source
stringclasses
9 values
text
stringlengths
67
800
PSYOP 10.pdf
otection, with only one mention of concealing trench works in the defense to set the stage for an “ambuscade.”14 The 1910 edition eliminates much of the discussion on perfidy and wrongful deception, and increases the mentions of surprise and concealment. However, discussion of deceiving the enemy is limited to cryptic ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
espondents.18 The 1923 edition breaks from the preceding editions, representing the hard learned lessons of World War I. The manual introduces the concept of counterinformation, that is, the measures designed to prevent the adversary from gaining information on friendly capabilities, dispositions, and plans. Counterinf...
PSYOP 10.pdf
l Funston’s use of enemy uniforms during the Philippine Insurrection. 14 War Department, Field Service Regulations.1905, 102. 15 War Department, Field Service Regulations, United States Army. 1910 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1910), 76. 16 War Department, Field Service Regulations, United States Army. 1...
PSYOP 10.pdf
river crossings.21 While still insignificant in the context of the entirety of the manual, the inclusion of deception concepts indicates some lessons learned during World War I, such as General Pershing’s use of deception during the offensive against the Saint Mihiel salient, were taken to heart.22 B. WORLD WAR II ERA...
PSYOP 10.pdf
operations manual, now FM 100-5: Tentative Field Service Regulations: Operations, establishes deception’s role in support of surprise, stating: “The effect of surprise is dependent on… the effectiveness of the means employed to deceive the enemy of our own dispositions and intentions.”23 The cover aspect of deception ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
a 19 War Department, Field Service Regulations, United States Army. 1923 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1924). 20 War Department, Field Service Regulations. 1923, 77. 21 War Department, Field Service Regulations. 1923, 118. 22 See Chapter VI for further discussion of the Saint Mihiel deception operation....
PSYOP 10.pdf
re, the manual states: The attack [emphasis in original] on the enemy is made by surprise obtained by deception and ambush…. By feint and demonstration… by spreading false information, the attacker attempts to mislead the enemy….26 In the 1941 edition, now FM 100-5: Field Service Regulations, the term counterinformatio...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ingenious and resourceful in the use of tactical stratagems [sic] and ruses often will find methods of deceiving or misleading the enemy and of concealing his own intentions.”28 Of note is the inclusion of several examples of deception techniques: e.g., feints, demonstrations, fake concentrations, and dummies. However,...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ncorporation of deception across the manual, there are two notable 25 War Department, Field Manual 100-5: Tentative Field Service Regulations, 42. 26 War Department, Field Manual 100-5: Tentative Field Service Regulations, 1939, 228 – 229. 27 War Department, Field Manual 100-5: Field Service Regulations of Operations, ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
on partisan warfare, which replaces the 1939 section on guerrilla warfare, is devoid of deception. Second, in opposition to the overall tenor of deception as a useful tool, the manual seems to undercut the utility of deception in the offense stating: The degree of surprise attained is dependent in a large measure on t...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ield Manual of Military Intelligence Counterintelligence expands the guidance of FM 100-5 with sections on each of the aspects of counterintelligence. Though the section on tactical measures—feints, demonstrations, and ruses—is unfortunately a verbatim repeat of the section in FM 100- 5, the counterintelligence manual ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ill act on the assumption the enemy has been deceived. FM 21-45: Basic Field Manual of Protective Measures, Individuals and Small Units, published in 1942, provides further guidance on concealment at the Soldier and unit levels; as well as, reinforcement of the vital necessity to protect military information. Notably, ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ur pockets for letters, memoranda, orders, souvenirs, or keepsakes which might disclose your organization.32 Additionally, while cover at this time is coupled with deception, the War Department and later the U.S. Army have published a separate manual for camouflage since at least 1940. Despite being treated separately ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
on, to surprise, to mislead the enemy, and to prevent him from inflicting damage upon us. Concealment includes hiding from view, making hard to see clearly, arranging obstructions to vision, deceiving and disguising, and deception involving sound.35 C. POST WORLD WAR II THROUGH VIETNAM While the 1944 edition of FM 100-...
PSYOP 10.pdf
sibly reflects the shift of deception proponency from the Joint Security Control to the Army 32 War Department, Field Manual 21-45: Basic Field Manual of Protective Measures, Individuals and Small Units (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1942), 137. 33 War Department, Field Manual 5-20: Engineer Field Manual ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
rations Division. The lack of detail on the execution of deception is perhaps best explained by a training memorandum from the Office of the Chief of Army Field Forces to the commanders of the Armor, Infantry, and Artillery Centers. This declassified memorandum reveals the intent of the Army to keep the lessons learned...
PSYOP 10.pdf
l Warfare was established in 1951, cover and deception were not included in the scope of the office’s operations.39 In 1954, proponency for deception was assigned to the Ground General School, specifically to the Aggressor Center at Fort Riley, Kansas.40 This decision was the General Staff’s halfhearted response to a r...
PSYOP 10.pdf
th the apex of discussion of deception activities within the capstone document and the beginnings of deception’s dismemberment. This iteration of FM 100-5 38 Office of the Chief of Army Field Forces, Strategic and Tactical Cover and Deception Training (Fort Monroe, VA: Department of the Army, 1948). 39 Alfred Paddock J...
PSYOP 10.pdf
nFormat=1f , 1-3. 41 U.S. Department of the Army. General Staff, G-3, “Combat Deception,” (1954), Photocopy from U.S. Army Military History Institute, Carlisle, PA. 14 separates active deception from counterintelligence into a distinct three page section on “combat deception” that includes subsections on the importance...
PSYOP 10.pdf
n from the security aspects of cover. Furthermore, while deception is still considered a tool of surprise, a new principle of war, economy of force, admonishes that deception—along with limited attacks, retrogrades, and the defense—is only to be used in non-critical areas in support of the concentration of forces at th...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ctively placing it, and therefore detailed deception guidance, out of reach of much of the force. As a consequence of the manual’s publication, the 1962 iteration of FM 100-5 truncates the section on military deception to two paragraphs on the utility of deception that close with a reference to FM 31-40. At the same ti...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ield Manual 100-5: 1954, 47. 44 Headquarters, Department of the Army, General Orders no. 20 (Alexandria, VA: Department of the Army, 1955), www.armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/go5520.pdf.. The aggressor cadre was a permanent opposing force designed to provide realism to Army training exercises. The aggressor cadre was equi...
PSYOP 10.pdf
The 1968 version of FM 100-5, Operations of Army Forces in the Field repeats the short section on deception and a reference to FM 31-40. However, missing from this edition of FM 100-5 is any reference to dedicated deception units as combat support elements; instead, tactical cover and deception is listed as a task of e...
PSYOP 10.pdf
from the company to division level, with the stated intent of encouraging commanders to include cover and deception in their planning process.50 In 1973 an update was drafted but not published. Currently none of the editions of FM 31-40 are available for examination, though an idea of their contents can be drawn from ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ashington, DC: Department of the Army, 1959), 55 – 57. 47 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5: 1962, 39. 48 This shift occurred prior to the still classified 1965 U.S. Army Combat Development Command report titled “Army Requirements for Tactical Deception.” 49 The official changes are noted on the ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
anning consideration of target reaction, which demands a thorough understanding of the target: Success of cover and deception is dependent on the ability of the deceiver to predict the probable enemy reaction. The staff charged with the deception planning must be able to think as the enemy does and not react as a frien...
PSYOP 10.pdf
get. The probable enemy reaction depends on the commander. An uncertain commander may react to deception while a steadfast veteran commander may ignore all but exceptionally convincing efforts. Some commanders may be overanxious, others overcautious; if possible, we should know the characteristics of the enemy commande...
PSYOP 10.pdf
amouflage aspect of deception, the 1959 edition of FM 5-20 represented the pinnacle of the linkage between camouflage and cover and deception. In the manual’s discussion of the nuclear battlefield, the manual explicitly states the role of camouflage in both denying information and deceiving: The best means of reducing ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
f the Army, 1959), 3. 17 Additionally, FM 5-20 emphatically bound camouflage to deception via the very definition of camouflage: “Camouflage is a French word meaning disguise and is used to describe actions taken to mislead the enemy by misrepresenting the true identity of an installation, an activity, or an item of eq...
PSYOP 10.pdf
anged from “deceiving” to “disguising.”55 Though deception was still discussed in the manual, to include a chapter on decoys, the concept of camouflage as an element of deception was thoroughly expunged. The divorce of camouflage from deception was reciprocated on the deception side of doctrine. The 1969 TC 30-1 listed...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ample, the following guidance is given for the offense: “If a smaller force is to concentrate superior combat power at the point of decision… commanders must employ surprise and deception as well as the full mobility of the force.”56 Furthermore, one of the basic tasks of the covering force in the defense is to deceive...
PSYOP 10.pdf
e section on desert warfare, the manual states, “using deception is a primary means of obtaining success.”58 However, despite the relatively complete integration of deception into operations, details on how to execute deception activities are again absent. Oddly, no mention is made of a deception manual within the body...
PSYOP 10.pdf
list of major functional areas alongside maneuver, intelligence, and fires.61 In addition, deception is listed as a reason for offensive action, and discussed in depth in the sections on defense and retrograde operations.62 Furthermore, echoing General Eisenhower’s admonishment, the 1986 edition of FM 100-5 states: “A...
PSYOP 10.pdf
rters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5: 1976, 5-10. 58 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5: 1976, 14-10 59 The reference to FM 90-2 is bizarre given FM 90-2 was not published until two years after this edition of FM 100-5. FM 31-40 (1967) was the current deception manual at the time of p...
PSYOP 10.pdf
retrograde operations see: Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5: 1986, 158. 63 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5: 1986, 53. 64 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 100-5: 1986, 53. 19 as electronic warfare activities that support the overall deception plan.65 In...
PSYOP 10.pdf
term actions of corps or lower units within the battle area.”67 Though this “How to Fight” manual is rather simplistic, its release marked the beginning of a military deception renaissance within the U.S. Army. Of note however, the 1978 field manual severs the connection between deception and the term cover, though it ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
underpinnings of deception as well as providing detailed guidance on the planning and execution of deception at both the tactical and operational levels of war. This manual was designed to address what the U.S. Army considered to be a shortfall in deception integration: Today, commanders use little deception in planni...
PSYOP 10.pdf
(Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1978), 1-1. 68 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 90-2: Battlefield Deception (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1988), 1-0. 20 Without having access to the editions of FM 31-40 for comparison, the 1988 edition of FM 90-2 represents the strongest presentati...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ong the principles of war, deception is absent from security, and relegated to a mere factor of surprise; furthermore, economy of force demands force allocations for tasks such as deception be measures so as to not detract from the ability to mass at the decisive point.69 Deception is not listed as a combat function; r...
PSYOP 10.pdf
planation for the marginalization of deception lies in the shift of the strategic equation with the fall of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet Union left the United States without a peer competitor, and thus without the need for indirect approaches to compensate for numerical inferiority and vulnerable lines ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
erceived balance of power. 21 The stated reason was that the manual “no longer represents valid Army doctrine.”72 In 1998, an unofficial military deception planner’s guide was published with a SECRET classification, again putting the tenets of deception outside the reach of a majority of the force. Additionally, since ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
3-13: Information Operations replaced FM 100-6 in 2003. Though FM 3-13 provides more discussion on the integration, planning, and execution of deception than FM 100-6, the level is still far below FM 90-2. Furthermore, FM 3-13 has fallen out of favor itself and is no longer in synch with ADP 3-0, limiting the manual’s...
PSYOP 10.pdf
hich restates the definition of military deception; gone is the guidance to refer to a deception field manual because the 1988 version of FM 90-2 was phased out without replacement. As with the 1993 FM 100- 5, the term deception is present, but the concept is not. The 2008 edition of FM 3-0 sees deception, now categori...
PSYOP 10.pdf
sed 2 January 2012, http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA339425. 73 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 3-0: Operations, 2001 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2001), 4-14. 22 Deception. For the first time since 1914, the concepts of feints and demonstrations—in fact, the very words—do not appear withi...
PSYOP 10.pdf
of the Army’s “Doctrine 2015” program. APD 3-0, weighing in at a concise 32 pages, does not mention deception at all, and relegates all inform and influence operations to three uses of the term without elaboration or mention of external references. The 1990 edition of FM 5-20, renamed FM 20-3: Camouflage, further redu...
PSYOP 10.pdf
Camouflage, Cover, and Decoys; at the joint level CCD means Camouflage, Concealment, and Deception [the Army refers to the joint version of CCD as JCCD]. Further, whereas the 1990 edition includes deception in the interrelated tasks supporting survivability, the 1998 edition removes deception. While essentially ignori...
PSYOP 10.pdf
erations, Change 1 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2011), 6-19. 75 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 20-3: Camouflage, 1993 (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1990), 1-1. 76 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 20-3: Camouflage, Concealment, and Decoys, 1999 (Washington, DC...
PSYOP 10.pdf
of deception as an operational concept. However, the level of emphasis is cyclic, with peaks occurring during and immediately after World War II, and during the late 1970s through 1980s. Conversely deception integration is at its weakest prior to World War I, and since the end of the Cold War. Furthermore, the only ti...
PSYOP 10.pdf
iques, and Procedures 3-34.39: Camouflage, Concealment, and Decoys/Marine Corps Reference Publication 3-17.6A (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2010), iv. 78 Headquarters, Department of the Army, Field Manual 1-02: Operational Terms and Graphics (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 2004), 1-49; (Army) 1. Pro...
PSYOP 10.pdf
n from the longitudinal survey of deception within U.S. Army doctrine, deception is consistently mentioned; however, the degree of emphasis and level of guidance varies significantly over time. The variance in deception emphasis has driven deception authors to propose numerous explanations as to why the U.S. Army does ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
80 A third reason cited is the over-classification of deception post-WWII has had the unintended consequence of removing deception from consideration by the force. Fourth, various authors have pointed to the perception within Western culture that deception is immoral as reducing the desire to embrace deception’s worth....
PSYOP 10.pdf
this explanation it is necessary to first analyze the styles of war to see if there is a variation of deception emphasis between the styles, then examine 79 Russell Weigley, The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy, Indiana University Press paperback ed. (Bloomington IN: Indiana...
PSYOP 10.pdf
of a role, of deception in the U.S. Army is an understanding the two warfighting styles employed by the U.S. Army. On one end of the spectrum is cumulative destruction, which includes what Hans Delbrück and Russell Weigley refer to as the strategy of annihilation, and what Basil Liddell Hart and Edward Luttwak call at...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ecause successful application of the cumulative destruction approach is rooted in the ability of a force to effectively inflict greater net damage on the enemy force, the approach is dependent on an overall force superiority. Even if an inferior force can achieve a series of tactical victories, the additive effect of t...
PSYOP 10.pdf
within this thesis is solely in the context of emphasis on deception; any evaluation of the superiority of one style of war over the other is beyond the scope of this work. 82 The terms cumulative destruction and systemic disruption are used because the various authors have used the term attrition with diametrically op...
PSYOP 10.pdf
MINDSET: National Styles in Warfare and the Operational Level of Planning, Conduct and Analysis (Pontiac, MA: C&L Associates, 1980). 26 control) which leave the enemy paralyzed and unable to react effectively. The exemplars for systemic disruption are the German blitzkrieg, most forms of guerrilla warfare, and the AirL...
PSYOP 10.pdf
as a toe-to-toe fight with government forces from a position of inferiority invites defeat. For example, during the Tet Offensive, the Viet Cong attempted to shift to a cumulative destruction posture resulting in the destruction of the Viet Cong as an effective fighting force. Cumulative Destruction Systemic Disruption...
PSYOP 10.pdf
”85 to perceive and affect enemy weaknesses Orientation Interior focus on processes to achieve External focus to identify enemy maximum efficiency of tasks weaknesses and limitations Force Design Systems and formations designed for Systems and formations all-around capabilities – infrequent, designed for specific enemy...
PSYOP 10.pdf
cKitrick, and James Reed (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1984), 88 – 100. 27 Cumulative destruction and systemic disruption as described above actually represent a false dichotomy for the sake of analysis. In practical application, pure expressions of either approach do not exist. Rather, all warfighting...
PSYOP 10.pdf
he most effective and efficient application of superior firepower. Because of this inward perspective, there is less effort given to understanding the enemy to the degree needed for effective deception. Conversely, systemic disruption oriented forces are more focused on the external since victory is achieved through th...
PSYOP 10.pdf
estruction, the emphasis of deception decreases, and conversely, as the force leans towards systemic disruption, the emphasis of deception increases. Clausewitz’s On War and Jomini’s The Art of War are considered the pillars of the cumulative destruction mode of warfighting. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and Basil Liddell H...
PSYOP 10.pdf
pkins University Press, 1984), 103. 88 Edward Luttwak, "Notes on Low-Intensity Warfare," Parameters 8, no. 4 (1983), accessed 14 July 2011, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/1983/1983%20luttwak.pdf, 13. 89 Luttwak and Canby, MINDSET: National Styles in Warfare, 20 – 21. 90 Luttwak and Canby, MINDSE...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ed. Several authors mention the evolution of Napoleon’s warfighting as the exemplar for this relationship. As Napoleon’s armies grew in power and capability, Napoleon transitioned from a reliance on cunning and misdirection to a reliance on force.91 Weigley, in his classic, The American Way of War, states as his premis...
PSYOP 10.pdf
al Adams: “I am sick of Fabian systems in all quarters. The officers drink, A [sic] long and moderate war. My toast is, A [sic] short and violent war.”93 John Adams’ desires are frequently reflected in U.S. Army doctrine. For example, FM 100-5 (1939) states: The ultimate objective [emphasis in original] of all military...
PSYOP 10.pdf
of War, xxii. 93 John Adams, Abigail Adams and Charles Adams, Familiar Letters of John Adams, and His Wife Abigail Adams during the Revolution. with a Memoir of Mrs. Adams (New York: Hurd and Houghton, 1876), 305. 94 War Department, Tentative Field Service Regulations of Operations, 1939, 27. 29 Additionally, FM 100-5 ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
de of the spectrum, U.S. Army doctrine tends to embrace Clausewitz’s positions on the execution of war. As a result, Clausewitz’s disdain may have an impact on deception’s place in doctrine. Clausewitz writing about craft and cunning stated: “The fact remains that those qualities do not figure prominently in the histor...
PSYOP 10.pdf
d for the historic record as the “bias of a professional soldier for whom the conflict of force with force and the destruction of the enemy on the battlefield were the principle instruments in the art of war.”98 Handel suggests that Clausewitz and Jomini’s diminishing of deception and trickery in war was a result of th...
PSYOP 10.pdf
amer, Reality and Belief in Military Affairs, 100. 99 Michael I. Handel, Masters of War : Classical Strategic Thought, 3rd rev. and expanded ed. (London; Portland, OR: Frank Cass, 2001), 216. 30 Regardless of the reasoning at the time behind Clausewitz’s diminishment of the utility of deception, his work continues to i...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ance between opponents, the stronger force can rely on its strength to overcome the opposition. J. Bowyer Bell states: Power and capacity, as in real life, can make deception unnecessary. Napoleon, as the power of his armies increased, relied more on force and less on cunning and misdirection. In an invasion of a small...
PSYOP 10.pdf
s a systemic disruption approach, there is a trend whereby the level of emphasize on deception within U.S. Army doctrine waxes and wanes as the perceived and actual balance of power shifts (Figure 2). 100 Handel, Masters of War, 225. 101 Bell, “Toward a Theory of Deception,” 251; A similar opinion is stated in Secret S...
PSYOP 10.pdf
se is reflected by the inclusion of sections on counterinformation and surprise in the 1923 Field Service Regulations. Similarly, during World War II the Axis was seen as an existential threat, and deception reached a crescendo. Post-World War II, the United States operated from a position of parity during the Cold War...
PSYOP 10.pdf
used on cumulative destruction while still leveraging the value of systemic disruption. 32 of the Airland Battle doctrine.103 Second, the 1976 National Intelligence Estimate on Soviet military capability included a second assessment which painted the Soviet military as superior to the United States military in both nuc...
PSYOP 10.pdf
el.104 Additionally, the National Intelligence Estimate addendum reassessed Soviet intentions, painting a picture that the Soviet Union was a far greater and imminent threat than previously recognized. This radical re-estimation of Soviet capabilities and intentions shifted the perceived balance of power, placing the U...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ERT STORM. The 1982 and 1986 editions of FM 100-5 see the U.S. Army doctrine at the apex of systemic disruption. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States was left without a peer competitor. As a result, the balance of power shifted decisively in the favor of the United States, alleviating the pe...
PSYOP 10.pdf
Hopkins University Press, 1984), 328. 104 Team "B", Soviet Strategic Objectives: An Alternative View (Washington, DC: Director of Central Intelligence, 1976), accessed 16 April 2012, http://www.foia.cia.gov/docs/DOC_0000278531/DOC_0000278531.pdf, 47. 33 B. PROFESSIONAL OFFICER CLASS Goldhamer suggests an interesting a...
PSYOP 10.pdf
porting Goldhamer’s assertion stating: Not all soldiers are fond of practicing deception. Some American combat commanders in World War II instinctively resisted using deception, preferring to charge straight ahead like the old-style cavalrymen they were…. Others… simply preferred conventional battle as a route to honor...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ngthen in peacetime the nation’s position vis-a-vis a potential enemy by misleading him and weakening his present and future powers of resistance. Such measures require close coordination of military and political leadership, a cooperation less likely to occur given the professional soldier’s distance from the foreign ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
diers, 7 107 Goldhamer, Reality and Belief in Military Affairs, 103. 108 Goldhamer, Reality and Belief in Military Affairs, 104. 34 C. OVER-CLASSIFICATION A third potential explanation for the dearth of deception in U.S. Army doctrine is the over-classification of deception. While security is essential for the executio...
PSYOP 10.pdf
and Infantry Centers on the subject of training cover and deception. The cursory introduction to strategic cover and deception was restricted to confidential level with no questions authorized and contained the comment: “The security classification of this whole subject [strategic cover and deception] is and probably w...
PSYOP 10.pdf
962 edition. In addition to the classification of doctrine, the classification of the actual deception operations negatively impacted the institutional memory of the force. The mission of 23rd Headquarters Special Troops, a purpose built deception unit in World War II, was not declassified until 1996.110 With the infor...
PSYOP 10.pdf
0 National Army Security Agency Association, “The 23rd Headquarters Special Troops (World War II)” accessed 1 January 2012, http://www.nasaa-home.org/23rdhqs.htm. 111 Bell, “Toward a Theory of Deception,” 251. 35 classification of both deception doctrine and historic examples of deception placed an extremely high barri...
PSYOP 10.pdf
a virtue within American life as expressed by maxims such as “Honesty is the best policy,” and the apocryphal tale of George Washington and the cherry tree. The idea of the American military as moral paragons is also frequently present in official and unofficial military guidance and writings. For example, General Dem...
PSYOP 10.pdf
hat is right, regardless of the cost. We are all volunteers in our willingness to serve and to place others’ needs above our own. As shared values, our calling cards are Duty, Honor, Courage, Integrity, and Selfless Service. Commitment to the rule of law is integral to our values which provide the moral and ethical fab...
PSYOP 10.pdf
24 February 2012, http://www.jcs.mil/content/files/2012- 02/022312120752_Americas_Military_POA.pdf, 3. 113 J. Bowyer Bell and Barton Whaley, Cheating and Deception (New Brunswick, NJ Transaction Publishers, 1991), 45. 36 Colorado accused Funston of violating the rules of civilized warfare.114 Colonel Funston was also t...
PSYOP 10.pdf
anization as immoral the view is not a serious impediment to the execution of deception. Rather, the attitude of Ulisse Guadagnini seems to hold more sway: “Moral considerations have validity only in civilian life and should not interfere with preparations for war.”117 E. CONCLUSION The primary explanation for the unde...
PSYOP 10.pdf
r tasks will seek to perform them.” Second, due to availability bias, people will think and act in ways familiar to them.118 Allison and Zelikow in Essence of Decision present a model for organizational behavior that suggests the behavior is linked more to standard operating procedures and established doctrine than to ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
1905, 214. 117 Quoted in Waldemar Erfurth, Surprise, trans. Stefan T. Possony and Daniel Vilfroy (Harrisburg, PA: Military Service Publishing Company, 1943), 51. 118 Donald C. Daniel and Katherine L. Herbig, "Propositions on Military Deception," in Strategic Military Deception, eds. Donald C. Daniel and Katherine L. H...
PSYOP 10.pdf
of deception have been separated under difference proponents, such as camouflage under the U.S. Army Engineer School. The lack of a stable proponency with deception as its central focus further undermines the integration of deception into U.S. Army doctrine three important ways. First, the frequent changes of deceptio...
PSYOP 10.pdf
e U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, the deception cells were dropped in order to support the emerging requirement for unmanned aerial vehicles.120 119 Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, 1999), 143 – 145. 120 Nelson, ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
ral theory of cheating.”122 Bell and Whaley’s theory of deception is elegant in its simplicity. The theory categorizes all deceptions into two interdependent sets: showing the false and hiding the real. These categories are further subdivided into six categories. Hiding the real is divided into the categories of maskin...
PSYOP 10.pdf
llusion the target interprets as reality, causing the target to act in the desired manner to achieve the deception goal and thus the strategic goal.123 While Bell and Whaley’s theory provides a neat and tidy structure for the taxonomy of deception, one weakness of the theory is that it does not delve in the cognitive p...
PSYOP 10.pdf
g and Deception, 45 – 74. 39 particular note are his comments on the prevalence of preconceived ideas on the battlefield, and the role of doctrinal and technical innovation in achieving surprise.124 1. Deception Defined According to Random House Webster’s, deception is “something that deceives or is intended to deceive...
PSYOP 10.pdf
is concept of deception ignores the ideas of deception by omission and deception by selective truth. Furthermore, the definition makes no mention of the target of the deception. In the definition’s defense, the concept of gaining a competitive advantage is important. Deception in military operations is not undertaken f...
PSYOP 10.pdf
nt. The first deficiency with the current doctrinal definition is that “induce” is an imprecise term for what deception does: manipulating the enemy’s decision-making process. Second, the best deceptions rely on a foundation of truth to reinforce and support the falsehoods, an idea the definition seems 124 Michael Dewa...
PSYOP 10.pdf
imate: Soviet Capabilities for Deception by the Central Intelligence Agency: Director of Central Intelligence, Soviet Capabilities for Deception (Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency, 1957), accessed 30 January 2012. http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&res_dat=xri:dnsa&rft_dat=xri:dnsa:artic...
PSYOP 10.pdf
eption, a modified definition of deception can be crafted: Deception is the deliberate misleading of a target into taking actions prejudicial to the target’s interests by manipulating the target’s decision- making processes through the communication of true, manipulated, distorted, and/or falsified information. This re...
PSYOP 10.pdf
of a deception can be the target taking no action at all, e.g., the failure of a regime’s security apparatus to breach a special reconnaissance element’s cover or the German armored divisions remaining in place at Pas de Calais during the opening phases of Operation OVERLORD. The interaction between the practitioner a...
PSYOP 10.pdf
discussion on biological deceptions see: Scott Gerwehr and Russell W. Glenn, Unweaving the Web: Deception and Adaptation in Future Urban Operations (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 2002), 78. For a discussion on the requirement for intent in human deception see: Roderick M. Chisholm and Thomas D. Feehan, "The Intent to Deceiv...
PSYOP 10.pdf
that deception and lies are not equal; however, this still leaves the proposition that lies are a subset of deception.130 For example, Daniel and Herbig’s model of deception has lies and the act of lying subsumed by deception (Figure 3). The definition of deception used here requires injury to the target or advantage ...
PSYOP 10.pdf
lm and Feehan, The Intent to Deceive, 152; This work presents an in-depth parsing of what it means to lie and what it means to intend to deceive. 130 Chisholm and Feehan provide another illuminating example attributed to Immanuel Kant: “For there are types of intended deception that cannot properly be said to be cases ...