Legitimizing Army Psychological Operations

Once again, we hear discussion within the U.S. Army on whether the name psychological operations PSYOP should be changed-an issue that has arisen periodically for years. The term, defined broadly as the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behavior of foreign audiences, is characterized by some as toxic, disinformation, unsavory, and with other pejorative words. This criticism inhibits the ability of PSYOP units to support U.S. military forces and to interact with other executive branch agencies or so goes the criticism. Thus, some argue, the term must be replaced. First, I want to place the issue in its historical context. Essentially, three terms have been used since World War I to describe the Armys employment of persuasive communications to influence the behavior of enemy, friendly, and neutral audiences propaganda, psychological warfare, and psychological operations. The term propaganda was first widely used by the Army in World War I. Its origins, however, go much farther back. In 1622, Pope Gregory XV created a papal department named the Sacra Congregation de Propaganda Fide, or the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. Although the department was aimed largely at Martin Luthers call for reformation of the Church, the term at the heart of its name has remained part of our vocabulary.