Talk:Psychological operations

Archive 1

Operation Paperclip & MK ULTRA
Why is operation paperclip even being discussed in this article? Appears to have absolutely nothing to do with PsychOPS... the only relation I can see is general paranoia about the government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.39.156 (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Deleting odd reference to Operation Paperclip and MKULTRA. -Atfyfe (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

United States Section contradiction
The sentences:

''The purpose of United States psychological operations (PSYOP) is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to U.S. objectives.

In the United States Department of Defense, Psychological Operations units exist only in the Army.

The United States Navy also plans and executes limited PSYOP missions.

Unlike some countries, United States PSYOP units and soldiers of all branches of the military are prohibited by law from conducting PSYOP missions on domestic audiences.

'' seem to contradict each other. Are there only units in the army or in all branches? --Patrick Berry 17:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Interpretation:


 * I'm not an expert - but the article would indicate that all full time Psyop MOS or Psyop units under DOD are Army. Though they are often under Joint Special Operations Command, a seperate budget from the army, JSOC employs Army Psyop personell.  "Psyop Specialists" are unique to the US Army.


 * The article would infer that any pyschological operations done by the Navy are performed by units with other designations.. I.E. Navy Inteligence or Marketing/Public Relations officers may perform "Psyop" missions as a course of their duties, but are not exclusivley designated full time psyop units.


 * The distinction would be Title vs. Task. For example, any soldier may need to snipe an opponent.  Marines have full time specialist snipers.


 * 65.82.126.100 20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I could help on this. I was Army PSYOP and back when I was in, my understanding was that the Army was the only branch with a PSYOP MOS or Units. - Atfyfe 22:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn’t contradict itself. Psychological Operations cannot be performed on domestic audiences (United States), however, that does not mean they can not be conducted abroad (Iraq).

204.34.247.11 ''' "In the United States Department of Defense, Psychological Operations units exist only in the Army.

The United States Navy also plans and executes limited PSYOP missions. "'''

The first two sentences are not contradictions because while the Navy conducts PSYOP missions, they have no PSYOP Units.

___' The purpose of United States psychological operations (PSYOP) is to induce or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to U.S. objectives. Unlike some countries, United States PSYOP units and soldiers of all branches of the military are prohibited by law from conducting PSYOP missions on domestic audiences.''' ___

^^---and these sentences don't hold any relevance to the supposed contradiction.

204.34.247.11


 * The wording is confusing and not of interest really - it is a bureaucratic aspect that DOD only has dedicated units in the army whereas the DOJ has the entire FBI which as the last paragraph implies conduct PSYOP for homeland security purposes. This ridicules the Unlike some countries comparison, which is non-sense anyway. P.jasons (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Feels a little POV
It seems like part of the United States section has some sort of POV. The part about the "State Police," especially. Personally, I have never heard of state police (honestly, the only statewide police I can think of to begin with are highway patrolmen) being trained at military installations to conduct psychological operations. Can we get a citation/verification? 75.64.30.239 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of police being trained in PSYOP by the military; I was Army PSYOP for several years and even worked at CAPOC. Doesn't sound right. Virgil61 (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The paragraph detailing how PsyOps is solely for propaganda also feels a bit POV - PsyOps is used for far more things than that, such as getting out the message to opposing soldiers on how to properly surrender so as to not be killed, and conducting diplomatic missions with villages in Afghanistan.  /Anonymous wiki-er  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.101.1.128 (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur. Psyop units have the wartime capability of using propaganda, like ADA has the wartime capability of shooting down enemy jets if needed.  But most of the time propaganda (by which I mean using deceptive information to persuade large groups) isn't used by PSYOP units, even in conflicts like Iraq - just as ADA units in Iraq aren't shooting down jets every day.  The vast majority of the time, persuasion with facts works better, but it would be too Orwellian to call Psyop units "Public Information" given the 1% of the time they do use deception.  Using a loudspeaker to give surrender conditions, using a radio station to broadcast road closures, or handbills to to ask people to vote isn't really "propaganda" - it's communications, public information, and transparent persuasion.  Psyop units certainly are authorized to manage public information in disaster areas, like using loudspeakers and radio assets to broadcast evacuation orders, and operations like this have historically been used in hurricanes and other natural disasters.  Psyop units are not used exclusively for propaganda - they're just the ones responsible for military propaganda if the decision is made to use psychological operations. Bagsc  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.237.253 (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Were or how do you defend the "1% of the time they use deception"? US Army Psyop has one unbreakable rule. DO not, lie nor speak a half truth. If you want deception plans, talk to the MI guys. It may seem like a fine line to others, but there is never an approved 1% of deception in Psyop plans. Once Psyop has been proven unreliable, they are useless.

'Euphemism for Brainwashing?'
The introduction currently includes the following paragraph: The word is commonly used by governments, such as the government of the United States, who do not wish to use the term propaganda or brainwashing to refer to their own work. The word propaganda has very negative connotations, and by calling it psychological operations instead, more sophisticated methods of psychological manipulation are accurately incorporated by the terminology. This euphemism for mind control is ironically an example of psychological operations -- i.e. using psychological techniques to persuade [manipulate] a large number of people to support something that they wouldn't normally support. The reference given is simply A Psychological Warfare Casebook by William Dougherty. No page reference is given and this is an 880 page book. This is unverifiable. As this is an unverifiable, non-NPOV paragraph in the introductory section, I will remove it shortly. - 17:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It caught my attention as the word brainwashing is more of a science fiction term and not generally used by psychologists or experts in propaganda.  --Darth Borehd (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

PSYOP against USSR
Able Archer 83 I find this info important but it can't be found anywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.220.137.251 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)