Afghan Drawdown: A Tough PSYOP Job Made Even Harder

At 2000 hours Eastern time on 22 June President Obama announced his plans to withdraw troops from Afghanistan (speech at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/22/remarks-president-way-forward-afghanistan). The ISAF Website indicated that the US had 90,000 troops in country. (Source: http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers-and-contributions/united-states/index.php). On June 23, 2011 Stratfor, often called the private CIA published its analysis (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110622-obamas-afghanistan-plan-realities-withdrawal?utm_source=SWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110623&utm_content=readmore&elq=0cef78dfc87745459b50e62cd1bb2eb8).

Photo Source: www.whitehouse.gov

Information engagement on any front in Afghanistan is hard, the job just got harder.

One of the durable key messages from the War is “NATO is here to help Afghanistan help itself.” For 10 years the progress has been glacial and there doesn’t seem to be any indication that the Afghani people seem any more anxious to change their world.

The Stratfor article rightly points out the security and logistical challenges the draw down will have to face. The Taliban have been used to waiting for foreign troops to leave – ask the Russians. The security equation hasn’t seemed to be altered very much either. The less US troops the better the odds for the enemy unless the Afghani people can get off the dime.

The Taliban have proven their marketing acumen, the no doubt will help spread the news that NATO is pulling out. The fact that the 2014 deadline given by President Obama may not be his problem at the time in the unlikely event he doesn’t get re-elected, or he can simply change his mind because he won’t be running for re-election.

As the shadow of American security pulls back from the country side and into the city the vacuum will no doubt be exploited by the Taliban. Frankly I ‘m not sure what kind of information engagement can compete with reality on the ground.

Half-Hearted White House Poses PSYOP Problem

The US “strategy” in Libya can best be termed bizarre. The Obama White House dawdled at the prospect of military support to the rebels (perhaps with good reason since nobody really seems to know who they are), then committed US air power before bowing out of the lead and now plans on engaging Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) (see http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15024270,00.html which is also the photo source).

This kind of wishy washy approach plays havoc with PSYOP/MISO. A core PSYOP principle is that effective PSYOP is based on truth. This leads to the parenting principle about threats and punishment. Don’t threaten a punishment unless you can and are willing to carry it out. As the Obama administration tries to convince the world, itself and the American public that Iraq is over and Afghanistan is turning the corner, they now need to justify another Billion or two in the face of one of the worst budget crises in our history.

Should the President decided to commit ground troops (which is not very prudent in my opinion at this point), Senator McCain notwithstanding), will AFRICOM have the resources to orchestrate a credible influence campaign? Where will the MISO troops come from and how long can they support the operation? Is the country prepared for another min-Iraq or worse yet a hybrid of Afghanistan and Somalia should the Qadaffi government crumble?

We are always accused of being ready to fight the last war. Libya appears to be the next one, and perhaps the model for one or two thereafter – let’s consider all the effects and be ready ahead of time for just once!

Obama’s 2010 National Security Strategy and PSYOP

The last week in May 2010 is a particularly complex time. Headlines included the sending of 1,200 National Guard troops to the Mexican Border and continued angst over the alleged North Korean sinking of a South Korean Naval Vessel.

However, from a long term perspective, the quiet White House release of the 2010 National Security Strategy (NSS) of the United Stations. The NSS is the mother ship of security strategies from which all others such as the Defense Strategy, the Military Strategy, the Counter Terrorist Strategy, et al will be developed and with which they must conform. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf)

There were some key themes that will have a significant impact on PSYOP and PSYOP forces during Obama’s administration tenure and perhaps beyond.


1. Alliances and Partnerships
While the President reserved the right to act unilaterally when necessary, he made it very clear that it was intent to capitalize on old alliances and new partnerships. His goal of strengthening and modernizing old ones while building new and deeper partnerships is complemented by stated tasks of training and assisting security systems (and forces) in at-risk states.

These notions combined with increased military to military contacts will no doubt put pressure on PSYOP to operate more frequently in a combined (multi-national) environment and to provide training, advice and assistance to forces of other nations that the President deems are important to US interests, values and international order.

2. Holistic Governmental Actions
The President made it very clear that he wants the Executive branch t to develop integrated plans and approaches. This includes more aggressive diplomacy where diplomats complement military forces no matter where they are needed and the ability to harness experts who can strengthen governance and support human dignity (via development efforts).

The NSS also plans to employ economic and financial transactions as means to advancing US interests and promoting US values.
The bottom line here is a greater demand for Civil Affairs (CA) capability and a critical need for CA and PSYOP to work together seamlessly in a variety of environments.

3. Engagement Across the Spectrum of Conflict
The NSS points out other goals the cut across the spectrum of conflict:
- Disrupt, dismantle and defeat AQ and its violent extremist affiliates in AF, Pak.
- Pursue sustainable and responsible security systems in at risk stakes
- Prevent the emergence of conflict
- Counter violent extremism and insurgency
- Foster security and reconstruction in the aftermath of conflict
- Stop the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials
- Resolve and prevent conflicts and heal their wounds.

PSYOP is a non-lethal battlefield multiplier. It is also a critical means by which the USG can communicate messages designed to catalyst behavior in conformance with the goals of the NSS. PSYOP is the means by which civilian populations are informed of CA activities and is a critical capability in gaining and holding information dominance which is a prerequisite success on the global state in the 21st Century.
Unfortunately the PSYOP community has not shown the ability to influence law makers and senior members of the Executive Branch of its importance. The need to influence has been overshadowed by the specter of cyber this and cyber that. While CA enjoys the benefits of a cadre of retired flag officers and a resourced association, PSYOP does not.

The ill timed split of PSYOP across two general officer commands (USSOCOM and USARC) needs to be unwound immediately and SWC needs to step up to the plate, as Regimental Home Base Commander and act as a catalyst to strengthen PSYOP’s clout inside the military and position a robust association to ‘educate’ the Executive and Legislative branches.

PSYOPing Karzai With Grass Roots Politics

It’s now (April 2010) clearer than ever that Afghan President Hamid Karzai is not the right man for the job and it is our duty as champions of democracy to help the people of Afghanistan replace him and his cronies with a leader and a government that will govern for the benefit of the people and not personal fortunes or ego.

Even the charismatic and charming President Obama has failed with Karzai. Karzai’s denouncements of the West – read that the US – are yet one more slap in the face. While I don’t generally quote Ralph Peters as a good source, I’m afraid I have to mostly agree with his April 6, 2010 article in the NY Post: “Karzai’s new low – We’re stuck with no Plan B” (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/karzai_new_low_JfRxe6UV6zXCjdEalGAsLM)

As it turns out, I have a plan B and a Plan C. Plan B is develop bottom up public support for a coalition government that will oust Karzai and replace him with someone is perhaps less corrupt and who can serve as a catalyst security and economic self-sufficiency from the village up. Of course this plan would require resources and assistance from the US and other sources – we know that and according to Peters, we have invested: “A thousand dead Americans and billions of dollars poured into a cesspool?”

Plan C is build an enduring self-sufficiency from the village level up.
This crossroads presents a unique opportunity for Secretary Hillary Clinton to engage the DOD to help her further the goals of the President and actually establish a foundation that would facilitate a withdrawal of US troops sooner rather than later. To do this a holistic information influence strategy would need to be developed that would combine direct and indirect communications channels and would (perhaps covertly) support appropriate Karzai opposition. In parallel, my Plan C calls for local campaigns to strengthen the local leadership so that they can govern in the absence of a competent national government.

Plan C is a good one because it builds from the nature of the Afghan people and their history. It also appeals to the independent nature of the local villages and, at the same time can negate some of the influence of the Taliban. This plan would require tight coordination through ISAF and implies an ISAF level task force that has situational awareness down to the village level and that has the authority to divert resources and concentrate efforts where they are likely to do the most good.

Peters’ assumption about our counter insurgency doctrine assuming a friendly competent government also seems unfortunately on the mark. Doctrine writers on all levels are on notice that they need to change the rules of the game so that we can as Clint Eastwood once said “Improvise, adapt and overcome” (attributed to his role as Gunny Highway in Heartbreak Ridge)

In Afghanistan The Coffee Klatch is Mightier Than the Sword

As a native Brooklynite I have had a long standing affection for coffee. I enjoy everything from latte’s to Turkish Coffee (medium sweet just like Mr. Bond). More importantly I recognize the importance of social gatherings around one’s favorite beverage be it coffee, chai, tea, or beer. Social gatherings foster support and tribal elder support is the key to success in Afghanistan as pointed out in the USA Today Article on March 30, 2010 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/afghanistan/2010-03-29-Afghan-elders_N.htm).

While I applaud President Obama’s first visit as Commander-in-Chief, my marketing sense tells me that his visit was most likely more effective to the audience outside Afghanistan than it. First of all Afghanistan isn’t exactly a TV focal mecca so that the majority of the population is not glued to their TV sets watching the world stage. If they get their information over the airwaves it is more likely to come through the FM radio being filtered and polarized by the station’s management.

From an influence perspective this type of market means that the local officer or NCO in charge is going to be the key to success. It is my belief that all officers and NCOs should receive some form of sales training. When we deployed to Bosnia in 1997 I gave every soldier a copy of Zig Ziglar’s book Secret’s of Closing the Sale. An alternative is Willie Gayle’s book on Power Selling.

Afghanistan is the classic example of “all politics is local” and personal selling is the most effective form of PSYOP at the local level. The nature of the beast is that PSYOP personnel cannot be everywhere and the ‘winning of hearts and minds’ starts with the simple premise that people must like you as a person before they will listen to anything you have to say. Consequently the senior person on the ground must establish a rapport with the key local leader who, more than likely, will be the tribal elder or imam.

Unfortunately there is no easy way to do this, nor is there a simple, magic formula to train everyone to be able to relate to foreign audiences. I have found that Marines and Special Forces in general are far more adaptive than other service personnel and are able to adjust their behavior and approach more easily.

Success will come after the Afghans people feel like they are secure in their homes. Whether this feeling is a direct result of villages pushing out the Taliban, the Afghan government actually becoming an effecting governing force, or a combination of these and external forces, it is the feeling of security which will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that make the American effort in Afghanistan a success and differentiate it from past efforts.

Palestinian Polarity: Implications for Afghanistan and Beyond

The December 14, 2009 Washington Post featured an article: “The Palestinians' opposite poles.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121403728.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

The article describes how two men grew up in the same refugee camp in Gaza. One ended up moving to the West Bank while the other remained in Gaza. The article goes on to describe how the man in the West Bank was able to begin a business and how his son will be going to college in Cyprus to study film making while the other’s son is studying in al-Quds University and has no idea as to his future.

It would seem that the purpose of the article was to show how these two men and their children were affected by the move and to highlight the growing dichotomy between the two Palestinian factions and areas.

To me there are some interesting lessons to be learned here. First of all, age old conflicts can take generations before there is even the slightest amount of movement towards resolution. Secondly, the soundest way to strengthen a society is from the bottom up starting with the family unit. The basis of the strength comes from insuring the basics of being able to live a life where there is security and stability, but more importantly, where there are bright possibilities in the future.

The ability for the children of the original Gaza refugees to seek out and obtain education beyond their own country where they are able to learn skills and nurture their talents to benefit their people is a key differentiator. Where squalor and hopelessness prevail, there is an incentive to lash out against real or perceived oppressors.

The parallel to Afghanistan is clear. The Taliban have succeeded in permeating the society and supplanting the government. They have done this on a village by village basis and they have done so over many years.

The ‘new’ US strategy is aimed at dislodging the Taliban because the Taliban provide safe haven to Al Qaeda and our other enemies. Given the number of villages and the time and treasure needed to establish their security and stability – I’m not optimistic.

In the meanwhile it will be up to the tactical PSYOP soldier, buttressed by efforts of local, regional and high level PAOs to constantly paint the positive picture envisioned under a non-Taliban (but not necessarily purely democratic) government. PSYOP and its allied disciplines must constantly strive to publicize ‘good examples’.

PSYOP will also have to be ever watchful for inevitable screw up where injuries or deaths to the civilian population are attributed to the International Security Assistance Force, (ISAF) so as to minimize the negative impact of these incidents and enemy propaganda. Neither of these are easy tasks nor will they be made easier by the surge. President Obama and his key leaders need to be ready to re-evaluate their ‘new’ approach early in the game and often to properly respond as the situation evolves.

Photo source: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cabalamuse.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/palestinian_kids_are_seen_sized.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.palestinecenterblog.org/2009/10/brief-palestinians-must-be-afforded.html&usg=__oNLFK4XB33iphJHq40vB4mEpsgE=&h=436&w=640&sz=79&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=QaOk5wAM-BwcVM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3D2009%2Bpalestine%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

Counter PSYOP – The Hasan Matter

Bad news, unlike wine and chicken soup, does not get better with age. The murders at Fort Hood will haunt our collective consciousness for some time to come. Make no mistake, our enemies are pondering how to use the tragedy for their own purposes and we need to be ready with counter PSYOP, in fact we need to be sending messages right now. Photo credit: AP via Washington Post

Hasan’s links to ‘radical cleric’ (see Washington Post, 18 November 2009 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111703830.html?wpisrc=newsletter) is one of many Monday morning quarterback articles across the media. I won’t concern myself with the law enforcement aspects but point to the PSYOP aspect - -word of mouth, especially from credible (to their audience) religious leaders is a powerful recruiting tool and a means to keep their followers engaged against the perceived enemy.

From an enemy PSYOP perspective let’s honestly reflect on what they have to work with. First of all there is an incredible wealth of video and photographic imagery of the carnage at Fort Hood and pictures of MAJ Hasan in uniform. There is also a wealth of information on his alleged beliefs and even a PowerPoint.

The enemy is more than likely going to employ some of these on the Internet and perhaps even orchestrate the spider webbing of word of mouth showing how the jihad’s righteousness has been accepted by Muslims even in America and even by those who have mistakenly taken up the cause and worn the uniform of the infidel.

What do we need to do about it? First of all we need to reemphasize the message that we are not at war with Islam, but with terrorists. However, while there needs to be direct USG messaging from President Obama and Secret Clinton on down the line, American sources are not enough. We must enlist the aid of credible Muslim religious leaders to speak out against the atrocity and reiterate the criminal, anti-Islamic and abhorrent nature of the act.

We need to show that the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty. If appropriate messaging concerning his medical care after the incident along with the on-going story of the criminal prosecution may be of value.

It might also make sense to have messaging from Muslim Chaplains and individuals currently serving in the US military to underscore the fact that Hasan is an aberration and that serving in the US military is consistent with Islamic beliefs.

The point is we know the enemy is resourceful and employs a high degree of information agility – we need to launch an information offensive before we are caught flat footed once again.

Why drive if you don’t know where you’re going? Or Rudderless in Afghanistan

I have had a nagging feeling that the Af-Pak War as dubbed by correspondent Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/) is a quicksand pit. The more you struggle, the deeper you sink. My sensitivity to the Af-Pak situation was heighted by my recent experience at DINFOS and by watching the PBS documentary Frontline on the evening of 13 October 2009 (http://video.pbs.org/video/1295117818).

President Obama and his advisors are still pondering the strategy for Afghanistan. With apologies to Tommy Turtle who pondered why he could not run (he could not run because HE WAS A TURTLE!), there are a few things that are evident about this conflict:

1. A national government in Afghanistan is a-historic. This means it goes against the country’s history. The country is a collection of disparate tribes who sometimes ban together for their common good.
2. There way of life is alien to the American norm due to a mosaic of corruption, poverty, illiteracy, poppy cultivation, corruption and the less than second class citizen status of women.
3. “Success” in Afghanistan is more than a military effort it will require the national resole, political and public support and significant resources.
4. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) is a NATO force; the reality is that it is very much a US Force.
5. The Taliban are not a homogenous, hierarchal enemy but a collection of clans, tribes and families with resolve, cunning, adaptability who have time on their side.

The lack of a strategy means PSYOP is ‘on hold’. Any positive momentum that has been achieved thus far is likely to be lost with the exception of much localized situations where the efforts have been focused on gaining and maintaining positive relationships rather than delivering an array of messages.

In my view the approach is to work backwards, think bottom up rather than top down. If the goal is to truly change the lives of the Afghan people, then specific tribal and matching geographic areas must be mapped out.

Next develop a desired end state for each area and formulate the plan and resources needed to get there. Each area would be considered a separate ‘project’ and served by a different project team. The team would include age appropriate representatives to work with the tribal elders and resources with knowledgeable and capable interpreters.

The team would then take the vision of the end state and adjust it for reality. We do not want to be in the drastic makeover business. Michael Yon describes Afghanistan as lunar and having been to the Craters of the Moon State Park (http://www.nps.gov/crmo/index.htm) I can tell you that means remote, desolate and primitive.

Our goal therefore is to look at each area and decide what the appropriate and reasonable goals are and identify the resources needed to achieve them. Examples might include reorienting local agriculture from poppy growing to something else by being cognizant of the seasons, the need for farmers to have year round income, the ability to market what is grown, etc. Other examples might include other forms of agricultural assistance.

Local projects would run parallel to a few, well chosen national programs such as training the Army and Police, establishing a functional justice system and upgrading the educational system.

But – no progress can be made until a strategy is set and I urge the President to remember that “Lite” is never as good as the real thing.

Waffling on Afghanistan Strategy Impacts PSYOP – Belies Separate Nature of Two Missions

The recent waffling by the Obama Administration on the strategy for Afghanistan will have a significant dampening effect on the PSYOP effort. PSYOP, like marketing is cumulative. The nature of Afghanistan with its nooks and crannies of tribes and its unforgiving terrain makes the battle for mindspace even more troublesome than in Iraq. The time consuming task of relationship building is paramount.

It would appear that there are two alternative courses of action being considered in Afghanistan. Background can be found in a September 22, NY Times article “Obama Considers Strategy Shift in Afghan War” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/23/world/asia/23policy.html?ref=world) and elsewhere.

Counter Terrorist Strategy

The strategy shift advocated by VP Biden (how he has risen to the level of military strategist is beyond me) is to focus on counter-terrorism. Employ Special Forces, drones, etc. to root out Al Qaeda thereby making American safer from terrorist attacks. Apparently VP Biden proposed this strategy in March as well.

Concentrate on Population Centers

MG McChrystal has told his subordinates to concentrate on populated areas. Background found in the Washington Post article, September 22, 2009 “U.S. Commanders Told to Shift Focus to More Populated Areas” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/09/21/AR2009092103704.html?wpisrc=newsletter)

From a military perspective, it seems to me that the President needs to appreciate the fact that there are two different missions. While the end game of reducing America’s vulnerability to terrorist attacks may be the same for either approach -- there are still two missions.

The first mission is to locate and destroy Al Qaeda and their allies wherever they may reside. Media reports and conventional wisdom seems to indicate that this mission is centered on the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan and often shifts into Pakistani territory. The nature of PSYOP and other elements of influence in this mission are far different from the tasks in Afghanistan. Of necessity targeting in the anti-terrorist mission must be precise, the means varied and the ways innovative. PSYOP via advanced technologies coupled with CNO, EW and other disciplines ought to be aggressively employed. It could be argued that MG Chrystal’s Special Forces experience makes him the perfect orchestrator for such an effort.

The mission inside Afghanistan is quite a bit different. That mission, simply stated is to stabilize the environment within the country to insure that the Taliban is not able to assume control of any portion of the country that would enable Al Qaeda to establish and maintain a safe haven. This is the counter insurgency (COIN) mission and will only succeed if coupled with a robust PSYOP effort.

The challenge to victory is great since the Karzai government has done little to enhance its own legitimacy and to serve the needs of the Afghani people. Consequently, the diplomatic aspect of the Afghanistani mission is to foster good government in spite of ages of corruption and an apparently flawed election.

There is great peril should the Administration embrace the counter terrorism mission and ignore the counter insurgency mission. Ignoring the current flammable situation in Afghanistan and abandoning efforts to thwart the Taliban from gaining power footholds is tantamount to giving Al Qaeda and our other enemies a clear path to establishing safe havens. Once this happens, it will only be a matter of time until the terrorists reach the critical mass needed to launch another attack.

Crucial Time for PSYOP in Afghanistan

The September 3, 2009 Wall Street Journal ran the editorial “The Afghanistan Panic
We can still win a counterinsurgency, but not on the cheap” (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574388483528948634.html) and on the same day, the Washington Post ran a similar editorial: “Setback in Afghanistan: The right response is not a retreat.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/02/AR2009090203083.html). Other articles include the NY Times of September 7, 2009 “Crux of Afghan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror?” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/world/asia/08terror.html?_r=1) and the September 7, 2009 Miami Herald “Clear mission in Afghanistan eludes Obama” (http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/1222430.html)

Photo from the Associated Press (Wall Street Journal) U.S. soldiers secure the site of a suicide attack in Mehterlam, the capital of Laghman province, east of Kabul, Afghanistan on Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2009.

All of these address the need for more ‘boots on the ground’ as a means to implement General McChrystal’s latest strategy which is expected to center on protecting the Afghans against the insurgents.

There is a tendency to compare the current situation in Afghanistan with Iraq before the surge or with the quicksand like conflict known as Viet Nam. Resisting the urge for such comparisons, at least for the moment, let’s start out with what we do know:

1. Combat activity in Afghanistan is higher and more dangerous today than ever before.

2. The Afghan government is viewed as illegitimate and corrupt with the recent election serving more to degrade the government’s reputation with its people rather than bolster it.

3. Afghanistan is a combination of many different localities, each with its own tribal environment, level of security against the insurgent dejure, economic base and perspective on the Americans as the latest military force in the country.

4. The adversaries in Afghanistan have a primitive yet effective Information Operations campaign whereby they can quickly turn incidents such as air strikes and rumors into propaganda vilifying the Americans and reinforcing their high ground positions. Good example is the alleged hospital raid conducted by Americans (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/world/asia/08kabul.html?hpw)

5. Internet and media based messages (good or bad) don’t reach the average Afghan.

Given the above, there are a few things that ought to be done:

1. President Obama has to make it very clear that we are committed for the long haul and that our commitment must be matched by the wholesale cleansing and rededication of the Afghani government.

2. The nature of the mission and strategy in Afghanistan must be clear to everyone, especially to those on the ground so that an aggressive and responsive information engagement strategy and operational plans can be developed to support Commanders on the ground and up the chain of command.

3. DOD should consider fielding more Combat Camera units to capture video on the ground which can be used to confirm actual events and for training/lessons learned.

4. PSYOP needs to be integrated within a real time information engagement operating command section at the highest levels within Afghanistan (military and civilian). This section would have full has media reach via the with PAO. A dimension of the section’s responsibilities ought to be Pan-Regional and include access to all major Arab language outlets to include Aljazeera.

5. Bear in mind that only local relationships and credibility will impact the local village, orchestrate the tools of statecraft at the local level to reinforce the position of local leaders and influencers who are or can be induced to support the Afghani government and US efforts.

6. Should additional troops be assigned, insure that their PSYOP support is increased proportionally as well.

7. Focus on simplicity and attainable objectives at the local level.

White House Homeland Security Council Merged Into the National Security Council

President Obama has directed that the White House Homeland Security Council and the National Security Council be merged with the combined staff of about 240 personnel reporting to National Security Advisor General James Jones, USMC (Ret).

(See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052603148.html?sub=AR or http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/27homeland.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Security%20Shuffle&st=cse) (Photo Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/newsstoryPhoto/2003-01/200301092a.jpg)

The White House website does not have a listing of the members of the NSC except for those who are required to be members by statute. According to the White House Website:

“The NSC is chaired by the President. Its regular attendees (both statutory and non-statutory) are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the Council, and the Director of National Intelligence is the intelligence advisor. The Chief of Staff to the President, Counsel to the President, and the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy are invited to attend any NSC meeting. The Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget are invited to attend meetings pertaining to their responsibilities. The heads of other executive departments and agencies, as well as other senior officials, are invited to attend meetings of the NSC when appropriate.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nsc/)

This is prudent recognition that the dangers facing our country no know borders. The action should have the effect of increased information sharing among staff members and perhaps a more cohesive approach to security issues overall.

A key question that should be raised is: how will the new and improved organization address information engagement issues across the board? It is reasonable to assume that the NSC has a Strategic Communications representative and it is clear that the Press is a critical component of the Homeland Security Council.

At issue is how information will be crafted and distributed under this new approach. The Department of State is the lead for Public Diplomacy, but often lacks the resources and reach to exert information influence in many parts of the world where conflicts exist. On the domestic front, Department of Homeland Security will work with the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) and coordinate incident response using the National Incident Management System (NIMS). Neither of these two organizations have the robust resources that DOD has to deploy under the kind of exceptionally adverse conditions that would exist after major natural disasters or terrorist attacks.

It would appear then the some real work needs to be done to fold DOD resources into the NSC/Homeland Security mix. This work entails more than the development of contingency plans, but has to include a modicum of training for PSYOP and PAO personnel and will have to run across Active, Reserve and National Guard Forces.

Furthermore, the kinds of holistic responses that may be required may also need to employ contingency commercial resources that need to be identified and trained beforehand as well.

Given that DOD is still working out the kinks of how PSYOP and PAO will work together, watching the new and improved NSC unfold will be interesting. Let’s hope the equipping, planning and training takes place before any negative incidents.

Afghan Poppy PSYOP

The Associated Press ran a story on 30 March “US launches new fight against Afghan drug trade”,




Photo Source: Daily Mail, October 13, 2008

see(http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hCUxKbunroDLpz-QKfiKnqI0iAWQD978J8OG0).

The latest approach to negating the flow of money to the Taliban and Al Qaida is much like the DEA’s similar campaigns in Latin America. In addition to attacking the supply of opium and driving up its price, the strategy will also concentrate on drug dealer money laundering.

At first glance this appears to be a win – win situation. Not only do you reduce the amount of drugs in circulation, but you strangle the money faucet to terrorist organizations. Success in Latin America is cited as the model outcome.

I’m not convinced it is as cut and dry as it appears. The crux of my discontent is my continuing crusade for a bottom up information engagement campaign. In this case the bottom of the pile is the farmer. The AP story begs the question of the farmer and concentrates on the Obama Administration’s strategy’s emphasizing the supply and money chains.

Long term problems with drugs will persist as long as there is big money to be paid for drugs and the culture and economic well being of the farmer are dependent on opium. The Department of Agriculture needs to be energized to develop a systematic crop replacement for opium. This replacement needs to be cognizant of the growing environment in Afghanistan and the world demand for whatever the replacement crop needs to be. In addition the crop should mirror growing seasons and be highly adaptive to the climate and soil conditions where poppies are currently cultivated.

The program should also include short term financial support and/or supply of food and other items that would be needed by the farmers while the new crop is growing and the system to harvest and market it matures.

From an information view point a classic marketing ‘teaser’ campaign where pictures of a future secure and prosperous life without the terrorists, Taliban or even unwelcome outsiders of any kind controlling the farmer’s destiny. The messages would stress the increased welfare of the farmers and the positives attributes of the new crop such as positive growing characteristics and a higher income potential.

Unless there is research needs to confirm that there is value to messages concerning the reduction of suffering by elimination of the drug trade, I would not employ these messages, not even in passing.

In short the combination of agricultural insight, micro-financing and tribally tuned information engagement is the right way to deal with the Afghan opium supply and a strategy that has a far better chance of long term success.

PSYOP Surged in Afghanistan?

President Obama has agreed with SecDef Gates that a surge is what is needed in Afghanistan to turn the growing tide of violence and to deal with the annual Taliban spring offensive. Units that were scheduled to go to Iraq are being re-directed to Afghanistan with the popular opinion that “a surge worked in Iraq and by golly it ought to work in Afghanistan also.”

I’m reminded of the expression “ready to fight the last war”. Afghanistan has withstood the efforts of would be conquers for centuries, Pakistan is no more settled on its approach to the tribal no man’s land today than it was years ago. Is more troops the answer? I’m inclined to think not exactly.

Merely increasing the amount of US footprint might increase the security for a while, but unless there are fundamental changes in the Afghani tribal security picture, the economy and the government, a troop surge is like adding more crew to the Titanic.

Some fundamental questions need to be raised – which have hopefully been asked answered. Questions like:

Is there an overall information engagement plan for the country?

Have the vagaries of large numbers of disparate tribes with low levels of literacy or specialty dialects been factored into the overall plan?

Are PSYOP soldiers training with the newly redirected units?

Has the linguistic pool been increased to provide the larger force with the coverage they will need?

What lessons learned in Iraq can REALLY be applied to Afghanistan?

Will the low level of technology and mass media aid or hamper PSYOP and information engagement efforts?

Does it make sense to build up a journalistic infrastructure in Afghanistan? If so, under whose auspices?

Given that Afghanistan is a NATO mission will US training and doctrine easily mesh with other nations’?

Are multi-national exercises or combined-joint pre-deployment training planned?

Strikes me that the mission in Afghanistan is far more dangerous and far more complex than Iraq. Afghanistan lacks the urban clusters of Iraq and it’s ethnic composition is more of a mosaic than a simple bifurcation.

It’s clear to me that adaptation and innovation are key to success in Afghanistan. Perhaps we’ll need to mount some loudspeakers on the local transportation show above. (Photo courtesy of: http://www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/homepagephoto/2008-07/hires_080709-M-6668G-021b.jpg)

PSYOP and Mexico

Joel Kurtzman of the Miliken Institute warns “Mexico’s Instability is a Real Problem postulates the possibility of a failed state on our southern border. (see http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123206674721488169.html)

This possibility is supported by no less authority than the Joint Forces Command’s report entitled Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2008 (found at: http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2008/JOE2008.pdf) which says “In particular, the growing assault by the drug cartels and their thugs on the Mexican government over the past several years reminds one that an unstable Mexico could represent a homeland security problem of immense proportions to the United States.”

Let’s explore a hypothetical scenario. Let’s suppose that two drug cartels decide that they have enough fire and economic power to take over a border city each. They target Tijuana, across the border from San Diego, CA and Ciudad Juarez across the border from El Paso, TX. Each city with a population of 1.5 million people and a comprabley large US city across the border. As it turns out San Diego has a large Navy population and Fort Bliss is not too far from El Paso.

Further let’s assume that the two cartels have signed a non-compete agreement with each other and have enlisted a variety of allied thugs who are only too happy to have exclusive territorial rights and are willing to provide men, guns and drugs to defend the newly won turf.

The Mexican forces prove unable to dislodge the cartels and the President of Mexico appeals to the US to help out.

Meanwhile, the cartels have already made forays across the border on both sides with a spike of violent crime reported on both sides of the border.

The following questions jump out:
How quickly could coordinated forces be brought to bear to address the physical threat?
What kind of information engagement would be mounted to attack the drug forces while assuaging and safeguarding the civilian populations on both sides?
How would the information engagement be coordinated so that all elements including CNA and CNE are employed?
How can the friction between PAO and PSYOP be minimized across all the players?

From a PSYOP perspective do you deploy the forces that are closest and most available (the Reserve Force) or do you deploy active forces from Fort Bragg?

If you decide that a combined PSYOP Task Force (POTF) is the right answer, who formulates the TO&E? To whom does its CDR report? Who should command it?

Who is in charge? State? Defense? The Governors of California or Arizona? Or will the newly elected President decide that he needs to be hands on. It certainly would be the first time that an ultra senior official felt they were smart enough and capable enough to direct what might ordinarily be a lower echelon campaign.

I’ll leave y’all to ponder these questions and for my US colleagues, I hope your team wins on Sunday!

PSYOP and Obama’s New Approach to Afghanistan

First of all to my fellow veterans, thank you. Take a bit of time today, Veteran’s Day to reflect on how we all have helped make this country a bit more secure and a better place.

There can be no doubt that the man who beat Hillary Clinton (I think defeating McCain/Palin was a cakewalk in comparison) and who has decided to get a pound puppy instead of a pedigree for his children will bring a new perspective on information engagement across the board. President-elect Obama’s management of his own election and his exploitation of the Internet should leave no doubt that the potential to finally harness the power of information in pursuing USG goals is finally at hand.

While it is unreasonable to expect a wholesale change of personnel in DoD, the new administration will bring a new perspective and hopefully wrangle the USG internecine departmental battles over strategic communications, public affairs and information engagement in general into a cohesive and synergistic effort.

Having said that, it seems to me that the most likely place to start is Afghanistan. Today’s Washington Post featured an article: “Obama to Explore New Approach in Afghanistan War” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/11/10/AR2008111002897.html?wpisrc=newsletter&sid=ST2008111100889&s_pos=) buried in that article are two paragraphs I believe are worth a second look:

“At the White House, presidential adviser Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute is leading an interagency assessment of the Afghanistan war, scheduled to be finished this month, that administration officials said will focus on enhancing support for provincial and local governments and building the Afghan police. Lute plans to travel to Brussels to summarize the review for NATO.”

“At the Pentagon, Mullen is overseeing an Afghanistan and Pakistan transition strategy and force-structure review by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, while Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former Iraq commander sworn in last month as head of the U.S. Central Command, is drawing up plans for his wider new responsibilities, which include Iraq and Afghanistan.”

The first paragraph calls for “support for provincial and local governments and building the Afghan police”. These tasks will require increased PSYOP and CA efforts. Outside major cities in Afghanistan these efforts will be grass roots efforts building trust in these institutions, publicizing their successes and encouraging popular support. Likely this will require an increase in CA and PSYOP resources – given today’s optempo where will they come from? This type of effort should also harness resources from Department of Justice to strengthen not just the police force, but the judicial system behind it.

The second paragraph alludes to the fact the Gen Petraeus is no doubt considering how he will work with his new Commander-in-Chief. It’s my feeling that Gen Petraeus and President-elect Obama will likely have far more intellectually in common than President Bush does with the general. Consequently, this is an opportune time for Gen Petraeus to push for a more ambitious information engagement plan – one that is more inclusive of new resources to include support by cabinet offices beyond DoD and Department of State.

In any event, I believe that the new President will bring a level of intellectual rigor to the Whitehouse that it hasn’t seen in quite some time and that this will hopefully benefit the PSYOP Community.

Obama The PSYOP President?

Senator Obama has proven himself to be an astute student of Information Operations, PSYOP in particular. I saw a June 23 article in the Washington Post, Obama Reintroduces Himself to Voters and there have been other articles in other media all pointing to the Senator’s command of IO. There is also a Washington Post Blog dealing with the ad campaign at: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/obama_launches_nationwide_ad_c.html?sid=ST2008062300020

He has done a target analysis and knows that states with the most electoral votes are the targets to shoot at. He realizes that perception is reality as noted in an earlier post where I talked about his Internet trackers.

There are some other PSYOP fundamentals in the Obama campaign as well. Senator Obama is sending an array of messages to either signal his intentions or mask them. The Washington Post article said: “The scope of Obama's first advertising buy sent an unmistakable signal to McCain and the GOP that, at least initially, the senator from Illinois will invest money in states no Democrat has won in years, including Georgia, Indiana and Alaska.” This type of move is reasoned, clever and elegant. If Senator Obama can achieve measureable results in contested areas, consolidate these gains and ultimately prevail it will be because he attacked early on the information front and adjusted as effects were known.

Regardless of Senator Obama’s success in these areas, it will force Senator McCain to take some sort of counter moves thereby diluting whatever other efforts he might have had planned.

The Internet will be an important battlefield for this year’s election and it is pretty clear to me that Senator Obama has done well there, recognizes the nature of the beast and is not afraid to pump money into this medium as well. In fact, yesterday I noticed that there was an ad from Senator Obama on my Linkedin Home Page.

In short, Senator Obama appears to have an understanding of PSYOP and IO. Should he get elected, it would be refreshing to see a Commander in Chief who knows a little more about the pen than the sword.