Public Intelligence

This handbook provides the tactical operator, commander, and battle staff with information on planning, executing, assessing, and sustaining information operations (IO). The handbook is based on observations collected in Iraq during July and August 2004 by an IO collection and analysis team (CAAT). The application of this tool is both for training and real-world events the Soldier may encounter in the Iraqi area of operations.

The Joint Civil Information Management Tactical Handbook is designed to provide joint procedures and standardized formats for the collection and reporting of civil data to support the Joint Force Commander planning and execution of operations. The publication consolidates the Services’ best tactics, techniques and procedures.

The aim of this reference book is to provide the additional information needed by Information Operations (Info Ops) practitioners to better understand and implement the advising and coordinating function of Info Ops in the staffs throughout all levels of command. The reference book covers the experiences and lessons learned on principles, procedures, and techniques in current operations as well as some basic understanding on how to best integrate the Info Ops function in the new evolving structures (new Peacetime Establishment) and procedures within NATO with respect to effects based thinking and the new Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive.

The Information Environment (IE) comprises the information itself, the individuals, organizations and systems that receive, process and convey the information, and the cognitive, virtual and physical space in which this occurs. This environment has seen significant changes in recent years. The importance of worldwide distributed information, the speed at which information is communicated, the role of social media and the reliability of information systems have created a situation in which no Alliance decision or action can be taken without considering its potential impact on the IE. The ubiquitous nature of information and the potential strategic ramifications of tactical actions add to the challenge faced by NATO Commanders. In this new IE it is more difficult to distinguish between the strategic, operational and tactical levels. The coordination, synchronisation and execution of information activities (IA) that deliberately create desired effects in the IE is essential to the Alliance’s successful functioning in peace, crisis and conflict.

The purpose of Allied Joint Publication (AJP)-3.10 Allied Joint Doctrine for Information Operations is to explain how Info Ops support the planning, conduct and assessment of operations. The provenance for AJP-3.10 is MC 422/3 NATO Military Policy on Information Operations, which clearly acknowledges the primacy of civil/political direction on information issues and that the policy and subordinate doctrine applies to the military lever of power only. AJP-3.10 is focused on the operational level. It defines and discusses principles of Info Ops, and highlights those particular Info Ops considerations relevant to the conduct of operations, such as the sensitivity to political factors, and the role of non-military entities and emerging technological capabilities in the information environment, both within and external to NATO.

The effective employment of IO to influence primary target audiences, including the population, local leaders, host nation security forces, government officials, and insurgents, is a key component of counterinsurgency (COIN) operations.

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.

All assets and capabilities at a commander’s disposal have the capacity to inform and influence selected audiences to varying degrees. While specific assets termed as “information-related capabilities” are information-centric in mission and purpose, others are standard capabilities that inform and influence officers use for planning to support commanders’ information strategy and mission objectives. The primary information-related capabilities that support inform and influence activities typically include, but are not limited to, public affairs, military information support operations, combat camera, Soldier and leader engagement, civil affairs, cyber electromagnetic activities, counterintelligence, operations security, military deception, and others so designated by a commander. In addition to the primary information-related capabilities, there are operational capabilities not solely designed to inform or influence that commanders can designate to assist in achieving mission objectives, such as maneuver forces, engineers, and medical units. Success depends on commanders and staffs effectively employing all available operational assets to best shape the information environment.

Several US PACCOM Global Information Grid 3.0 Design Presentations from 2010 through 2011.

Marine Corps Warfighting Publication (MCWP) 3-40.4, Marine Air-Ground Task Force Information Operations, operationalizes the concept of information operations (IO). This publication introduces doctrine for employment of IO in support of Marine air-ground task force (MAGTF) operations. IO language and organizations continue to evolve and to be debated. This publication gives Marines a warfighter’s orientation to IO, providing a basis to understand the relevance of IO and a framework to implement IO. This publication is intended for MAGTF planners responsible for both operational and IO planning.

IDF Brief: Battle for the Narrative in Low Intensity Conflicts, March 2005.

U.S. Army Installation Information Infrastructure Architecture Technical Guide, Distribution Statement C, July 2008.

Information Operations (BOTTOM LINE)

•IT IS NOT:
–All about technology
–Focused on individual capabilities, i.e., PYSOP, EW, CNO, etc
–Strategic Communication
–Public Affairs

•IT IS:
–All about influencing key decision makers and populations through operations within and affecting the information environment
–The art of integrating lethal and non-lethal capabilities to affect the information environment (supports combat operations)
–Employed across the spectrum of conflict and throughout every phase (0-5) of operations
–Consistent with strategic communication goals and synchronized with public affairs

NSA Global Information Grid Information Assurance Roadmap, October 26, 2004.

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s assessment of the future operational environment highlights the importance of all aspects of information on the future battlefield. Army forces operate in and among human populations, facing hybrid threats that are innovative, networked, and technologically-savvy. These threats capitalize on emerging technologies to establish and maintain a cultural and social advantage; leveraging these new capabilities for command and control, recruiting, coordinating logistics, raising funds, and propagandizing their message. To operate effectively in this emerging environment, the Army must realign its information “Aim Point.” Army leaders and Soldiers must possess an in-depth understanding of how to leverage information-based capabilities to gain and maintain situational awareness. Understanding how to fight for and leverage the power of information, while denying the adversary’s ability to do the same, will be increasingly critical to success on the future battlefield.

Below are some suggestions on why to release information as early as possible:

1. The American public, Congress and the media are entitled to “timely and accurate” information about the military, per the DoD Principles of Information (See Appendix).

2. Early release of information sets the pace and tone for resolution of a problem.

3. If you wait, the story will often leak anyway. If it does, you jeopardize trust and credibility.

The concept of strategic communication is an often-discussed topic within government policy circles and at all levels of professional military education. Doctrinal definitions are continually updated and refined to the point that few appear to agree upon the role that strategic communication should play as either a diplomatic function, an aspect of military operational planning, or a process to be executed in the course of national policy. There are, however, a set of key points that all sides seem to agree upon.

•Overview of Naval Network Warfare Command
•PR 11 IPL Goals and Objectives
•Priorities By FORCEnet Pillars
–Communications and Networks (C/N)
–Command and Control Systems (C2)
–Information Operations (IO)
–Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR)

Product Manager Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (C4ISR) On-The-Move (PM C4ISR OTM), is a Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM) Communications-Electronics Research, Development and Engineering Center (CERDEC) organization, chartered in June 2006 to perform integrated C4ISR System of Systems (SoS) Live/Virtual/Constructive (L/V/C) technology demonstrations on a year-round basis.

The INFOCON system provides a framework within which the Commander USSTRATCOM (CDRUSSTRATCOM), regional commanders, service chiefs, base/post/camp/station/vessel commanders, or agency directors can increase the measurable readiness of their networks to match operational priorities.

Since 2005, GAO has reported that DHS has yet to comprehensively satisfy its key cybersecurity responsibilities, including those related to establishing effective partnerships with the private sector. Shortcomings exist in key areas that are essential for DHS to address in order to fully implement its cybersecurity responsibilities (see table). DHS has since developed and implemented certain capabilities, but still has not fully satisfied aspects of these responsibilities and needs to take further action to enhance the public/private partnerships needed to adequately protect cyber critical infrastructure. GAO has also previously reported on significant security weaknesses in systems supporting two of the department’s programs, one that tracks foreign nationals entering and exiting the United States, and one for matching airline passenger information against terrorist watch-list records. DHS has corrected information security weaknesses for systems supporting the terrorist watch-list, but needs to take additional actions to mitigate vulnerabilities associated with systems tracking foreign nationals.

The Headquarters of the National Security Agency is located on Route 32 just south of the Baltimore/Washington Parkway, on Fort Meade. No formal means of visiting the NSA headquarters exists, but a look at the historic side of code breaking is provided at the neighboring National Cryptologic Museum located north of the headquarters on Route 32.

The President directed a 60-day, comprehensive, “clean-slate” review to assess U.S. policies and structures for cybersecurity. Cybersecurity policy includes strategy, policy, and standards regarding the security of and operations in cyberspace, and encompasses the full range of threat reduction, vulnerability reduction, deterrence, international engagement, incident response, resiliency, and recovery policies and activities, including computer network operations, information assurance, law enforcement, diplomacy, military, and intelligence missions as they relate to the security and stability of the global information and communications infrastructure. The scope does not include other information and communications policy unrelated to national security or securing the infrastructure. The review team of government cybersecurity experts engaged and received input from a broad cross-section of industry, academia, the civil liberties and privacy communities, State governments, international partners, and the Legislative and Executive Branches. This paper summarizes the review team’s conclusions and outlines the beginning of the way forward towards a reliable, resilient, trustworthy digital infrastructure for the future.

The U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) is a proposed Major Command of the United States armed forces set to be operational by October of 2009 and at full operational capacity later the following year. The command will be located at Fort Meade, Maryland in the same installation as the National Security Agency. The proposed director of U.S. Cyber Command is Lieutenant General Keith B. Alexander, the current director of the National Security Agency. Mr. Alexander is also the former Director of Intelligence for CENTCOM and an attendee of the 2009 Bilderberg meeting in Athens, Greece.

Cyberspace and its associated technologies offer unprecedented opportunities to the United States and are vital to our Nation’s security and, by extension, to all aspects of military operations. Yet our increasing dependency on cyberspace, alongside a growing array of cyber threats and vulnerabilities, adds a new element of risk to our national security. To address this risk effectively and to sccure freedom of action in cyberspace, the Department of Defense requires a command that posscsses the required technical capability and remains fbcused on the integration or cyberspace operations. Further, this command must be capable or synchronizing wartIghting effects across the global security environment as well as providing support to civil authorities and intemnational partners.