One area of US national security that is under frequent scrutiny and reevaluation isInformation Operations (IO). Recently, a new definition of IO was proposed, which is to be usedin forthcoming joint doctrine. The old definition is derived from doctrine published on February13th, 2006. After a little less than five years, has the old definition proven to be so inadequate asto threaten the US’s national security, requiring a new definition be postulated? Is the proposechange simply an example of change for change’s sake, and therefore, of little significance or indeed a hindrance to the act of securing the nation? Most important, which definition better serves IO practitioners, to include support elements such as the IC, in conducting IO? This essaywill answers these questions and by its end show that the change to the established definition of IO is a warranted change and the resulting definition an acceptable one in connection withguiding, for their particular part, the IC in helping to secure the US through IO.
BODY OF EVIDENCE
The established definition for IO as abstracted from Joint Publication 3-13,
, is as follows:IO are described as the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PYSOP), military deception(MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting andrelated capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human andautomated decision making while protecting our own
The new definition currently in staffing, from USD (I) is as follows, “Information Operations(IO) are the integrated employment of capabilities in the information environment to affect thehuman and automated decision making of adversaries and as appropriate, neutrals, while protecting our own.
Joint Publication 3-13, Information Operations
, (D.C.: GPO, 2006), I-1.
New definition currently in staffing from USD(I), (2010).