"Public Diplomacy is a cornerstone of today’s influence operations. The MISO [Military Information Support Operations] Community has a symbiotic relationship with the Department of State. MIS teams may be employed to support embassy staff on one end of the spectrum and on the other MIS Task Forces may be deployed to hostile areas to take on the primary burden of supporting US informational efforts."
--Lawrence Dietz, PSYOP Regimental Blog: Authoritative source of information on Psychological Operations (PSYOP) or as it is now called Military Information Support Operations (MISO). Written by a retired senior Army Officer and former Honorary Colonel of the PSYOP Regiment; image from, with caption: Air University offers a one-week Information Operations Fundamentals Applications Course for rated officers and Airmen in public affairs and communications career fields with the ranks E-3 through 0-5.
Comment: I find the above observation, no matter how well-intentioned, unsettling. As a former U.S. Public Diplomacy practitioner for over twenty years, I saw my job, at its best, as not a "cornerstone" of "influence operations," but rather as the sharing of ideas and experiences, primarily about America, with the best and brightest in other countries. And, while I got along very well with military colleagues at our American embassies, many of whom I admired, including for their public relations skills, I never considered my relationship with them as "symbiotic," as we were engaged in very different kinds of activities -- both activities, let us hope, being carried out in the U.S. national interest, but by no means equivalent.
At the risk of generalizing, I would say that "influence operations" are essentially meant to defeat an enemy. In contrast, USG-funded public diplomacy -- at its most commendable, polite but honest communication between U.S. diplomats and non-American opinion-makers of diverse backgrounds and interests -- seeks to find common ground with fellow human beings, for the interests and aspirations of all involved.
Note: My comment in this entry has been repeatedly but not substantially updated, a reflection of the complexity of the subject.
5 comments:
Noble thoughts John; and the best of what we civies should expect of a balanced diplomatic corps. America with you, not against or above you-
Good for you. When people fail to make distinctions like the ones you have drawn, we are all in trouble
I understand your point John, and it's nothing less than I would expect from someone deeply invested in the practice of PD. However, do you not think Dietz's comments reflect a reality that MISO/PSYOPS is becoming a much wider assignment than "defeating an enemy" in he traditional sense?
Much contemporary MISO doctrine talks about winning 'hearts and minds' and denying the enemy the support of civilian populations. If this is done through the regional combattant commands what we are really talking about is broad ideological warfare over a number of social, political and cultural issues. Special Operations MISO teams work in embassies providing Cultural Intelligence Cells to both military and civilian communicators. Is it really such a jump to see this as a 'symbiotic relationship'?
I know there is an institutional reticence to draw any parallel with military PSYOPS/IO. One very good reason for this is that such a parallel may serve to discredit public diplomacy practitioners through association with less open communication practices. You talk about "seeking to find common ground" for the interests "of all involved", and I don't doubt this is truly how you see it. But is this how the foreign policy establishment sees it? I don't think so. This sort of empathy and engagement is the approach taken for pragmatic reasons - it's the best way to have an influence over others, which is the strategic role PD plays.
I would question how far this approach - albeit dressed up with different language and protocols - diverges from contemporary MISO objectives of learning about how to think like, understand, and win over the publics of foreign countries to meet strategic objectives. I know it's never going to be seen this way, at least in public, by PD practitioners. But I think there is certainly a convergence of practice and strategic goals between PD and MISO that Dietz is honest enough to recognise.
We have to ask ourselves, John, WHY did the taxpayers pay for us to conduct public diplomacy?
I believe the reason we conduct public diplomacy is pretty much the same reason our military conducts their information operations: to influence foreign people and to achieve U.S. national interests.
I don't doubt you are very busy, John, but I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on these comments.
Post a Comment