The Branch Formerly Known As PSYOP

The Branch Formerly Known As PSYOP

Names Influence

By Edward Lopacienski, MAJ, PO

This article does not refute the directive to change the name of ARSOF’s Psychological

appropriate brand and name for the US Military’s foremost experts in influence warfare.

It could very well be perceived that we are being deceptive with this name change. 

Names, more specifically brand names, are crucial in establishing an organization’s

effectiveness and competitive place in its operating and target market environments. 

The branch identity can still be shaped, and should assume a name that enhances

the PSYOP force rather than serve as an equivocal impairment the PSYOP label is

determined to have on the community.

Re-branding the branch is now an order, and should be embraced with initiative

versus sitting back and waiting for a decision on what it will become.  It’s

a well established principle within the marketing and public relations communities

that re-branding an established organization is a risky venture at best.  Re-branding

risks forsaking the development and retention of a truly professional and consistent

brand identity that is clearly recognized and understood across the many environments

it operates within.   Organizational self identity and target market environments

have direct impacts on the organization.[1] 

Re-branding risks stakeholder and audience doubts about the company/organization.

It can create confusion about what the organization does.  Such a change creates

confusion about what the new brand does and how it can help target markets and stakeholder

support.  Changing names/brands can create indecision about working with the

re-branded organization, and may even create distrust.[2] 

A perception of what a company does and what it is perceived at doing can create

a gulf between an organization and its own environments.  Cautionary principles

aside, re-branding must choose a successful standout identity.[3]

A standout identity is one that solidifies the very foundation of an organization’s

internal self identity, and also resonates within target market in such a way that

the brand identity itself is sufficient to stand against its external competitors.[4]  

With a standout identity in place, trust is developed faster, positive word of mouth

spreads, and stakeholder and audience buy-in build more effectively.  More

importantly, an organization is only as effective as its personnel quality and leadership. 

It is common knowledge that organizational self identity and motivation enables

recruitment of more competitive and qualitative employees.  Google, Apple,

the Marine Corps, Army Rangers, Special Forces, and other such prestigious entities

are prime examples of how brand recognition directly impacts the internal and external

operating environments of these organizations.

Names matter; they reflect how we think of ourselves and how others think of

us.  Potential recruits don’t aspire to join the maritime expeditionary group,

the parachute force or gifted forces; they volunteer to be Marines, Rangers, and

Special Forces.  Young kids don’t root for the Chicago Butterflies; they grow

up wanting to play for the Chicago Bears or New York Yankees.  We need to take

greater ownership of this order to change the PSYOP name by taking the initiative

and owning the process to develop a new identity and more advanced role for the

force.  It almost seems as if PSYOP’s new purpose is being shaped as a benign

information supplier subordinate to IO (who are less experienced and trained to

execute these tasks or manage them) rather than an entity designed to proactively

affect foreign audience behavior, perceptions, and dispositions in an effort to

disrupt the mass of hostile and malicious influence efforts conducted by our enemies

every day. 

The new name should resonate across internal and external organizational and

operational environments.  In this case, PSYOP’s new name isn’t a case of whether

it is “cool enough” but more of one that captures what the branch is intended to

do or should be doing; influence warfare against hostile enemy influence attacks

to subvert the United States and its partner nations.   PSYOP is an Army

maneuver and fires force designed to directly confront or prevent enemy efforts

from maliciously influencing and affecting target audiences.  The new name

(i.e. brand) and/or refined function must be one that resonates in accordance with

the warrior culture of the military, and doesn’t create uncertainty of value or

purpose.  The new brand must resonate within the greater military environment,

and more specifically with its SOF community.  It should be one that can develop

prestige, builds organizational pride, and attracts the educated and intellectual

type-A personality Soldiers into the influence warrior culture. 

The name should be less concerned about the vocal minority’s criticism and the

fickle media’s interest for sensationalized stories, and more focused on owning

the purpose of influencing embattled target audiences based on the positive ideals

of freedom the U.S. and its military stand for.  Names matter and it is even

reflected by our adversaries.  Al Qaeda, Jemaah Islamiyah, Taliban, and Quds

force all reflect the intent to influence their own members and audiences that support

and opposed to these groups.  The new brand should be one that sends a message

to those who attempt to misinform and maliciously manipulate the human terrain for

influence superiority.[5] 

We need to move away from the information moniker and theme, and focus more on

what our SOF function is: Influencing specific audiences for desired affects that

shape the operational environment and stand against the enemy’s influence efforts. 

The PSYOP is specifically defined and designed as a force meant to operate and affect

the cognitive processes of foreign and enemy audiences by disrupting/defeating hostile

and malicious influence efforts by our adversaries.  A title incorporating

"Information" further creates confusion with Information Operations, Public Affairs,

Information Technologies, Information Systems, and Public Information Services. 

All of which are military and civilian professions (domestic and international)

whose definitions and purposes differ from (what was) PSYOP is tasked to accomplish. 

The comparison, or more appropriately blurring, between PSYOP and IO already

creates vast levels of confusion throughout DoD and the interagency system. 

IO itself seems somewhat fractured or disoriented.[6] 

Their generic and limited experience base, short training program, and the elusive

task as coordinator between the so-called IO pillars vs. becoming an adhoc execution

agent are problematic at best.[7] 

Re-branding the PSYOP branch as Military Information Support would further cloud

the identity and comprehension dilemma with IO and its pillars.   

It also does not encompass the full spectrum of what and how the former PSYOP force

is capable of and designed to influence audiences through planned “psychological

operations” synchronized with events and actions that become “psychological acts.”[8] 

This synchronization of influence activities directly and indirectly affects the

target audience’s behavior, perceptions, beliefs, and disposition. 

It is extremely unlikely Military Information Support or Information anything

can coexist with Information Operations without creating substantially more confusion

and friction.  The “Support” title is also misleading.  Support by definition

is an association with sustainment forces and operations.   We’ve used

MIST in place of PSYOP teams for so long we’ve forgotten it was hastily created

more than seven years ago.  The term was enacted to achieve initial buy in

from State in order to get time sensitive missions off the ground, and smooth over

internal political sensitivities with various country teams.   It fits

for team identity, but does not accurately reflect the branch itself.

Given PSYOP is a shaping force; it remains a core function within the maneuver

and fires environment.  The brand/name should establish the force; delineate

it clearly from IO, PA, and others; and maintain the SOF context of the force itself. 

This is an ideal opportunity for the community to evolve from its initial establishment

phase as a branch, and solidify itself as the foremost experts in influence warfare. 

More suitable names that meet the intent for the change from PSYOP should adopt

a theme along the lines of Special Influence Group/Forces, Influence Warfare, or

even Special Influence Warfare.  These names are transparent, capture the special

operations design and purpose of the force, and avoid the perception that PSYOP

is hiding within a new name.  More importantly, they speak to the mission of

confronting enemy and hostile misinformation and disinformation endeavors that seek

to discredit and adversely affect US and Coalition efforts to conduct operations

against insurgents, terrorists, rogue states, etc.

Biography:  Major Edward Lopacienski, U.S. Army, is a veteran Psychological

East, and East Asia.  The opinions he expresses in this paper

are his own and represent no U.S. Government or Department of Defense positions.