Alright. We’ve spent the last year writing more than 100 posts about Public Affairs.
Let’s have the OPSEC talk.
Traditionally, this is the program through which we hide and protect information that could give our enemies an advantage, and put our troops and mission at risk.
I think we all agree, as Americans and members of the armed forces, that we don’t want our enemies to know our shit. We all know it’s important, right? I certainly know that. It’s important that we all acknowledge that this is extremely important. However, it’s time to take a refreshed look at the way we think about OPSEC.
Here’s the definition of OPSEC:
“A process of identifying critical information and analyzing friendly actions attendant to military operations and other activities to: identify those actions that can be observed by adversary intelligence systems; determine indicators and vulnerabilities that adversary intelligence systems might obtain that could be interpreted or pieced together to derive critical information in time to be useful to adversaries, and determine which of these represent an unacceptable risk; then select and execute countermeasures that eliminate the risk to friendly actions and operations or reduce it to an acceptable level.”
Did you make it through that? I didn’t. A bunch of jibberish.
Let me propose a new definition for OPSEC, for a generation of strategic thinkers and communicators in 2018: Protect, and share, information when it helps us keep America safe.
Pretty clear how this is different, right? Let’s start managing information, rather than exclusively hiding it. Of course, let’s guard and compartmentalize information and intelligence when appropriate. But let’s balance the way we use information for our benefit, rather than throw the OPSEC blanket over everything we know.
Let’s actively share accurate information when it provides valuable context and background to the people who give us resources, authorities, approvals and support (such as the American public, or our international partners, or our senior leaders).
I envision a future where–when resources, authorities, approvals and support are at risk–a spokesperson tells a reporter:
- “Due to operational security, I must tell you the ways in which this command is trained, armed, and organized to protect America from dangerous threats.”
- “Due to operational security, I have to give you more context and background to demonstrate the care and precision with which our forces operate in combat.”
- “Due to operational security, so that Americans continue to trust this organization with American lives and treasure, I am going to painstakingly lay out each detail of this mission’s timeline, weaponry, location, plan and intelligence.”
After all, this is all about the security of our operations, right? I wouldn’t say an operation is “secure” if it’s misunderstood, disapproved or under-resourced.
Now, every officer can be an OPSEC officer.
(Photo by Tech Sgt. Gregory Brook, DVIDS)
