The U.S. Army’s doctrine on information operations is getting an overhaul and a new name to reflect the changing nature of military operations. Information operations, which has traditionally included fields such as psychological operations and military deception, will now be incorporated into “Inform and Influence Operations” and changes to the doctrine will be reflected in an updated field manual to be released in 2012. The changes are in response to fundamental shifts in U.S. Army information operations that emphasize the increasingly integrated role of U.S. forces in stability operations and counterinsurgency.
The sometimes controversial field of information operations focuses on military control and manipulation of the information environment operating in a battlespace. According to a 2003 manual from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Information operations (IO) are described as the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.” When a revised version of the Army manual on operations (FM-3) was released in 2010, the revisions vastly changed the nature of military information operations. Several of the revisions were brought about after there was public and congressional controversy surrounding the issue of whether certain military tactics constituted “traditional military action” or “covert action.” Some of the tactics, such as military information support operations (MISO), formerly referred to as psychological operations (PSYOP), require the military to lie about the source of material or “delay recognition” of its origin. The 2010 U.S. Army War College Information Operations Primer states that “the military’s activities to influence target audiences outside combat zones has sparked debate over whether these activities should properly fall under the Department of State. These questions have caused additional media interest and Congressional scrutiny, and in cases have resulted in reduced funding for military IO efforts.”
A draft version of the U.S. Army’s new manual obtained by Public Intelligence defines “Inform and Influence activities” as the “integration of designated information-related capabilities in order to synchronize themes, messages, and actions with operations to inform U.S. and global audiences, influence foreign audiences, and affect adversary and enemy decisionmaking.” The manual provides a more holistic approach to information operations designed to emphasize the nature of every soldiers’ actions on the information environment of a given operation. It describes “information fratricide” as “employing information-related capabilities operations elements in a way that causes effects in the information environment that impede the conduct of friendly operations or adversely affect friendly forces.”
The ability to “influence” a population is defined in the manual as causing audiences to “think or behave in a manner favorable to the commander’s objectives” which results from “applying perception management to affect the target’s emotions, motives, and reasoning.” This can include inform and influence activities that support offensive operations, such as “destroying” which uses “lethal and nonlethal means to physically render enemy information useless or information systems ineffective unless reconstituted.” The manual also includes a number of newer concepts related to information operations, such as “cyber electromagnetic activities” which “seize, retain, and exploit advantages in cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum” enabling “Army forces to retain freedom of action while denying freedom of action to enemies and adversaries.”
SEE DRAFT HERE
Bernd Pulch 