3 ms·

At a purely definitive level, no. PsyOp cannot create a campaign (i.e. a coordinated approach to influence with objectives, timelines, etc.) with US citizens as

At a purely definitive level, no. PsyOp cannot create a campaign (i.e. a coordinated approach to influence with objectives, timelines, etc.) with US citizens as an intended audience, but there truly isn't much difference between public relations / mass communication and some core PsyOp procedures. That said, I think our intelligence community and executive branch did an incredible job of establishing themselves as a high-credibility source from even before the invasion, allowing them to easily counter propaganda sponsored by Russia or whomever else. In my opinion, honest communication and appeals to morality / humanity will always remain effective.

wolverine876 5y ago
> I think our intelligence community and executive branch did an incredible job of establishing themselves as a high-credibility source from even before the invasion, allowing them to easily counter propaganda sponsored by Russia or whomever else. I noticed that too, and I've seen a few experts other than you say it. I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations. Others like the Russians seemed to run circles around the US, which would produce anodyne responses much too late. I despaired that the US didn't seem to prioritize it, and would inevitably lose contests for hearts and minds, and lose them gradually in the long run. Organizationally, what do you think was the difference that motivated this change? Will it happen again?
- wolverine876 5y ago
  I realize that wasn't clear and I'm too late to edit the parent: In the past, "I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations." Now it seems different. What changed organizationally? Can it be sustained?
  - boston_clone 5y ago
    I think we're simply seeing the positive effects of an administration that cooperates with the intelligence community, and not just unidirectionally. There are numerous reports to dig up about how the former admin flat-out ignored or went directly contrary to what the IC was saying, and I think that hurt us more than we will ever know.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Beyond a doubt, I think that's an enormous improvement. Imagine Trump trying to plan, coordinate, and execute this response across the federal government, NATO, the EU, and countries worldwide. However, my (vague, inexpert) impression goes back long before Trump. Obama, etc. seemed always a day late and a dollar short. Remember Obama's response to Russian interference in our elections? Not the actions (which I doubt many remember), but the words? Neither do I.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        Apparently, "integrated deterrence" is a DoD concept for integrating all (or much) of the executive branch in objectives - sanctions, information operations, etc. Perhaps that's what we saw in regard to Russia and Ukraine. According to one Congressperson, it's the first time it was applied to a real situation. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/03/03/congressman-argues-us-deterrence-strategy-failed-to-protect-ukraine-and-could-fail-taiwan-too/ https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/03/03/congressman-... (I don't agree with the claim that it failed, but that's not the part of the article I'm insterested in.)

wolverine876 5y ago

> I think our intelligence community and executive branch did an incredible job of establishing themselves as a high-credibility source from even before the invasion, allowing them to easily counter propaganda sponsored by Russia or whomever else. I noticed that too, and I've seen a few experts other than you say it. I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations. Others like the Russians seemed to run circles around the US, which would produce anodyne responses much too late. I despaired that the US didn't seem to prioritize it, and would inevitably lose contests for hearts and minds, and lose them gradually in the long run. Organizationally, what do you think was the difference that motivated this change? Will it happen again?

wolverine876 5y ago
I realize that wasn't clear and I'm too late to edit the parent: In the past, "I've always thought that the US fell far behind on information operations." Now it seems different. What changed organizationally? Can it be sustained?
- boston_clone 5y ago
  I think we're simply seeing the positive effects of an administration that cooperates with the intelligence community, and not just unidirectionally. There are numerous reports to dig up about how the former admin flat-out ignored or went directly contrary to what the IC was saying, and I think that hurt us more than we will ever know.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Beyond a doubt, I think that's an enormous improvement. Imagine Trump trying to plan, coordinate, and execute this response across the federal government, NATO, the EU, and countries worldwide. However, my (vague, inexpert) impression goes back long before Trump. Obama, etc. seemed always a day late and a dollar short. Remember Obama's response to Russian interference in our elections? Not the actions (which I doubt many remember), but the words? Neither do I.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      Apparently, "integrated deterrence" is a DoD concept for integrating all (or much) of the executive branch in objectives - sanctions, information operations, etc. Perhaps that's what we saw in regard to Russia and Ukraine. According to one Congressperson, it's the first time it was applied to a real situation. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/03/03/congressman-argues-us-deterrence-strategy-failed-to-protect-ukraine-and-could-fail-taiwan-too/ https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2022/03/03/congressman-... (I don't agree with the claim that it failed, but that's not the part of the article I'm insterested in.)