Information operations as a core competency

Joint Force Quarterly, Dec, 2004 by Christopher J. Lamb

Given the more focused depiction of IO in the three functions and five core capabilities, its definition needed to be revamped. The new definition, to be included in the revised DOD Directive on Information Operations and in updated joint publications, emphasizes protecting our decisionmaking process while targeting that of an enemy. The roadmap definition of IO is "the integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related activities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt, or usurp adversarial human and automated decisionmaking while protecting our own."

The verbs in this definition are important for the range of activity they convey. Disrupt includes interrupting or upsetting decisionmaking, corrupt entails contaminating or subverting it, and usurp involves controlling an adversary's decisionmaking processes. All could be reasonable objectives for the joint force commander, depending on the target in question.

As the definition indicates, the DOD IO concept is focused on warfighting and creating effects for the joint force commander. The commander cannot orchestrate effects without timely authority to use information capabilities. Therefore, there are specific guidelines for delegating selected capabilities. Their net result is to permit the commander greater latitude to employ IO capabilities.

While concerned with wartime execution, the roadmap assumes IO application across the range of military operations during peace, crisis, and war. Full-spectrum means full-time insofar as information operations require substantial peacetime precursor activity--especially analytic support:

* Well before crises develop, the IO battlespace should be prepared through intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and planning across the electromagnetic spectrum to enable rapid effects at the beginning of a conflict.

* Potential enemy audiences and particularly senior decisionmakers should be understood, along with decisionmaking processes and priorities. If such human factors analysis is not conducted in advance, it is unlikely we can craft PSYOP themes and messages that will modify adversary behavior.

* Computer network defense and OPSEC are vital in all phases of conflict but should be given priority during peacetime to prevent enemies from preparing their own information operations. Protecting plans and networks will ensure our ability to make decisions and execute them with minimum disruption.

The full-spectrum is full-time theme resonates throughout the roadmap. There is nothing part-time or collateral about a core military competency. A capability as important as IO requires full-time leadership and oversight, advocacy, career force members, and analytic support.

Other than a common framework for understanding IO, perhaps the most important prerequisite for advancing it as a core competency is clear joint leadership. The roadmap strongly supports assigning advocacy and oversight to a four-star combatant commander. As one advisor to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff noted during roadmap development, if DOD truly cared about IO it would put someone in charge of it. It did. Commander, U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), was assigned that responsibility in the most recent unified command plan and charged with integrating and coordinating DOD information operations across the five core capabilities and across geographic areas. With this mandate, he has specific authority to develop concepts for integrated IO, prioritize information planning needs among combatant commanders, improve measures of information effectiveness, and promote IO in joint concept development and experimentation. To better execute these new responsibilities, STRATCOM created a Joint Force Headquarters for Information Operations. Headed by a three-star, the headquarters will be prepared to act as a supporting and sometimes a supported commander.