then the enemy is far more likely to believe the deception than otherwise.

And lastly, I do not have any problem at all with counter-propaganda (in the context of this discussion at least) because counter-propaganda does not mean propaganda, which we tend to equate with lies. It only means countering an enemy's lies with truth when appropriate. Of course, one must avoid telling the enemy too much because sometimes propaganda is a much a fishing expedition as it is an attempt to frame an event or produce a desired reaction. If the enemy claims we were there and we say we never were and prove it, there may be reasons that is not a good thing, e.g., locals could get exposed.

Wheels within wheels and then some....

V/R

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-12-30

2008-12-31T00:53:33Z

Propaganda: Can a Word Decide a War?

What euphemism do you recommend, Grumpy?

Whatever you want to call it

Comment from Grumpy on 2008-12-30

2008-12-30T22:28:53Z

@Argent 20 DEC 2008, 12:01PM- Warning: I'm possibly going to scramble your thinking about me. Good grief. that might even be a good thing. I'm not trying to debate with you.

Well, let's go. As I've said before, "Words matter!" But you have tried to build upon that foundation, you have even taken it into other important areas, you also have woven them in this matrix. But there is a problem, it is like a cancer eating at the very core their efforts to win the objective. Ironically, you are the one who pointed out the cancer. The other thing is you indirectly pointed out its trigger. Now, we need to figure out how to deal with both of them The cancer was an earned failure to earn the trust of the American People. It is strange, but people have a certain level of trust which is freely given, but given as a test. The question becomes, "What are you going to do with my investment of trust?" Responses to this question have monumental consequences. If you make good decisions, we'll invest more trust. But if our leaders, make bad or even questionable decisions, then let them come forward with the verified TRUTH, STOP THE BS! If they fail to do this, our leaders will find trust be the most expensive real estate in the Universe.

In your work, there is this word, which has a bad sense to it. Every time the word is used, it takes away from trust. We should take the word and the concepts out of our books. Failure to do this reminds me of the "smart boy" who did a 9mm vasectomy on himself. The word is "propaganda".

Argent, THANK YOU, VERY WELL DONE!

Grumpy

Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2008-12-30

2008-12-30T19:31:53Z

The PAO Conversation (scroll down to Monday, April 24, 2006) is still going on, two and a half years later, because few questions have been definitively answered.

Comment from Argent on 2008-12-30

2008-12-30T18:01:01Z

Well from an outsiders point of view one of the major failures of the US military in this war has been on counter-propaganda. Your enemies have been so successful they have managed to impact not only their domestic audience but even the audience in the US.

I recognise some here will view this as bashing but better someone says it even if I'm all wrong.

1)

For PA to engage in "counter-propaganda" it would give legitimacy to the adversary's "propaganda.”

This sounds like a good argument but counter propaganda has need of a foundation of legitimacy. Why does this matter? Because, you see, if the PA should not do counter propaganda that forces it into IO. I sense buck passing back and forth to be honest. Not sure if that is true. IO cannot conduct powerful counter propaganda because it can't build legitimacy with the propaganda operations it conducts.

Now if neither PA nor IO do decent counter propaganda then who the hell does it? So far I've seen more counter propaganda from blogs than news services or the US military and that is frankly a trickle compared to the need.

Now any military element doing counter propaganda are going to have this issue of giving legitimacy to the adversary's propaganda, are they not? And since the military still has to do to job then why not the PA?

2)

As a secondary issue I feel the US and to be fair the entire coalition has been very poor in the area of propaganda and counter propaganda because they lacked the knowledge. Too little understood about the cultures, the sociality, the anthropology, the religion, the language the regional issues probably even the economy. Ignorance is a awful foundation for connecting to and influencing other people. I have been appalled at the unprofessionalism in this area. It took far too long to rectify and should not have existed to that degree in the first place. The muslim extremists were not new or unexpected as potential enemies. 'Know your enemy' and 'be prepared' extends to know your potential enemy.

3)

A bigger, slower, much deeper issue is the inherent lack of trust many have in the military, in particular in the realm of information. For example, most popular culture in the US and the West like movies repeat the idea of the military being secretive, exploitive and untrustworthy etc. Just working from secretive, which is more factual behaviour of the military, the price of secrecy is distrust. When people don't know the truth and it is withheld they fill the gaps often with imagination and human imagination is quite negative in the area of secrecy because our simian selves knew it was a matter of survival.

What I'm getting at is the US military has allowed public relations to fall to a key low level over many years where there is a degree of the very owners of the military; civilians, being adversaries. None of your key people ever realised and acted on the potential damage such a low level of trust can do. Now when your ME adversaries generate propaganda you have elements of US citizens picking up the signal and amplifying it for the US domestic audience. So far I haven't seen any ground level improvement in the situation. If the PA is responsible for community relations I think it needs to work much harder.

4)

The material I do see released (not sure if IO or PA) is usually excrable writing. To begin with consumption is often related to an emotional element, something commercial news outlets have known for years. Secondly it's released more like an engineering technical paper minus the pertinent facts. I'm saying it's not even as readable and a dry boring paper You need to be aware droping information is noticed. You need to find a way to balance the (counter) propaganda issues with the opsec issues. You also need to change the style to be more readable. Hire civilian reporters if you absolutely have to. I'd prefer you to skim the better budding reporters who have a positive thing to say about the US military.

The result is the US military releasing stuff that rarely makes it into the US domestic audience and when it does it gets rewritten and often recoloured in not so good a way.

5)

Does anyone doubt the Abu Ghraib story was about as beautiful as the released pictures? This was a major propaganda haul for the adversaries whose legitimacy and scope could be extended to give credence to all sorts of illegitimate stories.

Did the US do enough to counter it? Who was actually punished and how quickly? How well was the idea this came from the top headed off? How well was this separated as unusual and not about the US military?

6)

A much simpler issue I have no clue about is the US military seems to operate heavily under doctrine. Why does it take so long for doctrine to adapt to a current enemy? What happens when a new enemy comes along as it surely will?