The USA Needs a Lead "Facilitator" for the Cognitive Domain
The US Government's Information Operations
Lead - Must NOT be in the Pentagon. And it may be useful to have a
Secretary for Influence Operations - but what' really missing?
Simple coordination and teamwork. We
need a true conductor, a lead, a facilitator with certain authorities, but not
the direct control. Why?
Because we need to learn how to operate as a
"whole of government" enterprise, and get out of our industrial age
mind sets, cultural impediments, and egos.
For example, the DoD - is a department, one
team, yeah sure. That's the problem. We reinforce the
"Titanium Cylinders of Sub-Excellence" and the reward system that
should support innovation, collaboration, information sharing, etc. is
BROKEN.
We compete - yes we do it very well, against
ourselves. While I applaud LTG Fogarty's efforts in moving to Information
Operations, as well as his service cohorts - there is NOTHING stopping them,
OSD P, SO/LIC, DOS, DHS, the IC, etc. in getting together to lay out a
strategy, priorities, a strategic implementation plan etc. except
themselves. As a matter of fact, just ask WHAT are the four services
doing in concert - to build a multi-domain, integrated, resilient information
operations enterprise? Each of them are moving Cyber to Info Ops, but
again, separate, silent and with some, but far from enough integrated
planning. It's not rewarded, so why try.
Leaders - true leaders - do not need to own,
control, etc. all. That's an industrial age model. While it is
useful to have the $$, authority etc., if we wait for those fights we'll kill
ourselves first before our enemies do.
WHAT'S NEEDED? = FACILITATOR W/POTUS EO
authorities to see all, and advise.
We need the SECDEF, DNI, and NSC to
designate a lead "facilitator" who by Executive Order is
given access to ALL information, structure, manning etc.., and who reports to
the NSA and the POTUS directly.
Now, why in the heck would I say the
above? Because it's by far the most logical, simple, and direct way to
drive action. The NDAAs, NSS, etc. have already laid out requirements for
the COCOMs to develop priorities, the Joint Staff already does planning, etc.
But for some reason - in this arena - hell would freeze over first before we
got our act together. If you read the NDAA 2017 and 2019, you'll see that
the DOD is SUPPORTING the lead element for Countering Disinformation and
Propaganda - the Global Engagement Center. So, how's that support thing
going? NOT.
LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY -
The hardest thing to do is to lead, but not
own. During my last three years in the DoD US Army G2, I led a forum
of 700 plus members across 100+ IC, DOD, Federal organizations. The key
things I learned from this effort that apply here are that:
1. IMPACT: People want to make an impact -
and if there is a priority, they will circle the wagons in an instant to help -
until of course someone beats them for collaborating. When we called
special sessions to help a deploying general officer in this area - the
community responded. What is perfect? No. But it gave that general
officer a far better picture of what the left and right hands where doing, than
he had before. And, it gave him a few additional touch points. The
general's efforts were a priority for the CSA, the Chairman JCS and the
POTUS. But given the 1000 strategies and priorities, the support was
helpful, but was far from optimal.
2. INNOVATION: If you provide a way to share
information about programs and new technologies - albeit many are loathe to do
so in worry over their cheese being moved (so they hide or control their
information) - others learn, leverage and not only avoid duplication, but
advance innovation.
3. EMPOWERED & ENABLED: If you share all
of your contact with others, staff from low to high, they are further ENABLED
because they can go directly to xx person and ask, help, etc.
THE MISSING LINKS:
What's missing? Shared and known priorities, the strategy and the
implementation plan.
Lacking that we have 1000 strategies of
mediocracy, going in 1000 different directions, leveraging little, informing
few, and perpetuating internal competition while the Chines and Russians kick
our ass, over, and over and over.
Hell, we're not even ready to combat the
disinformation and propaganda for the 2020 election - and we've had four
years. Why? Everyone owns a piece of the pie, but they are mostly all
doing their own thing, their own way, and NONE of them is likely doing
anything proactive. This includes efforts to preclude, impede,
or minimize and drive influence operations that cause our adversaries to
react.
It's time we get off the dime. Many
are trying and many are willing to do the right thing. But most are doing
their own thing, while they await the "leader" to be
designated. Stop. Designate someone in each department, from them,
let them choose a lead facilitator in lieu of an EO. Team work,
team! It's hard, but not that hard. But let's stop making excuses
that we can't leverage the capacity, capabilities and people we now have
working influence operations better.
We can wait for the "chosen one,"
or we can act as a team and put egos aside and start driving proactive
influence operations - via a whole of government approach, and provide this
POTUS and others far more options than the one kinetic hammer we hand him as a
default.
Or, we can watch as China and Russia
continue to cause us to react in our perpetual reactive posture.
Thanx to René Díaz for highlighting the
below article in a LinkedIn Post.
https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2020/02/should-us-have-secretary-influence-operations/163272/
Comments
Post a Comment