DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release;
distribution is unlimited.
Document created: 1 December 2007
Air & Space
Power Journal - Winter 2007
|
In air combat, “the merge” occurs when opposing aircraft meet and pass each other. Then they usually “mix it up.” In a similar spirit, Air and Space power Journals, “Merge” articles present contending ideas. Readers can draw their own conclusion or join the intellectual battlespace. Please send comments to aspj@maxwell.af.mil . |
Lt Col Kenneth Beebe, USAF*
I read with interest the article “Defining Information Operations Forces: What Do We Need?” (Summer 2007). I’ve been assigned to a joint information operations (IO) organization for the last two years (including two tours “doing IO” in Iraq) and have served as an electronic warfare (EW) officer since I was a second lieutenant, so I am relatively familiar with IO doctrine.
Anyone who has spent time with IO in the joint environment knows that every service thinks about it a little differently. For the Air Force and the Navy, IO deals with networks, especially the global information grid. For the Army, IO has to do with influence, which to that service means psychological operations (PSYOP). In a business that values words, we have chosen to use a vague and ambiguous phrase (information operations) to describe what we do. Perhaps it is time to use terminology that means something specific—and I believe that “influence operations” does a better job of identifying our objective than “information operations.” The technical arts known as EW and computer network operations have their primary effects in the physical domains. PSYOP, military deception, and operations security (OPSEC)—the remaining “pillars” of IO—aim to have their primary effects in the cognitive domain. The term “influence operations” succinctly captures those three activities.
Adding to the confusion, it seems that every person has a different idea of what IO is. For some, it involves hacking into the enemy’s networks. For others, it concerns conducting PSYOP against the enemy. For some, it’s “spinning the media.” Still others consider IO synonymous with information management. In other words, everybody thinks he or she knows what IO is, but few people really know what the doctrine says it is.
As the authors of “Defining Information Operations Forces” point out, these different ideas complicate decisions about how to create a career force. If we as individuals don’t know what IO is and if each service has a different conception of IO, then deciding how to create an IO professional becomes a real challenge. I differ with the article’s authors regarding their prescriptions for building IO career paths.
Their analysis of the state of the EW career force is cursory, to say the least. Having EW officers trained to operate airborne systems does not constitute a well-established career force that prepares the Air Force to dominate the battlespace. EW entails more than airborne jamming platforms. It touches everything that uses the electromagnetic spectrum, including sensors, communications equipment, and jammers. Integrated management of that spectrum is not the strong suit of the Air Force or any of the other services. The authors’ conclusion that “the Air Force does not require additional capabilities or career forces for the EW mission area of IO” (p. 57) is flat-out wrong.
When it comes to influence operations, I think we need to ask ourselves if it makes sense to have a separate “influence” career field in the Air Force. What does a second lieutenant influence officer do in a fighter or airlift squadron? Since the Air Force’s primary PSYOP role involves disseminating the Army’s PSYOP products, the authors’ prescription makes this individual essentially a deception planner. The best such planners aren’t built from scratch. They first did something else in their military careers. How many people would listen to a major or lieutenant colonel who listed “influence officer” as his or her only experience in the military? This doesn’t require a career force so much as it requires dedicated planners whom the Air Force can train and educate in influence yet still capitalize on their prior experiences—fully embedded in planning organizations.
The authors make some good suggestions, such as their recommendations not only for a network-warfare-operations career force and OPSEC but also for more effectively integrating IO into the Air Force by improving our education and training and providing more Airmen with IO experience. What concerns me, however, is that our Air Force leadership really hasn’t decided what to do with IO. It appears to me that the creation of Air Force Cyber Command represents the beginning of the end for IO in our service.
San Antonio, Texas
* The author recently returned from Baghdad, where he served in the Information Operations Cell at Multi-National Force-Iraq. He is currently assigned to the Joint Electronic Warfare Center in San Antonio, Texas.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University
[ Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor ]
