## Preface L. Scope

Thi-; publication provides joint doctrine co plan. r.=xecute. and assess military deception in support of joint operations.

## 2. Purpose

This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaiT {CJCS).

It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations. and it provides considerations for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational forces. and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders
{JFCs). and prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. lt provides military guidance for use b) the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and order~.

It is not the intent of this publication to n:striclthe authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JfC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of objectives.

## 3. Application

a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff, commanders of combatant wmmands. subordinate unified commands, joint task forces.

subordinate components of these commands, the Services, and combat support agencies.

b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumst<Jnces dictate otherwise.

If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the CJCS.

normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. has provided more current and specific guidance. Commanders of forces operating as part of a multinational (alliance or coalition) military command should follow multinational doctrine and procedure~ ratified by the United States. For doctrine and procedures not ratified hy the US, commanders should evaluate and follow the multinational command's doctrine and procedures, where applicable and consistent with US law, regulations, and doctrine.

For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
KEVJN D. SCOTT
Vice Admiral, US:'\!

Director, Joint Force Development

## Preface

lnrentionally H:lank

## Summary Of Changes Revision Of Joint Publication 3-13.4 Dated 26 J~'Iuary 2012

-
Consolidated multiple general information paragraphs into an introduction
section.
-
Clarified that military or other mlid decision *makers* may he the deception
target.
-
Added a figure outlinin~ a sample information pathway to sl10w how
information can mo,e through a conduit to a decision maker.
-
Added a figure to illuslrate various leadership styles planners should
consider when evaluating the deliberative process a decision maker or body
uses to reach a conclusion.
-
Added a section to reinforce the linkage between operations security and military deception.
-
Added a more expansive analysis of prohibited military deception in
accordance with DOD Law of War Manual.
-
Added a section on cyberspace contributions to military deception in the
classified appendix.
-
l(xpandcd tbc discussion on military deception and irregular warfare in the
classified appendix.
-
Expanded the discussion on violent extremist organization susceptibility to
deception operations in the classiflcd appendix.
-
Expanded the discussion on human intelligence support to operations in the
classified appendix.
-
Modifies, adds, and removes terms and definitions from the DOD Dictionary
of Military and Associated Terms.

## Summary Of Changes

Intentionally Blank

## Table Of Contents Of Contents

PAGE
PAGE
... Vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...
EXECUTIVE SU'v!MARY ........ .
........ ., ........ viii

## Chapter 1 Chapter I General Ge'Ieral

| -               | Introduction                                                   | 1-1      |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------|----------|
| -               | The Functions and Role of .\1ilitary Deception                 | I-1      |
| -               | Military Deception and Information Quality l-3                 |          |
| -               | \lilitary Deception Planning Methodology                      |          |
| -               | :Vlilitat)'                                                    |          |
| De!.:eption     | Overview                                                       |          |
| -               | Tenets                                                         | of       |
| -               | \tfilitary Deception Types, Techniques, Tactics, and Means I-8 |          |
| Introduction... | .                                                              |          |
| The             | Functlons                                                      | and      |
| Military        | Deception                                                      | and      |
| Military        | Deception                                                      | Planning |
| Military        | Deception                                                      | Overview |
| Tenets          | of                                                             | Military |
| Military        | Deceptmn                                                       | Types,   |
| Assessment      | ..                                                             |          |
| -               | Assessment 1-12                                                |          |

## Chapter [L Chapter Ii Military Deception And Information Operations ~Iilit Ary Deception A'Id Information Operations

| -                   | Information Operations                    |                                       |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| II-1                |                                           |                                       |
| S                   | C3                                        |                                       |
| ROV                 |                                          | B3                                    |
| -                   | :vtilitary Deception                      |                                       |
| as                  | an                                        | Information-Related                   |
| Capability ,        | ...II-I                                   |                                       |
| cond                | -1                                        |                                       |
| -                   | Military Deception's                      |                                       |
| Relationship        | co                                        | Information-Related Capabilities ll-1 |
| -                   | Military                                  |                                       |
| Deception           |                                           |                                       |
| and Physical Attack | .11-8                                     |                                       |
| information         | Opcrations...                             |                                       |
| Military            | Deception                                 | as                                    |
| Military            | Deception's                               | Relationship                          |
| Military            | Deception                                 | and                                   |
| Information         | Opcrations                                | Planning                              |
| ...11-8             |                                           |                                       |
| SRR                 |                                          | O3                                    |
| -                   | Information Operations Planning           |                                       |
| -                   |                                           |                                       |
| ~1ilitary           |                                           |                                       |
| Deception           |                                           |                                       |
| and Camoutlage,     |                                           |                                       |
| Concealment,        |                                           |                                       |
| and Decoys          | ll-10                                     |                                       |
| -                   | Legal Support to Military Deception       | 11-10                                 |
|                     | [1-10                                     |                                       |
| woned1-10           |                                           |                                       |
| veel)=11            |                                           |                                       |
| Military            | Deception                                 | and                                   |
| Legal               | Support                                   | to                                    |
| Military            | Deception                                 | and                                   |
| -                   | Military Deception and Personnel Recovery |                                       |
| .11-11              |                                           |                                       |

## Chapter 1Li Chapter Iii Roles, Coordination, And Considerations Ifor Military Decleption Roles, Coord!L\Atioi', A'Id Co'Isideratio'Is For Military Deceptioi'

| -                  | Roles and Responsibilities    | of               | Military Deception Planners    |
|--------------------|-------------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------|
| 111-               | 1                             |                  |                                |
| L                  |                               |                  |                                |
| Roles              | and                           | Responsibilities | of                             |
| Coordination       | Requirements                  |                  |                                |
| veeens             | (131                          |                  |                                |
| =5                 |                               |                  |                                |
| -                  | Coordination                  |                  |                                |
| Requirements Ill-5 |                               |                  |                                |

## Chapter 1V Chapter Iv Intelligence Support To Mifatary Deception Intelligence Support To Military Dect:Ptio"'

| -           | Gcncrai                                     |
|-------------|---------------------------------------------|
| IV-1        |                                             |
| e           | IV                                          |
| e           | V=]                                         |
| -           | The Deception Intelligence Estimate ,       |
| IV-1        |                                             |
| -           | Military Deception RequestS for Information |
| -           | ConduitAnalysis                             |
| e           | IVST                                        |
| -           | LY                                          |
| e           | 1                                           |
| General.,.. | .                                           |
| The         | Deceptlon                                   |
| Militarv    | Deception                                   |
| Conduit     | Analysis                                    |
| Support     | to                                          |
| -           | Support                                     |

## Table Of Contents Chapter V V!Iutar Y Dec:Eptio\J Pl. A \Jnii\G

| -    | \1ilitary Deception                  | Planning                                |
|------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| -    | \tlilitary Deception Planning Basics | V-2                                     |
| -    | The                                  | Military Deception Planning Process V-3 |

## Chapter Vi Execution Of Military Deception Operations

-
Execution of Military Deception Events and Actions ........ VI- I
-
Deception Execution Coordination ........ VJ-1
-
Terminating Military Deception Operations
........ VI-4

## Chapter Vii Counterdeceptioi\

-
Counterdeception as an F.lementofMilitruy Deception ........ VII-I
-
Detecting Adversary Deception ........ \/11-2
-
Confirming Adversary Deception ........ Vli-2
-
Countering or Exploiting Adversary Deception ........ Vll-3

## Appr.Noix

A
Military Deception Maxims ........ A-1
B
Suggested Background Readings........
........
. ........ R-1
C
Supplemental Guidance ........ C-1
D
Referen;;es ........ D-1
E
Administrative Instructions ........ E-1

## Glossary

Abbreviations. Acronyms, and lnitialisms ........ GL-1
Terms and Definitions ........ GL-3
Part I
Part II

## Figure

Military Deception Methodology ........ 1-5
Tenets of Military Deception ........ , ........ 1-R
Observe, Orient. Decide, Act Loop Intent of Operations Security and Military Deception_ ........ U-3
Elements Affecting Decision Making ........ IT-4
Sample Information Pathways Diagram ........ IV-3
Leadership Styles ........ l\r'-5
11-2
IV-I IV-2
IV-3
V-1
V-2
V~3
~otional Conduit Analysis ........ 1\/ -10
Military Deception Planning Process and Joint Planning Process ........ V-4
DcccptiDn Mission Analysis ........ V-5
Sample Military Deception Goals and Objectives ........ V -6
|      | V4                             | Deception Com:cpl               | Dcvdopment                                           |  V-7                       |
|------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
| V    | -5                             | Characteristics                 | of                                                   | an Indicator               |
| V-12 |                                |                                 |                                                      |                            |
| V    |                                |                                 |                                                      |                            |
| -6   | Sample Deception Course        | of                              | Action Sketch V-15                                   |                            |
| V-7  | Deception Plan Development     | V-17                            |                                                      |                            |
| V    | -8                             | Sample Deception Event Schedule | V -19                                                |                            |
| Va4  | Deception                      | Concept                         | Development evvcvievecnninciinsnneeeeseeesecceeees | V27                        |
| V-5  | Characteristics                | of                              | an                                                   | Indicator coccreciivrnceic |
| V-6  | Sample                         | Deception                       | Course                                               | of                         |
| V-7  | Deception                      | Plan                            | Development                                          | ...                        |
| V-8  | Sample                         | Deception                       | Event                                                | Schedule                   |
| VI-l | Deception                      | Execution                       | Cvcle                                                | ocoiiiienrecne       |
| VI-I | Deception Execution Cycle Vl-2 |                                 |                                                      |                            |

## Executive Summary Commander's Overview

Provides a General Overview of Military Deception
-
-
Discusses Military Deception and Information Operatiom
Cover" Roles. Coordination, and Considerations for Military Deception
-
Explains Intelligence Support to MilitarJ Deception
Discusses Military Deception Planning
Discusses Execution of Military Operations
-
Discusses Counterdeception
-

## General Overview Of Military Deception

Introduction
Military deception (MILDEC) is actions executed to
deliberately mislead adversary military. paramilitary, or
violent extremist organization decision makers, thereby
causing the adversary to take specific actions (or
inactions) that will contribute to thr.:: accomplishment of
the friendly mission.
When properly integrated V.'itb
operations security (OPSEC), other infonnation-related capabilities (IRCs), and the visible activities of the joint
fon:e and its components, ~JLDEC can be a decisive
tool in altering ho\v rhe adversary views, analyzes,
decides, and acts in response to friendly military operation&.
The Functions and Role
of Military Deception
MILDEC can mask, protect, reinforce, exaggerate,
minimi:ze, distort, or otherwise misrepresent US techni~al
and operational capabilities, intentions, operations, and associated activities.
When properly resourced and
integrated, MILDEC has the potential to deter or induce
actions that are favorahle to the joint force and thus
increase the success of friendly activity.
MUitary Deception and
Infor111111ion Quality
Information quality relhs to the accuracy, completeness,
relevance, and believability of infom1ation available for
decision making. \tfTLDEC should affect the quality of
information available for adversary decisions.
| The following interrogatories describe the    | "sec,                  |
|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------|
| think~                                        |                        |
| do"                                           | deception              |
| Military Deception                            |                        |
| Planning Methodology                          |                        |
| -                                             | Sec:                   |
| Docs the target                               |                        |
| see                                           |                        |
| the deceptive event?                          |                        |
| -                                             | Think: Does the target |
| valid?                                        |                        |

-
Du: What action or inaction may the target take or
not take as a result of the conclusions based upon
those observations?

| Tenets                    | of                               | Military                      |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------|
| DeceptiOn                 |                                  |                               |
| Just as the principles    |                                  |                               |
| of                        | war provide genera! guidance for |                               |
| the                       |                                  |                               |
| conduct                   |                                  |                               |
| of                        |                                  |                               |
| nlilitar:y operatiom, the | .c;ix                            | tenets                        |
| MILDEC provide guidance   |                                  |                               |
| to                        |                                  |                               |
| plan                      | and                              | execute                       |
| operations.               |                                  |                               |
| The                       |                                  |                               |
| tenets                    | arc                              | focus, objective, centralized |
| planning                  | and                              | control,                      |
| integration.              |                                  |                               |

## Military Deception And Information Operations

Military Deception as an
Information-Related
Capabl/ily
While Mll.()EC uses a broad spectrum of techniques,
tactics, and means to portray inaccurate friendly
capabilities and intentions, its success is dependent on
the application of other lRCs to enable the delivery of
deceptive information and to disrupt accurate adversary
inf01mation collection, content, and flow to decision
makers. Successful MILDEC also requires a holistic and
seamless integration with OPSEC to conceal or protect
vulnerable
physical,
technical,
and
administnttive
indicators of our true capabilities and intent.
lnformalion Operations
Planning
The joint force commander's (JFC's) senior MJI.I)J-:C
planner
ts
normally a
standing
member of the
information operations (10) cell. Within the 10 ~;ell, the
MILDEC planner provides deception plan information to
incorporate and deconflict MILDEC with other IRCs.
Mr'litary Deception and
Camouflage, Concealment, and Decoys
Camouflage and concealment are OPSEC measuLes used
to protect friendly forces and activities from adversary
detection and attribution.
Oecoys tnay be used in
conjunction wilh other MILDEC aclivitics to mislead adversary
intelligence
collection
and
direct
the
adversary's attention away from actual forces.

## Roles, Coordination, And Considerations For Military Deception

| Roles                       | and                |
|-----------------------------|--------------------|
| R~ponsibllltles             |                    |
| of                          | Military Deception |
| Planners                    |                    |
| .JFCs                       |                    |
| make                        |                    |
| the decision to use MIL DEC | afkr               |
| the                         |                    |
| analysis                    |                    |
| and rccommcndatiuns from    | tht:               |
| planning process            |                    |
| (JPP).                      | According to       |
| their specific              |                    |
| planning responsibilities   |                    |
| (tailored                   |                    |
| to                          |                    |
| clearances.                 |                    |
| access                      |                    |
| levels. and need            |                    |
| to                          |                    |
| know                        | of                 |
| operations                  | directorate        |
| directorate                 | of                 |
| (J~5)                       |                    |
| supervise the               |                    |
| incorporation               |                    |
| of                          |                    |
| MILDEC                      |                    |
| into                        | the                |
| operations                  |                    |
| estimates. Based            |                    |
| on                          |                    |
| these estimates,            |                    |
| the                         |                    |
| J3/J~                      |                    |
| 5                           |                    |
| recommend                   |                    |
| various                     |                    |
| options                     | for                |
| 10                          |                    |
| (including                  |                    |

MILDEC) to the commander. Once the JFC has selected a particular 10 course of action (COAJ and received approval through the chain of command, the J~3/J-5
supervise the completion of planning for the selected COA. The J-3 normally supervises MfLDEC execution.

The cnmmand military deception officer (C\100) is the primary designated ollicer with overall oversight and management responsibility for each MILDEC program
\.Vithin the combatant commands (CCMDs), agencies.

and Service components which support joint military operations.

The military deception officer (MDO)
works closely with the CMDO to ensure all component MILDEC plans are in accordance with command and Department of Defense guidance and policy.

The

| :\1JLDEC                                           | planner                               |
|----------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| plans and executes                                 |                                       |
| MILDEC                                             |                                       |
| plans                                              |                                       |
| within                                             |                                       |
| their organi7.ation.                               |                                       |
| CoordJ'nation                                      |                                       |
| Requirements                                       |                                       |
| Tht: Joint                                         |                                       |
| Staff                                              |                                       |
| J.J                                                | lOpcrations Dircctoratel supports the |
| combatant commanders                               |                                       |
| in                                                 | development,                          |
| assessment,                                        |                                       |
| t:oordination,                                     |                                       |
| and                                                |                                       |
| recommendation                                     | of                                    |
| :\11LDEC                                           |                                       |
| options.                                           |                                       |
| The                                                |                                       |
| Joint                                              |                                       |
| Staff                                              |                                       |
| .1~3                                               |                                       |
| ensures                                            | CCMD                                  |
| requirements                                       |                                       |
| do                                                 |                                       |
| not                                                |                                       |
| conflict with                                      |                                       |
| MILDEC operations                                  |                                       |
| OJ.;Curring                                        | in                                    |
| oth(!r                                             |                                       |
| areas                                              |                                       |
| of                                                 | responsibility.                       |
| designated 10 cell chief                           | is                                    |
| normally the single point                          |                                       |
| of                                                 |                                       |
| contact                                            |                                       |
| t(l                                                |                                       |
| manage                                             |                                       |
| and                                                |                                       |
| obtairl                                            |                                       |
| coordination                                       |                                       |
| requirements                                       |                                       |
| and related points                                 | of                                    |
| to                                                 |                                       |
| the deception element.                             | However, a JFC                        |
| appoint a CMDO who would be the single manager for |                                       |
| MlLOEC.                                            |                                       |

## Jotelligence Support To Military Deception

General
Focused intelligence support Is essential to the successful
planning, execution. and assessment :Jf any VIILDEC.
The Deception
IntelUgence Estimate
The deception intelligence estimate (DIE) is a specialized
intelligence produci derived
from the intelligence
directorate of a joint staffs (J-2's) joint intelligence
preparation of the operational environment and responses
to situation-specific requests for infOrmation submitted
by MILDEC planners. The DIE is a ''living'' product. It
is refined as additional information and intelllgence
become available, or as conditions evolve and change
within the operational environment.
Conduit Analysi~
Conduit analysis is the detailed mapping of individual
conduits or information pathways to the potential
deception targct(s).
A simple conduit is one whi..:h
transmits data to the intended decision maker without lhe
application of an intermediate filter. A complex conduit
ls one which includes one or more filters that might
substantially alter the content. add context to the
observable, or alter the time frame for delivery.
One
way
to
easily
conceptualize
measures
of'
Support to Military
Deception Assessment
performance (MOPs) and measures of effectiveness
(MOEs) for MILDEC is to use the "see, think, do"
methodology. A MOP is most closely associated with
sec: did we portray the planned indicator, and did the
adversary sec our execution and transmit the desired
message to the deceptlon target creating an observable?
MOCs are associated with think and
do:
\Vhat
perceptions and conclusions did the adversary draw from
a particular observable (alone or in the contexl of other
observations). and are those perceptions leading toward
the desired action/inaction captured in a deception
objective?

## Military D~Eption Planning

Military Deception
Planning and Joint
Planning Processes
To ensure proper integration with the commander's
objectives and desired end statt:, MILDEC planning is
conducted as part of the JPP. Because of its inherent
sensitivity. access to MJLDEC planning is usually
protected. MILDEC planning takes place in an access-

## Executive Summary

controlled, parallel planning process rather than through
open discussion in the joint planning group or the /0
V.'orking group.
Military Deception
Planning Basics
The deception planning cell (DPC) oversees MILDEC
planning and cxccutlon. The DPC nonnally consists of
the CMDO. any MILDEC planners appointed by the
command, and the component MDOs.
In most
circumstances, rhe DPC V.'ill form a larger deception
operations working group to facilitate the planning.
coordination, and discrete integration of MILDEC
throughout planning. execution, and assessment.
The Military Deception
Planning Process
The MILDEC planning process is an iterative process
that requires continual reexamination and validation
throughout the planning and execution phases.
The
MILDEC planning process consists of five steps that
generally align with similar activitie~ in the JPP. The
steps are: deception mission analysis, deception concept
development, deception concept approval, deception plan
development, and deception plan re'\ iew and approval.

## Execution Of Military Operations

Execution of Military
Deception Events and
Actions
The MII.DEC plan is normally executed as a component
of the operation plan/operation order. When a CCMD or
functionally organized joint task force receives an
execute order for a given plan. the associated MTLDEC
plan may also be activated within the given authorities
and approval processes as outlined in Chainnan of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3211.01, {U) Joint
Policy }Or Military Deception.
Deception Execution
Coordination
Ot1ce a plan is activated, it is critical that constant
coordination at the strategic, operational. and tactical
levels continues.
There is potential for a tactical or
operational level decertion to have stra[egic implications.
With this in mind, a continual process of coordination,
called the deception execution C}'cle. must lake place.
Terminating Military
Decep#on OpeTation:;
The termination of a MILDEC is concemed with ending
the MILDEC in a way that protects both the short- and
long-term interests of the command. \\'hen termination
is ordered, the selected termination concept becomes 1he
basis for final tennination action!'.
These actions
conclude the operation in line with the deception events
that have been executed. the assessed state of awareness
of the target, and the commander's specific termination
objectives at rhe time.

## Counterdeception

| CtJunterdeception                                         | as                                                   | an                                       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| Element                                                   |                                                      |                                          |
| of                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| Military                                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| Deception                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| Counterdeception                                          |                                                      |                                          |
| is                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| an effort                                                 | to                                                   | detect, confirm, and                     |
| subsequently negate.                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| neutralize,                                               | or                                                   |                                          |
| diminish                                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| the effects                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| of,                                                       | or                                                   | gain advantage from. a foreign deception |
| opt:ration.                                               | Friendly decision makers                             |                                          |
| must                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| be aware                                                  | of                                                   |                                          |
| adversary deception activities so they can fonnulatc      |                                                      |                                          |
| lnformed                                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| and                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| coordinated                                               | responses,                                           | but                                      |
| more                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| importantly, so that friendly forces are not placed at an |                                                      |                                          |
| operational disadvantage. Knowledge                       | of                                                   | an adversary's                           |
| deception plan enables                                    |                                                      |                                          |
| a                                                         |                                                      |                                          |
| commander                                                 | to                                                   | take appropriate                         |
| action against the deceplion.                             |                                                      |                                          |
| It                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| also provides                                             | an                                                   |                                          |
| opportunity to gain valuable insight                      |                                                      |                                          |
| into                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| the means used                                            |                                                      |                                          |
| to                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| portray the                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| deception and analyze                                     |                                                      |                                          |
| adversary                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| deception                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| targets and objectives                                    | as                                                   |                                          |
| an                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| indicator                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| of                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| the broader                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| context                                                   |                                                      |                                          |
| in                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| which                                                     |                                                      |                                          |
| the                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| adversary views friendly forces and                       |                                                      |                                          |
| operations.                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| Detecting Adversary                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| Deception                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| The intelligence community (\C) has the primary           |                                                      |                                          |
| responsibility to identify adversary deception.           |                                                      |                                          |
| The first                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| step in identifying adversary deception is to understand  |                                                      |                                          |
| the                                                       | adversary's                                          | deception                                |
| capabilities, and limitations.                            |                                                      |                                          |
| Knowing how                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| the adversary                                             |                                                      |                                          |
| has used deception                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| in                                                        | the past is also important. 1l1e                     |                                          |
| DPC                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| and the J-2. supported by the broader                     |                                                      |                                          |
| JC,                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| collaborate                                               | to                                                   |                                          |
| collect                                                   |                                                      |                                          |
| and                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| provide this                                              |                                                      |                                          |
| infonnation                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| as part                                                   |                                                      |                                          |
| afthe                                                     |                                                      |                                          |
| DIE.                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| Confirming Adversary                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| Deception                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| If                                                        | intelligence reveals or suggests adversary deception |                                          |
| activity,                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| it                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| is                                                        | the responsibility                                   |                                          |
| of                                                        | the JFC                                              | staff                                    |
| anal;7.e                                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| the situation and ensure                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| that                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| this intelligence and                                     |                                                      |                                          |
| its                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| potential impact                                          |                                                      |                                          |
| on the                                                    |                                                      |                                          |
| friendly operation                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| are                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| presented                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| to                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| the                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| commander.                                                | One                                                  | method                                   |
| countetdeception working group (CWG)                      |                                                      |                                          |
| to                                                        |                                                      |                                          |
| perform                                                   |                                                      |                                          |
| this                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| function. A sample CWG might consist                      | of                                                   | the CMDO.                                |
| sclcc1cd component MOOs, J-2 analysts,                    | IC                                                   | liaison                                  |
| officers                                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| if                                                        | assigned,                                            |                                          |
| red                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| team                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| members,                                                  |                                                      |                                          |
| J-3                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| planm:rs,                                                 |                                                      |                                          |
| and                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| any other staff members who could provide expertise on    |                                                      |                                          |
| the suspected adversary deception means                   |                                                      |                                          |
| or                                                        | methods.                                             |                                          |
| After an adversary's deception operation is confirmed,    |                                                      |                                          |
| the CWG has                                               |                                                      |                                          |
| t\vO                                                      |                                                      |                                          |
| primary functions.                                        | The tirst                                            | is                                       |
| Countering                                                |                                                      |                                          |
| or                                                        | Exploiting                                           |                                          |
| Adversary Deception                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| examine past intelligence collection and analysis to      |                                                      |                                          |
| detennine the impact the deception                        |                                                      |                                          |
| may                                                       |                                                      |                                          |
| have had on                                               |                                                      |                                          |

## Executive Summary

friendly planning.

decision making.

or current operational activities. The second function of the CWO
is to develop and present propnsed counterdeception CO As to the commander,

## Co~Clusion

This publication provides joint doctrine to plan, execute, and assess MIL DEC in support of joint operations.

## 1. Lntroduetioa

a. Military deception (MILDEC) is actions executed to deliberately mislead adversary military, paramilitary, or violent extremist organization decision makers, thereby causing the adversary to take specific actiOns (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission. MlLDEC is applicable at all levels of warfare, across the range of military operations, and can be conducted during all phases of -military operations. When properly intcgtated with operati6ns security {OPSEC), o1hor info!l1llltionrelated. capabilities (IRCs), and the visible activities of the joint force and its cotQ.ponents, MlLD.EC Can be a decisive -tool in altering how the adversary views, analyzes, decides, and acts ii1 tesponse to :friendly military opet:ations. This concept is incorporated in the "see, t:l:tink,_ dO" methOdology that guides MILDEC planning, execution, and aSsessment, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Of Staff Instruction (CJCSI)
3211.01, (U) Joint Policy for Miliiary *Deception,* _provides joint policy guidance for MILDEC. This joint publication (JP) pro.vides authoritative guidanCe and best practices to conduct MILDEC. For-more _speCific_ information conqerning responsibilities related to MILDEC, and.more specific guidance and reStrictions relating to MILDEC iil support
of joint operations.- refer to CJCSI 3211.01., (U) Joint Policy for Military Deception.

b. Du~ to th,e_ potentially sensitive natpre of MILDEC activities and seJe<rted means, MJLDEC planners should ccnsider appropriate security and classification measures to properly safeguardMILDEC taCtics, tecbniques, and pl'<lCOdures. The MILDEC planning
_process and its Jntegration irtkt _the overall joint' force plan will be discussed in more
detail in Chapter V, "Military Deception Planning."

## 2. The :Funetindj And Role Ofl\Fllilary Deception

a. MILDEC has been an aspect of warfare since antiquity. It is most closely aligned with the achieVement of stirpris_e and the battlefield. displacement of critical adver:sary capabilitreS away- from the friendly point of action. The functions of MILDEC include, but are not limited to,
(1). Causing ambiguity; conf4sion1
or misUnderstanding in adversary perceptions of friendly Critical  iiUormatiOn AQ.d indicators such as unit idCntities.

loc&;tjon,Sj movements, dispositions-, weaimesses, capabilities. strengths, supply starus, and intentions.


(2) Causing the adversary to misallocate personnel, fiscal, and material resources in ways that are advantageous to the friendly force.


(3) Causing the adversary to reveal strengths, dispositions, and intentions.

(4) Conditiorting the adversary to particular patterns of friendly behavior to induce adversary perceptions. that can be exploited by the joint force.

(5) Causing the adversary to waste combat power and resources with inappropriate or delayed actions.

b. MILDBC can play a pivotal role in the accomplishment of the commander's objectives and significantly reduce risk.

MILDEC can mask. protect, reinforce, exaggerate, mininiize, disto~ or otherwise misrepresent US technical and operational capabilities, intentions. operations, and associated activities. When properly resourced and integrated, MILDEC has the potential to deter or induce actions that are favorable to the joint force and thus increase the success of friendly activity. MlLDEC can be a critical enabler to achieving operational surprise and maintaining the initiative in offensive operalions.

c. MILDEC activities are planm:d to support objectives detailed in concept plans
(CONPLAJ\s). operation plans (OPLANs). and operation orders (OPORDs) associated with approved military operation<> m activities. There are three categories of MILDEC
supporting joint military operations:
(l) Joint MILDEC. Joint MILDEC is planned and conducted in a lheater of operations to support military campaigns and major operations. Joinr Mll .. DEC activities are planned and executed b). and in support of, combatant commanders (CCDRs), joint force commanders (JFCs), and joint task force (JTf) commander::; to cause- adversaries to take actions or inactions that are favorable to the US commander s objectives. The majority of combatant command (CCMD)~planned and executed MILDEC will be joint MIL DEC to create operational-level effects. Joint MILDEC is normally planned prior to, and conducted during, comb.lt operations.

(2) Tactical Deception (Ti\C-D).

T:~C~D is deception aCtlvtty planned and executed by. and in support of, tactical-level commandl;!rS to cause adversaries to take actions or inactions favorable to the tactical commanders' objectives.

TAC-O is conducted to inllucnce military operations ln order to gain a tactical advantage over an adversary, mask vulnerabilities in friendly forces, or to enhance the defensive capabilities of friendly forces. TAC-D is unique to the tactical requirements of the local commander and not necessarily linked or subordinate to a greater joint MlLDEC plan.

(J) l>cccption in Support of Operations Security (DISO). DISO conveys or denies scicctcd information 01 signatures to a foreign intelligence entity (FIE) and limits the FIE's overall ability to collect or accurately analyze critical information about friendly operations, personnel, programs. equipment, and other assets. DISO differs from joint MTIDEC and TAC-O plans in that it only targets FlEs and is not focused on generating a specific adversary action or inaction.

## 3. Military Deception And Information Quality

a. Information quality refers to the accuracy, completeness, relevance, and believability of information available for decision making. MILDEC should affect the quality of information available for adversary decisions in the following ways:
(I) Deliberately present misleading information and indicators to adversaries to degrade the accuracy of adversary information.

(2} Give adversary decision makers a false sense of completeness of their understanding about friendly forces or intentions.

(3) Cause the adversary to misjudge the releYance of availabte infOrmation and misallocate operational or intelligence resources.

## Chapter 1

(4) Cause adversaries to doubt the veracity of their mvn intelligence assessments.

b. Care should be taken to protct.:t the quality of infonnation available for friendly decisions and public dissemination by instituting internal processes to identify and isolate information generated as a by~product of any MfLDEC ac-tivity. This will help prevent the JFC from reaching erroneous conc!usioM because the staff unknowingly integrated the content or output of the JTF's MIUJEC efforts as accurate information. This will also ensure the information made public by the JFC is not part of any MILDEC action that would result in a loss of public trust.

## 4. Military Deception Planning Methodology

a. As with all joint planning, MfLDEC planning is an iterative process that requires continual reexamination of its goal!>, objectives, targets, stories, and means. Command1.~rs and their staffs ml!st respond to the dynamics of the situation and of their own headqumters.

b. "See, Think, Do'' Deception Methodology. Successful deception operations are those that do more than make the target helieve or think the deception is true. MIL DEC
must end in a decision maker's action, or inaction, that supports the JFC's operation. The
sec. think, do'' methodology is based on historical lessons of successful deceptions, from ancient times to Operation DESERT STORM.

Tile goal of this methodology is to manipulate the cognitive prncess in the deception target's mind that leads to target decisions that result in adversary actions thai are advantageous to the JFC (see Figure l-
1). The following interrogatories describe the process:
(I) See: Does the target see the deceptive event?

(2) Think: Does the target conclude the observations are valid? (3) Do: What action or inaction may the target take or not take as a result of the conclusions based upon those observations?

## 5. Military Deception Overview

The following sections and paragraphs outline basic tenns and concepts necessary for the joint force planner or staff officer to understand the fundamentals of MILDEC. A
detailed discussion of their application can be found in Chapter V, 'Military Deception Planning.''
a. Deception Goal and Deception Objectives. The deception goal and associated deception objective(s) are key outputs of MILDEC mission analysis and the foundation tOr subsequent MILDF.C planning. They provide the commander and MIL DEC planners with a solid understanding of how the deception supports the overall operation and establishes the conceptual framework for planning and executing MTUlEC.

## Military Deception Methodology

(I) The deceptioo goal is the commander's statement of the porpnse of the MILDEC as it contributes to tbe successful accomplishment of the assigned mission. The deception goal is usually stated as a positive friendly advantage or condition Such as:
"Successful MILDEC will create a decisive combat power advantage for the coalition main effort attack ~long AXIS MONTANA.'' MILDEC is. not an end to itself. Like any other fonn of military operation. the measure of success for MlLDEC is its direct contribution to the accomplishment of the mission. MILDEC often requires substantial investments in effort and-resources that would otherwise be applied against the adversary in a more direct fashion.

Cons:equent1y, it is important for the commander to first envision the deception .goal in terms of its specific contribution to accomplishing the designated mission.

(2) The deeeptioo objeetive is a concise statemenfof ivhat MILDEC will cause the adversary to. do or not do. It is expressed .in t~nns of adversary action or inaction that directly leads to the advantage or condition stated in the deception goal. For example:
1'SUccessful MILDEC will cause the adversary to hold their annored reserve in a position:
or s!litus unable to impact forces along AXIS MONT ANA through 0+36 hours."
Deception objectives are the desired outcome of the MILDEC operation.

_ b. The deception target is the adversary military or other valid d'ecision maker with the authority Bn.d means to make the decision and subsequently direct the action or inaction of the military capability captured in the MILDEC objective-. The deception target or targets are th~ key individuals on whom the entire deception operation will be focused.

## C. Conduits And Filters

(1) lleception conduits are infonnation or ir:tclligcncc pathways to the deception target.

Collectively, they define how the adversary will register or "see''
activity in the information environment and hov..' those observations are trano;mitted, processed, and ultimately delivered to rhe decision maker.

The MILDEC planner chooses and deconflicts access to specific conduits in order to deliver a synchronized portrayal of selected informai.ion and indicators. In general terms, an individual conduit consists of a sensor that registers a signature, a transmission means from the sensor to an intermediate node or nodes that might act on the infonnation in a variety of ways, and delivery to tbe deception target(s).

(2) In general tenns, conduits consist of all che systems, organizations, and individuals through which information reaches the target. The selection of appropriate conduits is a critical part of the process of developing a successful \.11LDEC plan. A
filter is any node V.'ithin a conduit that applies aggregation, synthesis, or bias to the observable on its path to the deception target. MlLDEC planners must understand the detailed construct, filtering, and estimated function time of each conduit, relationships and redundancy with other conduits, and their comparative value as pe!'ceived by the target in order to craft the m{1st effective portrayal of the deception stmy.

## D. Dc~Ircd Perceptions And The Deception Story

(l) Desired perceptions arc the conclusions. ollicial estimates. and assumptions the MILDEC target must believe in order to make the decision that will achieve the MILDEC objective (think). These adversal}' perceptions will be fonned from both objective (observation and analysis) and subjective (intuition and experience)
analysis. They are also heavily impacted by biao;es, preconceptions. and filters applied in the collection. analysis. delivery, and reception of information.

(2) The deception story is a scenario that outlines the friendly actions that will be portrayed to cause the deception target to adopt the desired perception. It is a succinct statement or narrative of exactly what the MILDEC planner wants rhe target to helieve to be the true situation, then decide and act on that basis. The deception story should read like the adversary's intelligence estimate about friendly forces' actions and intentions.

The deception story identifies those friendly actions. both real and simulated, that, when observed by the deception target. v,-ill lead it to develop the desired perception.

Deception story development is both an analytic and creative process that involves a variety of in!Ormation on enemy data acquisition and processing.

## E. Indicators, Observables, A11D Competing Observables

(I) An indicator is information or a detectable action (specific fac-ts or evidence) that is likely to be interpreted or pieced together by an adversary to form assumptions and assessment<; about friendly activity, capability, and iment. MILDEC
planners work to identify key indicators that align with the friendly activities, capability, and intent porbayed by the deception story. These include visible ckrncnls and selected indicators of the actual JFC's course of action (COA), as well as indicators that must be created using deceptive activities or means to mislead and deceive.

It is generally desirable to have a very high ratio of actual (truthful) versus deceptive indic<:~tors for a deception and the associated deception story ro he believable, verifiable, consistent, and executable.

(2) The key link between selected indicators and the deception story is the tentative identification of one or more adversary conduits that the indicator will be exposed to.

The combination of an indicator v.-ith an adversary conduit creates an obsenable. Unless exposed to one or more active conduits, an indicator is ineffective in conveying the deception story: the adversary cannot register or respolld to what they cannot see.

(3) A competing obsenable is any observable that contradicts the deception story. fn order to minimize the impact or competing observab\es on adversary cognition, they must be mitigated as part of the MJLDEC plan.

Examples of mitigation for competing obscrvablcs include protection with OPSEC, including DTSO; incorporation into the deo;eption story; neutrali:tation of the adversary conduit to which they are likely to be exposed; or assumption of risk based on detailed analysis of minimal impact to the operation.

## 6. Tenets Of Military De<:Eption

Just as the principles of war provide general guidance for the conduct of military operations, the six tenets of MlLDEC (see Figure I2) provide guidance to plan and execute MILDEC operations.

a. Focus. MIL DEC should target the adversary decision maker capable of causing the desired action{s). The co!le~;tion system is normally not the target; rather, it is the primary conduit used in MILDEC to convey selected information to the decision maker.

b. Objective. The principal objective of VIII,DEC operations is to focus actions and resources to cause an adversary to take (or not to take) specific actions, not just to believe certain things.

c. Centralized Planning and Control. :'VllLDFC' operations should be centrally planned and directed. This approach is required in order to avoid confusion and to ensure the various elements involved in MILDEC portray the same story and arc not in conflict with other operational objectives or evolving conditions in the operational environment.

Execution of MILDEC may, hov.cvcr. be decentralized a<; long as all participating organi7.ations adhere to a single plan.

d. Security. Successful Mll.DF.C operations require strict security. This begins prior to execution with measures to deny knowledge of the friendly force's intent to deceive. Apply strict need to know criteria to each MJLDEC operation and to each asped or that operation. Employ active OPSEC to deny critical infol"mation about both actual operations and MIL DEC activities; knowledge of MIL DEC plans and orders must be carefully protected.

To ensure adequate protection of information, all MILDEC
information must be correctly classified and handled in accordaDce with the Joint MILDEC Security Classification-Guide.

e. Timeliness~ A MILDEC operation requires careful timing. Sufficient time must be provided for its portrayal; for the adversary conduits to collect,.analyze, and report; for.

the adversary decision maker to react; and for the friendly inteJiigence collection system to detect the action resulting from the adversary dec.isjon maker's decision. Further detection may lead to a decision point. requiring a friendly commander's decision on how to proceed with an operation.

f. Integration.

Fully integrate . each MILDEC with the operation that it is supporting. The development of the MILDEC concept .must occur as part of the development of the commander's concept of operations (CONQ:PS). MILDEC must be considered early in planning at all levels to ensure subordinate deception plans are integrated within higher-level plans.

## 7. Military Deception Types, Teclmiques, Tactics, And Meani

a .. Deception -Types.

There are two generally recogniZed types of military deception: ambiguity increasing and amblguity decreasing. More corriplex operational level deceptions might combine both ambiguity increasing and decreasing types of deception. Operation BODYGLARD protected the World War II Allied D-Day landings in Nonnandy with the threat of paralic! invasions through 1\orwa:y and the Balkans
(ambiguity increasing) while simultaneously convincing the Germans that any invasion through France would occur at the Pas-de-Calais (ambiguity decreasing).

(1) Ambiguity increasing deception provides the adversary with multiple plausible and equally viable friendly COAs. Ambiguity increasing type deceptions are designed to generate confusion and conflict in the mind of the ~:~dver.:;ary decision maker.

Anticipated effects of an ambiguity increasing type deception can indudc operational paralysis or the distribution of adversary forces to locations well away from the intended location of the friendly efforts.

(2) Ambiguity decreasin2 deceptions cause the adversary decision maker to be ''very certain and very wrong."' Anticipated effects of the ambiguity decreasing type of deception normally include the displacement of kl:y adversary resources and increased operational <>urprise relative to the timing, location, or method of the friendly main effort.

Ambiguity decreasing deceptions cause the adversary to be "'at the wrong place. at the wrong time. with the wrong stuff."
b. Deception Techniques.

Deception techniques can be c.haracteriz.ed as operational-level constructs tbat encompass a broad range of deceptlve activity and infonnation (including tactics and means) integrated as a component of the overall plan.

MIL DEC operations apply fom basic deception techniques: feints .. demonstrations, ruses.

and displays.

(l) Feints. A feint is en offensive action involving contact with the adversary conduc.1ed for the purpose of deceiving the adversary as to the location and/or time of the actual main offensivt action.

(2) Demonstrations. A demonstration is a show of force where a decision is not sought and no contact with the adversary is intended. A demonstration's intent is to cause the adversary to select a COA favorable to friendly goals.

(3) Ruses.

A ruse is designed to deceive the adversary to obtain friendly advantage. It is characterized by deliberately exposing false or confusing information for collectiOn and interpretation by lhc adversary.

(4) Displays.

Displays are the simulation, disguising. and/or portrayal of friendly objects. units, or capabilities in the projection of the MlLDEC story.

Such c~:~pabilities may not exist, but arc made to appear so (simulations) (e.g., sho\V of force).

c. Deception Tactics. Deceplion tactics may be employed in a localized manner or as a component of a larger deception technique. The application of tactics varies \vith each operation depending on variables such as time, assets, equipment, and objectives, and is assessed for feasibility accordingly. Sample MlLDEC tactics include:

## Chapter I

(I) Amplifying signatures to make a force appear larger and more capable or simulate the deployment of critical capabilities.

(2) Suppressing signatures to make a force appear smaller and less capable or to conc:eal the deployment of critical capabilities.

(3) "Dazzling" adversary sensors by overloading them with multiple false indicators and displays to distract or dissipate their collection assets.

(4) "Repackaging" known organizational or capability signatures to generate new or deceptive profiles that increase or decrease the ambiguity of friendly activity or intent.

(5) "Conditioning'' to desensiti7:e the adversary to particular patterns of friendly behavior and induce adversary' perceptions that arc exploitable at the time of friendly choosing.

d. Decefdion Means. Deception means are resources, methods, or techniques used to portray selected information and indicators to the deception target Deception means are divided into three basic categories: physical, t~chnical. or administrative.

An individual deception means may have multiple attributes that allow it co be characterized in more than one category. MILDEC means are normally applied in a complementary manner that misleads multiple types of adversary sensors to increase credibility and the likelihood of creating the desired perception. This grouping of related deception events or executions is referred to as a deception series.

(I) Physical :\tleans. Physical means are resources. methods, and techniqLles used to convey or deny information or signatures normally derivable from direct observation or active sensors by the de<:eption target. Most physical means also have technical signatures visible to sensors using scientifically or electronicali)' enhanced collection. Physical means are normally evaluated by characteristics such as shape. size, function. quantity, movement pattern, location, activity and association with their surroundings. Examples include:

(a) Movement of forces.
{b) Exercises and training activities.
(c) D~>:coy equipment and devices.
(d) Tactical actions.
(e) Logistic~ actions, and location of stockpiles and repair facilities.
(f) Visible lest and evaluation activities.
(g) Recom1aissance and <:urveillance activities.
(2) Technical Means. Technical means are resources, methods, and techniques used to convey or deny selected information or signatures to or from the deception target by manipulating electromagnetic (EM), acoustic, or other forms of energy or through olfaction. Technical means may be applied in conjunction with corresponding physical means or may be llsed atone to replicate a physical means absent direct visual observation by the adversary. As with any use of US military material resources. any use of technical means to conduct MILDEC must Cl1mply with US and international taw. Examples of technical means include:
(a) The establishment of communication networks and interactive transmissions that replicate a specific unit type. si:c, or activity.

(b) Emission or suppression of chemical or biological odors associated with a specific capability or activity.

(c) Multi-spectral !\imulators that replicate or mimic the known electronic profile of a specific capability or force.

(d) Selected capabilities that disrupt an adversary sensor or affect data transmission.

(3) Administrative Means. Adminis1rative means are resources. methods, and techniques to convey or deny selected written. oral, pictorial, or other documentary infonnation or signatures to or from the deception target.

They normally portray infonnation and indicator.<; associated with coordination for ongoing or planned military activity to the deception target. Examples of administrative mean;; normally vi~ible to an adversary al ~orne level include:
(a) Contracting activity for services or supplies.

(b) Movement, transit, or overflight requests including flight planning. p011
call. or traffic control coordination.

(c) Basing inquiries; construction requests.

(d) Other preparatory coordination associated with a military operation that is normally done through unclassified channels.

e. Unlawful Deceptions. Certain :\11LDEC activities or techniques are prohibited because they vinlate the law oh..ar, including killing or wounding the enemy by resort to perfidy. Acts of perfidy are acts that are designed to invite the confidence of an enemy to lead him to believe that he is entitled to. or obliged to accord, protection under the law of war, with intent to betray that confidence. \1oreover, the law of war prohibits misusing certain protected signs such as the Red Cross or Red Crescent, fighting in the enemy's unifonn, and tCigning nonhostilc relations in order to seek a militar; advantage. These accions are prohibited because they undermine the protections afforded by the law of war to civillans, persons who are hors de combat, or other protected classes of persons and objects; impair nonhostile relations between opposing belligerents; and may damage the basis for the restoration of peace.

For further guidance on unlawfUl deception. refer to *the* Department of Defense's Law o(
War Manual (June 2015), Sections 5.21 through 5.25.

## 8. Assessment

Assessment is an essential and resource-intensive aspect of any successful MILDEC
and must be considered from the initiation of planning. Deception objectives that cannot be associated with a progressive and observable adversary response are not preferred for development into a more detailed deception concept or subsequent execution. MILDEC
is assessed in the same manner as other operations: w;ing measures of performance
(MOPs) to determine if a MILDEC event was executed according lo plan and measures of effectiveness (MOEs) to deterl'lline if the event created the desired impact or effect. In MILDEC operations. MOPs involve everything up to and including delivery of the observable (filtered or unfiltered) to the deception target Accurately assessing MOEs for MILDEC is complicated by the fact that MILDEC planners need to measure de!>ircd changes in perception. as well as the action/inaction manifested by their success.

Because of this complc:-;ity, each planned deception event should be accompanied by a detailed assessment plan that include~ MOP~. \r10Es, and coordination with the intelligence directorate or a joint staff (J-~) for intelligence collection assets to collect and report irrdicators in real-time. A more delailed discussion of MILDEC assessment is found in Chapter IV, Intelligence Support to Military Deception.''
Intentionally Blank

## Chapter It Military Deception And Information Operations T. Idformatlon Operations

Jnfotmation operations (10) are the integrated employment, during military operations, of IRCs in ~oncert With other lines 9f operation (LOOs) to influence. disrupt, corrupt, or usurp the decision making of adversaries while protecting our own.

For *further guidance on 10, refer* to JP 3~13; Information Operations.

## L. Muitary Deeeptloo As Aa Luformatioo-Re!Ated Capability

A properly planned. and executed MILDEC is one of the most effective IRCs available to the JFC. It can directly influence, corrupt, disrupt, and usurp the adversary's military decision-making process and the subsequent direction of their forces. MILDEC
targets the informational aDd cognitive processes of the adversary military decision maker by using means and information to lead them to incorrect conclusions about friendly capabilities and intentiQns. This in tum causes the adversary decision maker to respond to a faulty constru~t of the operational environment and order the action or inaction of critical capabilities that. when misallocated, generate a planned friendly advantage and substantially reduce risk to the friendly mission and forces. In order to create these effects, MIL DEC must be integrated not only with the- overall plan, but very closely with other IRCs, in both parallel and mutually supporting -activities. While MILDEC uses a broad spectrum of techniques, tactics, and means to portray inaccurate friendly capabilities and intentions, its success is dependent on the application of other IRCs to enable the delivery of deceptive information and to-disrupt accurate adversary infomu\tion collection, conten~ and flow to decision makers. Successful M!LDEC also requires a holistic and seamless integration with OPSEC to conceal or protect vulnerable physical, technical, and administrativ~ indicators of our true capabilities and intent

## 3. Mwtary Deeeptloo 'S Relaliontbip To Idformation-Re!Ated Capabilities

IRC. play a coordinated and interrelated role in the overall MILDEC effort. In many cases, IRCs provide the specific means for accomplishing a MILDEC task. Just as MJLDEC is integrated with the overall plan, it must also be coordinated and deconflicted with IRC plans to elim~te potentially counterproductive activities, This is normally accomplished through the operatioos directorate of a joint staff (J3) or other 10 plaoning staft: Not all IRC planners will be fully cognizant of the existence or extent ofMILDEC
activity; access to the plan remains on a need to know basis.

## A. Mildec And Opsec

{1) OPSEC is a capability that identifies and contmls critical information indicators of friendly force actions aucndant to military operations and incorporates countenneasures to reduce the risk of an adversary exploiting vulnerabilitie~.

The purpose of OPSEC is to reduce the vulnerability of US and multinational forces from successful adversary exploitation of critical information.

Joint forces oflen display p:;:rsonnel, organizations, assets, and actions to public view and to a variety of adversary intelligence collection activities, including sensors and systems.

Joint forces can be under observation at their peacetime bases and locations, in training or exercises, while moving, or when deployed conducting actual operations. in addition, the adversary could compile and correlate enough information to facilitate predicting and countering US
operations. The a.naly~is of friendly infoiTrlation and planned activity by trained OPSEC
practitioners leads to the understanding of what information or observable activity rises to the level of critical information and indicators. If the adversary is able to collect critical information and indicators, they can potentially derive an accurate operational picture of key friendly aspeC(S such as presence, capability, strength, inlent, readiness, location of future operations or activity, timing, and method of operations (the commander"s ohje:ctives and operational de:<;ign).

(2) OPSEC planners. in conjunction with the intelligence community (I C) and JOmt and component planners, apply OPSEC to identify critical information and indicators by phase, type of operation, or mission; determine how the adversary collects
(sees) and how they will perceive potentially visible friendly critical information and indicators; -weigh the adversary ability to collect, analyze, and respond to the critical infom1ation and indicators to a level that generates an unacceptable risk (time and operati(lna.l ability to respond); and de"elop and apply OPSEC measures and countcrmcasurcs to protect and deny critical infOrmation and indicators that would enable the adver::;ary to accurately determine and subsequently interdict planned operations.

(3) The holistic integration of OPSEC and MIL DEC into a shaped portrayal of friendly activities and intent is a traditional military art that is sometimes referred to as denial and deception. When properly integrated. OPSEC and MIL DEC work together to effectively and collaboratively shape hew the adversary observes. analyzes, perceives.

predicts. and responds to friendly operations and activities.

!t is a conscious and continuous effort to analy:tc and manage our own operational profiles so what is visible to the advasary is no more or less than ~hat we deliberately plan it to be. While OPSEC
focuses primarily on identifying and protecting critical infonnation and indicators associated with the planned COA, MILDEC leverages the visible aspects of friendly operations and combine~ them with deceptive activity to create plausible alternative facts and conditions in the operational environment to which the targeted decision makers feel they must respond. This activity performs the MILDEC functions found in Chapter I,
"General," and generates a friendly force advantage at the time and place of our choosing. Figure Il-l illustrates how OPSEC and MILDEC might be viewed in terms of their intent related to the adversary's observe. orient, decide, act (OOOA) loop. The intent of OPSEC can be described 11S '"short circuiting the OODA loop by protecting critical information and indicators to the level that a friendly force, capability, or activity

## Observe, Orient, Decide, Act Loop Intent Of Operations Security And Military Deception

is either-unobserved or lacks the required fidelity for adversary analysts to make accurate assessments or predictions. The intent of a MILDEC execution Or event series (multiple executions toward the same objective), by contrast. is to t;;ause the OODA loop to function in its entirety, but with misleading and inaccurate information designed to generate specific adversary decision maker actlonfmaction favorable to friendly objectives and end states. Of all the IRCs, the iDterrelationsbip and syrichronization of activities between MILDEC and OPSEC is arguably the most critical.

(4) DISO presents false, confusing, or misleading information and indicators to FlEs as pert of a larger OPSEC plan. DISO makes it difficult for FIBs to identizy or accurately derive .the critical information and indicators protected by OPSEC. DISO will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter V, "Military Deception Planning."
(5) In-order to achieve the desired level of control over adversary perceptions, OPSEC and MILDEC planners coordinate their activities across .a spectrum of influence that includes truth (factual infonnation and actions visible to all), denial (critical information and indicators protected by OPSEC), misdirection (DISO and other activities designed to confuse ady.emuy analysts and decision makers), and deceit (deceptive aotivity and infonnati0n delivered as part oftheapprovedMILDEC plan). While OPSEC
identifies and protects critical infonnation and indicators about the actual CO A. MILDEC
aqtively generates what appears_ to be critical infonnation-~d indicators supporting the

## Chapter Ii

deception story. MILDEC deliberately leads the adversary decision maker to the wrong conclusion, thus usurping their decision making and subsequent action (see Figure II~2).

(6) MILDEC and OPSEC planners can achieve significant savings in time and resources by collaborating during the joint planning process (JPP). Adversary threat assessment in the OPSEC planning process to detennine technical aspects of how an adversary sees and perceives friendly activity correlates directly with MlCDEC planner identification of conduits necesSary to deliver deceptive infonnation to militaty decision makers. Both OPSEC arid MILDEC require a detailed knowledge of advers~ decision making to project the impact of planned activities. In concept development, the OPSEC
plartner and MILDEC planner both require detailed knowledge of friendly indicators
(signature, association, profile, contrast, and exposure): OPSEC to identify and protect critical information and indicators, MILDEC in order to replicate desired indicators that effectively portray the deception story.

(7) OPSEC also supports MILDEC directiy during planning, preparation, and execution. The existence of a MILDEC operation in and of itself is critical infonnation, and indicators require protection. An OPSEC' analysis of the planned MILDEC is needed to protect against an inadvertent or unintentional disclosure of MILDEC existence, techniques. or p&rq.cular means being used. Failure to maintain good OPSEC can lead to identification of the operatio,n as a deception effort with the resulting second and third
order effects Such as the refocusing of adversary intelligence collection and combat power against actual friendly force dispositions and intent.

## Elements Affecting Decision Making

For further guidance on OPSEC, refer *loJP* 3~13.3, Operations Security.

## B. Mildec Aod Military Infonnatioo Support Operations (Miso)

(1) MISO are_ planned operations to convey selected infonnation and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups. and individuals in a manner favolllble to the originator's obje-ctives.

(2) Deception targets may also be MISO target audiences.

MILDEC
observables used to deceive MILDEC targets should be deconflicted with MISO themes and messages 1n order to maintain believability and credibiiity.

(3) MISO products and activities are generally truth based. This practice is not based **_upon** leg~l or policy restrictions, but is upon a requireme':lt to **maintain** c~edibility with target audiences in order to execute future MISO.

{4) MILDEC planners should be aware of MISO themes and messages that the intended MlLDEC target *may* receive.

MISO themes and me."isages contain both objective and subjective truth. and must he generally ''verifiable" by the target audience.

MILDEC events and deceptive information inserted into adversary conduits contain falsehoods and need only be believable to th.e target. The two can be mutually beneficial, but they may also run counter to each other; therefore, MISO and MILDEC should be carefully coordinated.

(5) MISO products directed at specific adversary target audiences may be med in cm~unction with MlLDEC techniques such as feints, demonstrations, ruses, and displays to add credibility to the deception story or event. \IHSO products warning of impending multinational force arrivaL providing surrender instructions, or attacking the morale of adversal)' military or paramilitary forces are examples of this type of cooperation. However, because of the requirement for MISO to retain credibility with its broader target audiences, any use of \1ISO in this manner, and proposed themes, must be carefully evaluated for the potential costlhenefit and/or second- and third-order effects of it" use.

fOr further guidance on MJSO, refer to JP *3-13.2,* Military Information Support Operations.

## C. Mildec And Electronic Warfare (Ew)

(!)All modem forces depend on the electromagnetic spectrum tEMS). The military requirement for unimpeded access to, and use of. the EMS is the key focus for joint EMS operations, both in support of military operations and as the focus of operations themselves, FW is essential for protecting friendly operations and denying advcrsar.Y operations within lhe EMS throughout the operational environment. The term EW rerers lo militazy action involving the use of EM energy and directed energy to control the EMS or to attack the enemy.

(2) :V11LDEC, in conjunction with OPSEC. supports EW
operation~ by protecting the development, acquisition. and deployment of sensitive EW capabilities .

. 'vtiLDEC can also support the employment of EW units anct systems.

(3) EW can support feints, ruses, demonstrations, and displays. The positioning of a majority or a command's E\V systems in a particular area can create an indicator of the command's intended main effort. The disruption of an adversary's communications and intelligence collection S)'Stems and assets can facilitate the insertion of deceptive infonnation. EW employed against intl'lligcnce collection assets can shape and control the adversary's ability to obtain information about certain activities. Close coordination is required between friendly EW, MILDEC, communication-;, cyberspace and space suppmt element<;, frequency management, and intelligence planners to ensure EW does not disrupt any adversary communications systems that are used as MILDEC conduits or that are providing intelligence feedback.

(4) E\1
deception is the deliberate rao.Jat1on, re-radiation, alteration, suppression. absorption, denial, enhancement, or reflection of EM energy in a manner intended to convey misleading information to an enemy or to enemy E\tf dependent weapons, thereby degrading or neutralizing the enemy's combat capability. Among the types of EM deception are the following:
(a) Manipulative, This invol,.es actions to eliminate revealing. or convey misleading, EM telltale indicators that may be used by hmtilc forces.

(b) Simulative. This involves actions to simulate friendly, notional, or actual capabilities to mislead hostile farces.

(c) lmitati\e. This involves actions to imitate enemy emissions lo miskad hostile forces.

For further guidance on EW, refer to JP *J-13.1,* Electronic Warfare.

## D. Mil Dec And Cyberspace Operations {Co)

(1) MILDEC and CO can be mutually supportive in a number of ways. A few examples are noted below:
(a) Ilecause the adversary may also be resident in cyberspace, and leverages the same systems and processes, CO are an effective conduit for the placement or delivery of deceptive materia! to affect adversary military decision making and subsequent action/inaction.

(b) MILDEC planners can help protect friendly use of information systems
(ISs) by applying deceptive activities similar to those used in the phy$ical dimension for maneuver forces.

Such an operation may include the construction of false s~rvers.

communication') nodes. and other hardware associated with a tactical computer network to include the replication of IS traffic and false data storage.

(c) Enemy intelligence and targeting systems, which make a priority of attacking or subverting a friendly IS, can be dissuaded from doing so via a successful MILDEC operation. Enemy collection assets can be redirected tcn..vard deceptive events
(such as tht;! presentation of tl false "weakness'' in friendly ISs) and then targeted for destruction or exploitation by fricrtdly forces.

F'or fiwther guidance on CO. refer 10 JP *3-12.* Cyberspace Operations.

## (2) Planning Considerations For Integrating Co And Mildec. Because

most physical activities of a JTF and its components are mirrored in cyberspace. the integration of MILDEC and CO planners in all phases of planning and operations is critical.

(a) Any MILDEC plan must consider the abilities and limitations of friendly and adversary CO. Careful and detailed planning is required t0 en~ure \11LDFC

## Chapter [I

executions using CO assets are nacked, recorded, and dec011flicted with other nondeceptive CO.

(bi The MILDEC plan should be properly classified and not expMed to unprotected computer networks or sent via unsecured eMmaiL Any exposure can lead to plan failure.

(c) Careful consideration must be taken for the application of limited friendly CO assers to MlLDEC. Several questions must be answered before CO are used:
L Can the target see the infonnation? Will presenting a deceptive vulnerability be believable. or will the target discount anything received?

2. What are the CO assets on hand? How much nondeceptive demand is being placed on the limited CO assets?

3. !low much time is necessary to set up, monitor, and use CO to support MILDEC?

:!:_._ How can \If !I .DEC support CO? Ensure the Mil ,DEC plan supports ongoing CO. as well as the overall OPLAN, and prcsC11ts an integrated, but fatse, picture to the target

## 4. Military Deception And Physical Attack

a, Physical attack rcfCrs to the usc or lethal means against designated targets as an element of an integrated 10 effort MIL DEC and physical attack interact in a variety of circumstances with examples provided below.

( t) Physical attack can support ~11LDEC by:
(a) Targeting adversal)' systems in support of feints. demonstrations, ruses, or displays to create the desired perception that a targeted area is a primary maneuver objective.

(b) Destroying or nullifying selected adversary intelligence collection capabilities or sites that might be in a position to register and report friendly indicators that contradict the deception story.

(2) MIL DEC can support physical attack by:
(a) :Misleading adversaries or FIEs about key operational asp~cts such as the presence, capability, strength, intent, readiness, or method of employment for key physical attack capabilities.

(b) Misleading the adversary about the location, timing, and method of planned friendly physical auackldestruction, thus increasing adversary vulnerability.

b. MILDEC planners should be an integral part or developing the joint integrated prioriti2ed target list to ensure gain versus loss assessments are conducted prior to de~troying potential \11LDEC conduits such as intelligence collection or radar sitt:s.

c. MILDEC and Cybersecurity. Cyhersecurity is critical to 10 because it protects and defends information and ISs by ensuring their availability. integrity. authentication, contidentiality, and non-repudiation. This includes providing for restoration of lSs by incorporating protection. detection, and restoration capabilities.

With regard to Mil JlF.C, cybersecurity safeguards information and indicators that may reveal (or provide a competing observable to) friendly deception operations. Cybersecurity can also support countertlcccption by identifying adversary attempts to insert false or misleading information into friendly system:..

d. MILDEC and Physical Security. Physical security consists of all rhc functional areas that make up those measures necessary to protect and safeguard personnel.

facilities, and installations. Security is an integral tenet of MILDEC. Without adequate physical security, a MILDF.C plan can be compromised. Commanders should ensure physical security measures are integrated into every phase of the deception planning process.

e. MILDEC and PubUc Affairs (PA). MILDEC activities, including planning efforts, are prohibited from explicitly or implicitly targeting, misleading. or attempting to influence the \JS Congress, the US public. or the CS news media. All MlLDEC activities are reviewed to eliminate, minimi7.e. or mitigate the possibility that such influence might occur.

US policy prohibits the use of PA to misinfom1 the lJS public. the US
Government, or LS and international media about military capabilities and intentions in ways that int1uence US decision makers and public opinion.

Coordinate MlLDEC
operations that have activities potentially visible to the media or the public with the appropriate PA officers to identify any potential problems. Coordination will reduce the chance that PA officers will inadve1tently reveal information that could undermine ongoing or planned MILDEC operations.

For further guidance on PA. refer tn *.!P 3-61.* Public Affairs.

f. MILDEC and Civil-Military Operations (CMO). CMO are the activities of a commander performed by designated civil affairs or other military forces that establish, maintain, influence. or exploit relationships between military forces and indigenous populations and institutions, by directly supporting the attainment of objectives relating to the reestablishment or maintenanct: of stability within a region or host nation. CMO
are conducted to gain maximum support for US forces from the civilian population. CMO contribute to the success of military operations and project a favorable US image throughout the operational area. Coordinate MtLDEC with Cl\,10 and with those MISO
aclivities that support CMO to ensure MlLDEC operations do not inadYcrtcntly undermine the relatior1ships with the civilian population or with host nation military authorities. Failure to consider C.\10 could result in the eompromi.c;e of MIL DEC plans or other unintended consequences to the overall mission.

## Chapter U

Forfitnher guidance on C."v!O, refer to JP *3-5?,* Civil-Milltary Operations.

## S. Information Operations Planning

a. The JFC normally establishes an (0 cell. Joint force staffs plan. integrate, and synchronize 10 efforts through the 10 cell within the overall JPP. At the combatant and subordinate join! force command levels. the- 10 cell is the focal point for 10 coordination and deconfliction of activilics and associaled operations.

All joint force planning activities should include 10 cell representation, and the cell is composed of select representatives from each of the staff elements and component<; responsible for 10
activities and other staff representatives as required. The JFCs senior Mil.. DEC planner is n01mally a standing member of the 10 cell. Within the 10 cell, the MIL DEC plann;;:r provides deception plan information to incorporate and dccontlict MILDEC with other lRCs. Some MILDEC details may be compartmentalized.

b. The IO cell is also the coordination entity for the MJLDEC representative \Vith other US Government departments, agencies, organintiot~s. and partner nations. Military planners interface with the 10 cell when developing plans for specific geographic areas.

The MILDEC representative also d;;:conflicts the M!LDEC plan with the activities of these emities i11 the operational area.

Because the interagency pmcess usually take<>
significant staffmg time. the MILDEC representative ensures this is accounted for in the planning rime!ine.

The same close coordination is ncces:sal)' between the MlLDEC
planner and representatives of partner nations, whether represented in the 10 cell or not.

For further guidance on /0 planning, refer to *.IP 3-13,* Information Operations.

## 6. Military Deteption And Camouflage, Concealment, And Decoys

Camouflage and concealment are OPSEC mea~ures used to protect friendly forces and activities from adversary detection and aurihution.

Camouflage makes friendly capabilities or activities blend in with the surroundings. Concealment makes friendly capabilities or a<.:tivities unobservable or unrecognizable to the adversary.

Both use physical, technical, and administl'ative signatures to deceive the adversary and protect the deception story.

MILDEC measures usc the same signatures for simulating friendly forces and activities. Decoys may be used in conjunction with other MILDEC activities ro mislead adversary intelligence collecrion and direct the adversary's attention away from actual forces.

## 7. Legal Support To Military Deception

MILDEC and Legal Support. Staff judge advocate (SJA) personnel shall be included in coordination efforts to ensure compliance with applicable US and intemational law, treaties, and agreements to which the lJS is a part)'; presidential and Department of Defense (DOD) policy and regulations; rules of engagement (ROE); and applicable component policy. SJA personnel assist in planning the operation to meet rhe objective while complying with legal requil'ements, as wei\ as providing training to deception planning cell (DPC) personnel on !aw and policy applicable to MILDEC
operations.

For further guidance on le;::a! support, refer to JP *1-04,* Leg11l Supp011 to Milital)
Operations.

## 8. Military Deception And Personnel Recovery

VliLDEC may be used to deny adversaries knowledge of personnel recovery tasks:
report locate, support. recover, and reintegrate. These efforts focus on deceiving the enemy as to the personally identifiable information, location, status. friendly efforts Lo recover. and post recovery activities of the isolated person(s}.

For further guidance on the personnel *recnvery.* .~vstcm. functions, options, categories.

tasks, *wul methods,* r~fer lo JP *3-50,* Personnel Recovery.

Intentionally Blank

## Chap1Erill Roles, Coordination, And Considerations For Military Deception 1. Roles Aad Responsibilities Of Military Deception Planaen

MILDEC plans and operations require integrated timing and deconfliction in order to increase the probability of meeting the objectives. Therefore, MILDEC planners must understand the roles and responsibilities of everybody involved with MILDEC planning and execution .. JFCs should consider the usc of any assigned forces and methods subject to the ROE and law of war to accomPlish their MILDEC objective.

## A. Roles

(I) Commanders. While MILDEC may not be appropriate to evei'J' joint operation, the JFC determines the utility of MILDEC's contribution to achieving objectives. JFCs make the decision to use MIL.DEC after evaluating the analysis and recommendations from the JPP.

Commanders should guide applicable MILDEC
operations while also understanding their potential importance during planning and execution of the MILDEC operation.

(2) J-3/Piana Directorate of a Joint Stall (J-5). The division of planning labor between the J~3 and the J~S is command~specific. The 10 cell and the MILDEC
element are nonnally assigned to the J-3 but participate in *15* planning. According to their specific planning responsibilities (tailored to clearances, access levels, and need to know of specific individuals), the J-3/J-5 supervise the incorporation of.Mll...DEC into the IO portion of operations estimates. Based on these estimates. the J-3/J~S recommend various options for IO (including MILDEC) to the commander. Once the JFC has selected a particular 10 COA and received approval-through the chain of command, the J-
3/J-5 supervise the completion of planning for the selected COA. The J-3 nonnally
, supervises MILDEC execution.

(3) 10 CeO Chie The 10 ceil chief is normally responsible to the J-3 for the development of the 10 portion of any planning effort conducted by the staff. These responsibilities include supervision ofMILDEC planning and integration into the overall
10 plan. The 10 ceU chief monitors thf? implementation and execution of the MILDEC
portion of 10. For DISO, the IO chief will ensure OPSEC planners and MILDEC
planners work together for an integrated, effective OPSEC execution.

(4) Command Military Deception Officer (CMDO).

The CMDO is the primary designated officer with overall oversighl and management responsibility for each MILDEC program within the CCMDs, agencies, and Service components which support joint military operations. The CMDO establishes (through the CCDR) the review and approval processes for joint MlLDEC, DISO. and T AC-D, which fall under the authority of the CCMD. The CMDO also provides support to the approved MlLDEC plans and operations of other CCV!Ds as required. Duties and responsibilities of the CMDO are specified in CJCSI 3211.0 I. (UJ Joint Policy for .Military Deception.

(5) **Military De.::eption Officer (MDO).** Personnel at subordinate components, appointed by their component command leadership. are responsible for planning and execution of MILDEC.

The MOO works closely with the CMDO to ensure all component MILDEC plans arc in accordance with command and DOD guidance and policy.

(6) **MILDEC Planner.** The \..fiLDEC planner plans and executes MII.DFC
plans wi1hin their organization. These planners report to the CMDO cr MDO of their organizations. MILDEC planners work with other planners (internal and external to the TO cell) as necessary to integrate detailed plans and coordlnate execution.

(7) **Other Planners.** All joint staff planners should com.ider using MlLDEC
when developing CO As. Other planners may not be aware of the potential contribution ofMILDEC to their planning area. It is incumbent upon the senior MIL DEC planner to evaluate the mission and contact planners out~ide the 10 cell who may bcnetit from the addition of MILDEC actions 10 their part oft he plan.

## B. Responsibilities

(!) **Commander.** The JFC has explicit and inhcrcnl responsibilities for the deception effort. The commander should:

(a) Assess the mission order for stated and implied deception rasl:.s.
(b) Consider the use of deception in every operation.
(c) Task the staiTto evaluate the utility of deception.
(d) If deception appears feasible (it may be infeasible due to lack of time or
resources), state the tentative deception objective with the JFC's initial planning
guidance.
(e) Approve the deception objective, .~tory, and plan and allocate resources to ensure successful execution.

(f) When required, seck appropriate approval for employment of certain deception means.

(g) Determine when ro exploit deception and/or countcrdcception.

(2) .J-2.

The process of identifying MILDEC objectives to complement operational objectives is an iterative process. with the commander in a central role orchestrating the efforts of the operations, imclligcncc, and counterintelligence (Cl)
resources. The J-2 is a primary participant in lhis process. The J-2:
(a) Assists the commander and staff in gaining insight into the adversary and the adversary's capability to process, filter, and evaluate imeliig:ence on the fdendly situation.

(b) Provides assc~smcnts on the adversary's vulnerabilities to MILDEC.

(c) Provides assessments on adversary targets, sensors. most dangerous and most likely CO As, acceptance of the deception story, and MOEs.

(d) Provides comprehensive assessments and continual feedback to the deception element in o;;upport ofMILDEC planning, execution, and termination.

(e) Supports counterdeception operations to protect friendly de~p[ion operations and to expose adversary deception attcmpts.

(t) Responds to MILDE.C planners' request for infonnation (Rfl) inputs that solicit beha"ioral influences analysis/human factors analysis data on adversary military. paramilitary, or violent extremist-organizations.

(g) Produces the deception intelligence estimate (DIE) in collaboration with the MJLJ.W.C planner.

(3) **J-3.** The J-3 normally establishes a staff deception element to manage MILDEC operations as part of the 10 cell. The J-3:
(a) Recommends to the JFC the deception objective, story, and plan.

(b) Plans the deception effort.
(c) Ensures the deception effort is wordinated through the 10 cell with at!

other aspects of the plan integrated through the joint targeting process.

(d) Ensures, in coordination with the SJA, tbat the deception effort 1s planned and conducted in accordance with the LS law, ROE, and the law of\var.

{e) Supervises execution of the deception plan.

(f) Develops MOI::s to assess the deception operation in conjunction v.-ith the MILDEC planner.

(g) Controls termination of the deception plan.

(h) Submits detailed and clear RFI to J-2 for inrdligcncc information key to deception planning, exe<:ution, and assessment.

## Chapter Iii

(i) Collaborates with 1-2 to produce the DIE.

(i) Provides feedback to J~2 on intelligence products to include clarific-ation or additional RFI if needed.

(4) Logistic~ llirectorate of a Joint Staff (J-4). The J-4 provides the logistic support and guidance needed to conduct MILDEC operations in coordination with MILDEC planners. The J-4;
(al Assesses logistic requirements needed to conduct the :\11LDEC
operation.

(b) Determines logistic capabilities to support the deception operation.

(c) Provides input to and assessment of the deception plan to ensure logistics feasibility.

{d) Assesses the ability of logistic assets to support the deception plan without hindering the support necessary for execution of the overall operation.

(e) Develops logistic plans that support the MILDEC operation.

(5) J-5.

The J-5 nonnally maintains contingency plans and initiates crisis action planning efforts.

(a) Coordinates with the CMDO to ensure deception planning is included in OPLANs, CONPLAl\s. and campaign plans.

(b) Includes deception element~ in operations planning teams to ensure Mil .DFC operations are considered from the inception of planning.

(6) Communications System Directorate of a Joint Staff (J-6).

The J-6
ensures communications system support a1,d related communication<> ~ystem support activities necessary to support MILDEC The J-6:
(a) Provides planning guidance on communications sy!>tem support to
\ULDEC planners_
(b) Assesses supporting communications system network capabilities and interoperability required to support r.,,t!IJDEC operations.

(c) Reviews \-11LDEC plans and coordinates communications system support requirements,
(d) Develops and implements technical solutions to reduce the possibility of deception compromise and high-risk infonnation vulnerability.

(c) Dc,elops communications system support plaits to support the MILDEC operation.

(7) Others. Other staff members ensure compliance and deconfliction of the planning with respect to their functional areas.

They also provide expertise in the planning activities to support MILDEC.

## 2. Coordination Requirements.

a. Coordination and deconfliction of MILDF.C plans between CCDRs' areas of responsibility is essential for the success of a MIL DEC operation. The Joint Staff has the authority and responsibility to plan, coordinate, and integrate DOD 10 capabilities that cmss areas of responsibility or that dire-etly support national objectives.

For those MILDEC plans. the .Joint Staff J-3 [Operations Directorate] setves as the coordinating authority for the planning of \11LDEC and the integration of joint MILDEC with other IRCs. The Joint Staff J-3 supports the CCDRs in development, assessment, coordination, and recommendation ofMJLDEC tlptions. The Joint Stafl' J-3 ensures CCMD \'llLDEC
requirements do not conflict with MILDEC operations occurring in other areas or responsibility.

h. MTLDEC and its supporting actions should be coordinated with higl1er, adjacent.

subordinate, and supporting staffs.

c. Within a joint staff, coordination is required between deception planners and other planner~ and analy:;ts on the staff.

d. Coordination with CMO. PA, SJA, and other US Government department and agency personnel Ls imperative to avoid destabilizing military-civilian relationships anJ
to prevent the unintentional compromise of YIILDEC operations. This coordination is of increasing importance in situations where MIL DEC operations are viewed by the media and/or the general public.

e. The JFC-designated 10 cell chief is normall;r the single point of contact to manage and obtain coordination requirements and related points of contact information pertaining to the deception element However, a JFC may want to appoint a CMDO who would be the single manager for !VtiLDEC. Despite coordination requirement~, it is important to restrict knowledge of information relating to planned and ongoing MILDEC
operations to only those personnel who need to know.

(l) The JFC provides guidance concerning the dissemination of deceptionrelated infonm.tion.

During multinational operations, the JFC should be aware of information requirements and concerns of the non-US partners.

(2) During planning. MlUJEC plar1ners develop need to know criteria that permit necessary coordination while limiting tht! number of' individuals with knowledge of the deception. Only a few individuals require access to the entire deception plan.

Others require only knowledge of limited portions of the plan. The need to know criteria should address these different levels of required access.

## Chapter Iii

f. When MJLDEC operations incorporate or involve multinational pan.ners, the command's foreign disclosure officer should be ut_i]i?cd to help determine appropriate access to MIL DEC information and operations.

For further information nn multinational personnel ac:cen: to A11LDEC plans, refer to C'.JCSI *32/1.01,* ({~j Joint Policy tOr Military Deception.

g. MILDEC operations can benefit from normally occurring activity provided the activity tits the deception story.

Conversely, actual operations have the potential to crel!te OPSEC indkators that pose a threat to the effectiveness of Mlf .DEC operations.

These real indicators may conflict with the deception story.

MILDEC and OPSEC
pJanners will have to cnordinate with organizations that create these indi~ators to limit potential adverse effects or to maximi:tc their deception potential.

h. Assign liaison orficers (LNOs) from the appropriate intelligence staffs and organizations to support MJLDEC planning. L'!\Os provide all
8 source estimates upon which to base plans and rea1
8 cime all-snurce feedback about the effectiveness of deception actions.

Assign LNOs from MILDEC supporting organizations to provide expertise on unit indicators and to facilitate parallel planning.

## Chapter Iv Intelligence Support To Military Deception 1. Geoeral

Focused intelligence support is essential to the successful planrUng, execution~ and assessment of any MILDEC. The requirement Js substantive to the point that .. support friendiy deception efforts" and "counter adversary deception and surprise" are listed as two of the five roles and responsibilities of joint intelligence in JP 2~0~ Joint Intelligence.

There are five principal ways in which intelligence supports the execution of effective MILDEC.

a. Assist in the completion of the DIE. Begun during missjpn analysis, the DIE is the foundation for effective MTI...DEC planning, as well as subsequent executio.n and assessment

b. Answer RFis submitted during the planning and execution phases.
c. Support the conduit analysis step of the MILDEC planning process.
d. Support the development, collection, and analysis of planned MILDEC MOPs, MOBs, and indicators to facilitate assessment of the MILDEC plan and the current application of the commander's means and resources e. Identify and confum instances of adversacy deception and supporting counterdeception exploitation. (See Chapter VIT, ' 1Counterdeception.")

## L. The Deeeptiou Loteuigeoc:E Estimate

a. The DIE is a specialized intelligence product derived from the J-2's joint intelligence preparation of the operational environment (JIPOE) and responses to situation-specific RFis submitted by MILDEC plannets. While a high percentage of information in the DIE can be derived from JIPOE, much of the detail required is unique to MILDEC. MILDEC-trained intelligence eoalysts collaborate with selected members of the DPC and deception operations working group (DOWG) to build the DIE.

b. The DIE is a "living'' product. It is refined as additional information and intelligence become available, or -as conditions evolve and change within the- operational environment. During the initial planning stages, MILDEC planners and intelligence analysts will likely be required to make assumptionsrequiring later validation to continue with planning. These assumptions must be .tracked, aligned with an open RFI, and considered during risk analysis. Step four of the JPP (COA eoalysis and wargaming) will llelp retlne the DIE and may add support to key planning assumptions about probable

## Chapter Iv

adversary responses to planned friendly activity. Th~ greater the number of assumptions underpinning a \11LDEC plan. the higher tht risk that one or more assumptions will prove false and threaten the success of the plan.

c. The following topics are examples of essential information required to complete a functional DTF. that supports effective MILDEC planning: understanding adversary goals and operational objectives, characteri:tation of adversary decision making, identification of key military decision makers and development of individual or group profiles, understanding the adverstuy's intelligence and CJ organization and capabilities (to include external intelligence sources), analyzing the adversary's potential vulnerability to MILDEC, understanding adversary deception and counterdeception doctrine and re~ources, and identification of the most prohahle and most dangerous adversary COAs.

(I) Understanding adversary goals and objectives. These provide lhc ",.vh)"'
behind advcrsar~r decision making and subsequent actions or inaction. It is the first step in understanding and predicting adversary behavior. Effective ).11LDEC supporting other joint force activity could potemially cause an adversary to reevaluate the viability or risk associated wi(h a given COA.

(2) Characterization of adversary decision making. In order to affect adversary decision making. '\1,-e must first understand and characterize its functional componr.=nts. A
sample method of structuring this process ror joint MILDEC application is to analyze and describe the adversary's decision-making structure, decisicm-making style-, and cogniti\e biases and preconceptions that will likely affect or skew decision-making outcomes. JP J-25, *Countering Threat Networks.* provides comprehensive techniques and analytical framework discussion for understanding this critical aspect of tl1e information environment.

(a) Decisionmaking structure refers to how the adversary is organi:ed to collect, transmit, analyze, and dellver relevant information to support military decision making. their fom1al or informal organization for decision making, and the transmission and implementation of its outcomes to the action clcmcnt or capability v-.c are seeking to affect. This product is an expanded link node analysis and sometimes referred to as an information pathways diagram (see Figure IV~ l ). Characterizing the adversary's military decision~making structure i~ primarily an objective process. It combines a hierarchical analysis and represemation of the military. paramilitary, or violcnt extremist organi:ation with an analy~is ol' communication linkages and the collection capabilities and analytical functionality of its fonnal and informal intelligence and Cl support apparatus. External governing bodies, such as a military council within the advcrsary's political branch or its equivalent and foreign (external) intelligence support, should also be induded in the characterization of the military decision-making structure.

Analysts must identify additional sources of information feeding political-military oversight, as well as opensource information. While the example appears in tr<~.ditional line and block form, it is built on a functional design that reflects a notional military dedsion~making structure and includes only those elements relevant to that process.

lnfonnation palh\-\'ays will frequently include key civilian influencers that serve, formally or informally, as a component of military decision making. Their uliimate eligibility as a M!LDEC target

## Sample Information Pathways Diagram

would require legal analysis as part of the subsequent joint MILDEC plan review and approval process. A military decision-making infol)lllltion pathways dillgram for a decentralized, trans~rcgiorial viOlent extremist organiution might take a decidedly different graphic fonn to facilitate common understanding. Later in the plannihg process, when planners have identified the tentative deception target that controls the action or inaction of a desired military capability, the specific information pathways that feed and

## Chapter Iv

potentially influence a given deception target's decision making will be characterized in much greater detail through the conduit analysis process,
(b) The analysis of adversary- military decision-making structure includes identifying key decision makers at the strategic or operational level who exercise some level of direct control over the adversary capabilities we are seeking to affect. These individuals or groups are potential deception targets. As such, the J-2 should be tasked with collecting all available information relating to such things as their backgrounds.

psychological profi!e. per:>onal relationships and key influcncers. known biases, predispositions or vulnerabilities, current perceptions, and previous behavior in similar c:ircums;tances.

As a rcmindt:r, \11LDEC is prohibited by policy from deliberately targeting anyone outside the adversary military decision-making process v. ithout further legal rcvicv..

(c) Dt:cision-making style refers to the deliberative process that a selected military decision maker or body uses to reach a conclusion. The selection and usc of a common framework allows intelligence analysts and planners to better focus their analysis and discussions to best support achievement of objccti\Cs. There are a variety of formal and informal decision-making styles, and once a !iamcwork is selected, it is important to identify what conditions such as compressed time, degradation of systems from combat operations (i.e., communication disruption, destruction of key nodes).

probable delegation of certain operational decisions. or other changes in the operational environment might cause adjustments to the base style. Decision-making style is itself the topic of a vast amount of academic and commercial variety and continuing interest.

1-igure lV-2 is a sample of decision-r.-~aking style~. and while simple, it provides a basis for analysis. shared comprehension. and context.

(d) The selected model should be conducive to rapid understanding St'l that it can be quickly used by intelligence analysts and MILDEC planners to hetter understand overall adversary decision making and !mhsequently convey the associated mtionale for a cenain operational approach or series ofMILDEC executions to the JFC.

{e) Lnderstanding the adversary's cognitive biases and preconceptions that might subjectively influence adversary decision making is important to any attempt to predict futme behaviors.

The study of psychology and deci~ion making recognizes numerous potential types of bias.

For the purposes of illustration, a commonly recognized summary of bias cypes includes cultural, organizational, and personal biases.

L Cultural biases are caused by the interpretation of information through one's own cultural knowledge, beliefs, morals. customs, habits, and cognitive styles acquired as a member of a specitlc social environment or group.

2. Organizational biases are a potential outcome of tht: goals, mores.

policies. and traditions that charactcril.C the specitic organizations in which individuals affiliate.

## Leadership Styles

(Sample FramE!Work Reprinted with Permission from Formula 4 Leadership Ltd.)
:t Personal biases come from personality traits, education. and firsthand exPerierices that affect a person's world view Over the_c~urse of their Hfetime.

4. Preconceptions are Conceptions or assumptions fanned beforehand.

In addition to being highly influenced by bias, preconceptions can also be formed by sustained observation--and perceived recognition .of patternS. This is particularly relevant to MILDEC Planning because known biases and pfC9once~ons can be exploited.

"M8gtuder's principle," found in Appendix A. "Military Deception Maxims," states "it is generally easier tO -induce a de~ption target to maintain a preexisting belief than to deceive the deception target_ for .the purpose of changing that belief.;'
(f) Adver,sacy decision making is informed by the inte_lligence and CI
organizations and capabilities that support it. In order to manipulate or augment the information available to a <leception target, the MILDEC planner must have a detailed knowledge of the adve~ary's ability to '"see" and interpret air relevant friendly activities and indicators. Analysis of adversary intelligence and CI capabilities, organization, and function is a traditional 1~2 task. By leveraging the full scope of"IC resources, the J~2
should be able to provide:
L The current .. red view of blue." This includes adversary perspective analysis of our probable goals and objectives. our most probable and dangerous COAs. a blue center of gravity analysis, and any other fundamental a,;sumptions or perceptions they have developed about friendly activitie-s. capabilities, or intent.

2. Detailed technical estimates of the adversary's collection capabiliti-=s. The capabilities of f!Es that share intelligence with the adversary _o;hould also be included in this analysis. One method of capturing this information within the DIE is to organize adversary capabilities under the intelligence disciplines familiar to moscjoim planners from our own doctrine as outlined in JP 2-0, *Joint intelligence.* They are geospatial intelligence, human intelligence, signals intelligence, measurement and signature intelligence, open-source intelligence. technical intelligence. and CI.

For MILDEC planning. it is important that the scope of tbis analysis identifies a particular adversary's collection capabilities anywhere that they provide potential knowledge of the JFCs plan. This span includes all activities from the employment of national strategic resources and global strike capabilities through fmce generation to theater employment and sustainment. This range will likely include not only the operational area a::; a whole, but also multiple locations in the US and any other loca1ion which supports the JFCs planned operations to include collection against multinational partners.

This same information is required by joint OPSEC program managers and planner~, and rnay already exist in a partially completed tOrm.

~ Knowledge of the adversary's intelligence proce~s represented in our own joint intelligence doctrine as planning and direction, collection, processing and exploitation, analysis and production, and dis<;;emination and integration.

To inject deceptive information into the adversary's inlcllig~m:e system as a MILDEC execution, track its delivery to the declsitm maker, and evaluate whether the execution produced the desired perception or effect the MJLDEC planner needs to understand ever)-' sensor, link.

node. and potential filter in the conduit through "lhich that event's execution .as transmitted.

This requires sufficient fidelity of intelligence in the DIE 10 conduct a reasonably accurate adversary conduit analysis with minimal assumptions later in the planning pro~;ess.

4. Identify the adversary's vulnerability to MILDEC. as well as conditions that might favor the adversary m pro1ecting against M!LDEC. One method of analysis in achieving this planning requirement is to use the framework of physical, informational, and cognitive dimensions of the information environment found in JP 3-
13, lnjOrmation Operations.

Cognitive vulnerabilities to MILDEC can include such things as predisposition or bias, an overly burdensome decision process model. poor decision quality (group think, single point of failure. or lack of subordinate autonomy), nr poor decision timeliness (a leader who cannot come to a decision quickly). Examples of vulnerabilities in the informational dimension might include such things as poor information management or data processing capability and overdependence on vulnerable or non-redundant communications netv.orks.

Sample vulnerabilities in the physical dimension include shortfalls in collection or processing capability and vulnerabilities in force structure or capability.

Adversary strengths in the areas mentioned above are normally inverse statements to examples provided.

(g) Analyzing an adversary's deception and counterdeception doctrine and capabillty is critical tu MILDEC planning. Knowing an adversary's deception doctrine and capability may provide J-2 analysts and MILDEC planners with an understanding of the emphasis the adversary places on deception and thus their vigilance in its detection.

It also provides the necessary awareness to help friendly forces identify when the adversary might be using deception to influence our own decision making; sec Chapter Vll. "Counterdeception.''
Understanding adversary countcrdc.:eption doctrine and capability enables the J-2 and MlLDEC planners to better evaluate the adversary's potential recognition and response to our MILDEC plan and more accurately identify when it may be compromised. The J-2 will normally consult the broader resources of the national IC in the performance of this task.

(h) ldentifying the adversary's current, most likely, and most dangerous COAs is a nonnal J-2 function supporting the JPP.

Understanding this infonnation enables the MILDEC planner to more accurate-ly plan against "anticipated" adversary actions. as well as evaluate the impact of friendly operations in achieving the commander's approved deception objecti\oes.

## 3. Military Deception Requests For Information

As a result of the MILDEC focus on the cognitive dimension. Mil DEC planners are frequently required to make informed assumptions on a variety of topics to continue planning.

In addition to RFls associated with the completion of lhe DIE. MILDEC
planners. at times, require a level of' detail and predictive analysis not generally supported within an operational-level JIPOE. Information on potential MILDEC conduits such as air defense radar. maritime visual observation. ground reconnaissance. or CCMD-focused espionage comes from a variety of sources and must be collected and available if a MlLDEC plan is to be executed with any le\oel of confidence. This becomes particularly challenging once combat operations have begun and adversary pre-conflict military dt!cision-making structure and flow. access to sensors, and decision-making support networks are disrupted or neutralized. The rapid adversary adaptation to new conditions in the operational environment will require equally agile intelligence support to facilitate the continued flow and delivery of indicators comprising the deception story narrative to the MILDEC target.

Lnless MILDEC RFis are aligned with 1he JFC's priority intelligence requirements (PlRs), the MILDEC
plan is at risk of becoming desynchronizcd or inerl'cctivc.

## 4. Conduit Analysis

a. Conduit analysis is the detailed mapping of individual conduits or information pathways to the potential deception targct(s). Conduit analysis should begin with the initiation of planning and continue to be refined through the CO/\ development. COA
selection, and finalization of the MILDEC plan. The identification of potential conduits is normally done using one of two methods: working outward from the deception target and their "inlier circle" of information sources or working inward by visualizing the presentation of a potential indicator to known adversary collection capabilities up through the process flow to the MTI.DEC target. Whatever method (or combination or methods)
is used, the more conduits that the planner and supporting J-2 analysts can identify and map. the greater the chance thar friendly deception operations can be synchroni7cd to feed multiple conduits simultaneously, thus increasing the potential success of the deception. However, the more ~onduits the adversary can access. the greater chance that the deception might be discovered (see paragraph 4, "Jones Dilemma," in Appendix A,
Military Deception Maxims').

b. One method of characterizing conduits for better shared context within the planning team is by classification a<r: a simple or complex conduit. A simple conduit is one which transmits data to the intended decision maker without the application of an intermediate filter. A complex conduit is one which includes one or more tillers that might substantially alter the content, add context to the observable, or alter the limeframe for delivery.

Ideally. the MILDEC planner seh:ch multiple conduits to deliver information to the deception target and sequences the delivery in a manner that builds and confirms the deception story over time. This can cause infonnation about the same observable to be delivered at multiple differing times and sources which can reinforce the desired ambiguity increasing or ambiguity decreasing effect c. To enhance the believability of the deception story, the MILDEC planner works with OPSEC, other IRCs, and the joint force components to manage competing obscrvablcs (any indicator that might contradict the de!.:eption story) and limit the function of conduits that are likely to register and report them.

d. While the initial discussion of a given conduit might address rhe relevant infonnarion flow in simple terms. the conduit cannot actually be fully exploited until it is analyzed in delai!.

Intelligence analysts and MILDEC planners must understand and subsequently collaborate to diagram the key elements and complete a worksheet or other planning template that corresponds to each conduit for use in future planning.

Key clements of information include:

(1) A graphic depiction of the conduit.
(2) A description of the sensor, including sensor locations, cueing and function,
times of expected
avai\abilily,
technical
pr.:rformance
parameters.
exploitable
vulnerabilities. and reliability.
(3) A description of the transmission means from sensor to deception target including the location and function of any intermediate nodes and/or filters (not all nodes arc filtl~rs, but all li ltcrs arc nodes). When filters are pre~ent, descrlbe the type of filtering
(aggregation of repons. synthesis of data. attribution of organizational or personal bias, etc.) and its probable impact on the observable.

(4) The a\'erage transmission time of an observable from sensor to deception target. Normally this is expressed in hours and will include two numbers: a transmission time for "routine" observables presented in the context of summarized reports and an expedited transmission time for obsePlables that rise to the level of probable adversary PIR.

Lnderstanding conduit function time is critical to synchronization of MILDEC
execution.

(5) A description of the points in the conduit at which friendly intelligence collection can be utilized to monitor the transmission of data, and to what level of fidelity, to track its delivery to the deception target (MOP).

Descrihe any potential locations wher~ MOEs such as lateral transmission, increased activity or readiness in tactical forces, or actual content monitoring mlght take place.

(6) Infonnation on any risks incurred by using this conduit.

Risks might include exposure of friendly means, forces, or sensitive capabilities. as well as potential av.-areness by the adversary that a selected means might be part of a friendly deception.

causing the conduit to lose credibility. Figure IV-3 sho"V.s notional conduit analysis. A
simplt;! review of the complex conduit illustrated pro"Vides a snapshot of the intelligence fidelity required to support MJLDEC planning.

## 5. Support To Military Deception Assessment

The development of MILDEC MOPs and MOE$ differs slightly from similar processes for other capabilities. One way to easily conceptualize MOPs and MOEs for Ml!.OFC i~ to use the .. see, think, do'' methodology outlined in Chapter I, 'General." A
MOP is most closely associated with see: did we portray the planned indicator, and did the adversary sec our cx.ccution and transmit the desired message to the deception target creating an observable? MOEs are associated \\.oith think and do: what perceptions and conclusions did the adversary draw from a particular observable (alone or in the context of other oh!>ervations), and are those perceptions leading toward the desired action/inaction captured in a deception objecti"Ve? For a more detailed understanding of operational assessment as a whole, including organization, framework. and process, see JP 5-0, Joint Planning.

a. MOP collection for MILDEC involves two conceptual steps: detennining that the tasked friendly unit or capability employed the desired means to create an indicator at the appropriate time and location and verifying that the intended adversary conduit(s) cued on the friendly signature(s), transmitted the collected data, and dclh,crcd the information to the deception target in a discemable context. This is the defining difference of a MILDEC :vtOP versus a traditional MOP ("did friendly forces perfonn the directed action") ln that part of every successfUl \-ilLDEC execution involves action by the adversary.

The conduit that the deception seeks to exploit must function. This has significant implications for friendly t:trgeting that will be discussed in Chapter V,
"Military Deception Planning."
(I) Determination that a scheduled MILDEC execution took pi act: occurs through J-3 operations reporting channels during the execution of the plan.

This reporting by the element controlling a particular execution is to be coordinated by the DOWG through the J-3 ahead of time. It is done as a part of the finalization of the plan within the appropriate access and security controls.

## Notional Conduit Analysis

(2) Verifying the adversary conduit functioned as diagrammed and the desired information- reached the deception target is a more complex activity requiring focused and coordiruited inte11igence. surveillance, and reconnaissance support. Using their previous conduit 'analysis work,. MILDEC planners, supporting intelligence analysts, and the J-2 collection manager collaborate to identity points at which the infonnation transmission might be susceptible to friendly monitoring and analysis. The presence of filters in the conduit pathway makes this process even more dlfficult because predicting the level of data aggregation or synthesis with other friendly observables is.subjective at best. In some casest the appeanmce of an_anticipated MOE might be the only validation that a persuasive observable was accurately received and perceived.

b. MOE development and collection for MILDEC focuses on the current cognitive state of the deception target. The adversary's cognitive state can he measured in one of two ways. The first is through the evaluation of known conunents- or public statements by the decision maker. The- second is by identifying and monitoring a related flow of adversary activity that would indicate the deception target was effectively moved toward the desired perception and subsequent action/inaction. The baseline MOE is whether the adversary capability to be affected is employed in the manner that met our desired effect.

However, the knowledge of this activity occurring or not occurring may not be available untd the moment our effect is required.

c. To provide the commander with the nece.s.sary space to adjust plans as needed based on timely MOEs, the J~2 and DOWG coordinate to develop them. For example, if one of our deception objectives is for the adversary to hold the armored reserve away from the decisive point of ground action, the JFC would develop MOFs related to the accomplishment of that objective. MOE examples related to the action or inaction of the reserve might include such things as an increase or decrease in preparation of defensive positions (implying a period of ~tatic activity). inc.rease or decrease in adversary intelligence collection in the vicinity of our main axis of advance at the expense of other sectors (is the adversary ''telegraphing'' an interest?). an increase or decrease in route reconnaissance toward the friendly sector by armored reserve units or leadership (is this pending or an active branch plan?). or an increase or decrease in battle drill or movement rehearsal by the adversary reserve.

d. Without the close support of the J-2 and a deliberate focus on the development of viable MOPs and N!OEs as p0:1rt of the deception plan, the success or failure of the MILDEC might not be known until the moment that a planned adversary action or inaction is turned against us. This cuuld result in a loss of initiative or increased friendly loss of life.

[ntentionally Blank

## Chapterv Military Deception Planning 1. Military Deception Plaaning And Joint Plaaaing Processes

To ensure prOper integration with the commander's objectives and desired end state, MILDEC planning is conducted as part of the JPP. The early integration ofMILDEC in the planning cycle' ensures optimum application of resources and maXim~ the potential for overall success. Because of its inl:teren~ sensitivity, access to MILDEC. planning is usually protected. As a result, MILDEC planning takes place in an accesscontrolled, parallel planning process rather than through open _discussion in the joint planning group
(JPG) or the 10 working group. Key staff members and leadership accessed to the MILDEC plan discretely integrate and deconflict MILDEC planning outputs into the overall planning effort. The need to conduct adequate coordination during MILDEC
plannin8 should be ballutced against the need to maintain the secrecy required for effective MILDEC operations. Establish and use strlct need to know criteria to detennine which individuals are allowed to participate in MILDEC planning. The criteria may specifY'separate levels of access to facilitate coordination, thuS .allowing more individuals aceess to the less sensitive aspects of the deception plan. CMDOs can provide further guidance on the classification, handling, review, and approval process for MILDEC.

a. Since MILDEC is considered an IRC, MILDEC planners are routinely organized under th,e JFC's 10 staff proponent or its equiyalent within the J-3. MILDEC planners participate in both deh"berate planning (used notmally during peacetime to develop OPLANs and CONPLANs). and crisis action planning (during time-sensitive situations to rapidly develop campaign plans and orders). See JP 5-0, *Joint Planning;* Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Manual (CJCSM) 3122 Series, Joint Operation Planning and Execution System *(JOPES),* and CJCSM 3130 Series, for discussion on deliberate planning and crisis action planning.

b. MIL DEC should be planned and executed as part of the overall CONOPS from its i~~ion. MILDEc- is not appli'?ahli: to every situation, btit commanders and planners should consider it with the same emphasis given to oilier capabilities and assets, particularly at the operations! level. Successful military planners rely on deception to m~k the real objectives of military operations. MILDEC remains a critical contributor to enabling surprise and economy of force, mass, and security. Capabilities in MILDEC
operations vary with the mission type, adversary, location. assets available, and even the political climate. There is a growing availability ofMILDBC capabilities. Technological advances now enable joint-fofces to employ a larger range of deception techniques.

## Chapter V

c. Even under conditions where joint MILDEC or TAC-D is inappropriate, there rna)' be a viable role for DlSO in protecting the commander's warfighting profile.-. or ohfu"lcating critical information and indicarnrs. causing FlF:s to mi"ldirect their analysis of friendly operations or subsequent application of intelligence resources. In support of an OPSEC plan, DlSO may enhance the collective effons to convey or deny selected information or signatures to a FIE and limit the FIE's overall ability to collect or accurately analy7.e critical information about friendly operations, personneL programs, equipment, and other assets.

The intent of DISO is to use deceptive observablcs, activities, or measures to support OPSEC that is focused on F!Es. and not to generate a targeted decision maker"s action or inaction.

d. The scope of the MILDEC operation is limited by the amount of time and resources available for its planning and execution, the adversary's susceptibility to MTLDEC, and the joint force's ability to assess the MIL DEC. Progression of adversary activity may lead to the deception plan being overcome by events. Additionally, the lack of accurate intelligence and cultural awareness can hinder MILDEC opcratlons. Proper planning with regard lo time. resources. accurate intelligence, cultural awareness, and other factors is essential to a successful MILDEC operation. See Chapter I, General."
for a review oftenns and concepts outlined in the planning process.

e. The final output of MILDEC planning is usually captured in accordance with CJCSM 3130.03, Adaptive Planning and Execution (APEX) Planning J.'nrmats and Guidance, as the OPLAN's tab H (Military Deception) to appendix 3 (lnfonnation Operations) to annex C (Operations).

## 2. Military Deception Planning Basics

a. Reexamine Planning Criteria. As with all joint planning, MILDEC planning is an iterative process that requires continual reexamination of its goals. objectives, targets, stories, and means. Commanders and staffs must respond to the dynamics of the situation and of their own headquarters.

b. Or-ganize for MILDEC Planning Success.

The DPC oversees MILOEC
planning and execution.

The DPC normally consists of the CMDO, any MILDEC
planners appointed by the command, and the component MOOs. In most circumstarces., the DPC will form a larger DOWG to facilitate the planning, 'oordination, and discrete integration of MILDEC throughout planning, execution. and assessment The DOWG
may be formed using existing members of the JPG, 10 cell, primary deception capability and means providers, and other key planners the commander or the DPC chief determine.

At a minimum. the DOWG should include the core DPC members and representatives from J-2, J-3, J-4. J-5. J-6. and the command OPSEC planner. In accordance with the JFC's guidance and under the authority of the J-3, the- DPC (supported by the broader DOWG) plans, directs, monitors, and assesses MlLDEC operations.

With the JfC's approval, the DPC may also provide planning, execution. and termination support for Mil .DEC operations undertaken by higher command echelons in their operational area.

If established, the DPC is usually tasked with writing tab B (\1ilitary Deception) to appendix 3 (Information Operations) to annex C (Operations) for the OPORD. Other responsibilities of the DPC are to:

( 1) Direct and coordinate deception planning activities.
(2) lnterlilcc and work closely with unit operations planners to rev1ew and analyze deception plan requirements.

(3) Respond to higher headquarters deception tasking.

(4) Coordinate with higher headquarter~ on proposed deception efforts to resolve potential conflicts.

(5_) Provide- resource requirements to higher headquarters for deception program development and sustainment.

(6) Look for opportunitit::s to implement deception in support of military objectives.

c. Plan l\fiLDEC Operations from the Top Down. Subordinate deception plans mw;t support higher-level plans. Commanders at all levels can plan MILDEC operations but must coordinate plans with their senior commander to ensure overall unity of effort.

OPSEC may dictate that only a select group of senior commanders and staff officers know which actions arc purely deceptive in nature. This situ~tion can cause confusion within the force and requires dose monitoring by Jf-"Cs and their staffs.

d. Coordinate MILDEC and OPSEC Planning Efforts. As previous!) discussed in Chapter II, "Military Deception and [nformation Operations: MILDEC and OPSEC
are complementary IRCs. In addition to the primary planning goal of unifying what is visible tu adversary military decision makers into a holistic and managed denial and deception effon. MlLDEC and OPSEC planning intercept at multiple points io the JPP.

In execution, M1LDEC activities themselves frequently require OPSEC measures and countermeasures to protect sensidve means and resources. and ultimately enhance their believability to the ad ... crsary.

## 3. The Military Deceptioo Planning Process

The MILDEC planning process is an iterative process that requires continual reexamination and validation throughout the planning and execution pha-.es.

The MTLDEC planning process consists of five steps that genemlly align with similar ac.tivities in the JPP as identified in Figure V -1.

a. Step 1: Deception Mission Analysis. The primary inputs and outputs for this planning step are outlined in Figure V-2. Deception mission analysis begins follov .. ing plan initiation as outlined in JP 5-0. *Joim Planning.* Since MILDEC is a protccled effort, the commander's initial MILDEC guidance will often come in a separate written or verbal deception planning directive.

## Military Deception Planning Process And Joint Planning Process

(1) In the absence of specific guidance for inclusion of deception in the commandei-'s initial operational approach~ the DPC uses mission analysis to evaluate all appropriate planning references and guidance to. determine if MILDEC can or should play a role in the overall campaign. That role. when identified, is stated in the form of proposed deception goal(s) and associated deception objectives. There may be multiple deception goals based on. such considerations as operationaJ phasing, duration, or complexity. Figure V
4 3 provides examples of the fonnat and relationship between MILDEC goals and objectives.

'

## Deception Mission Analysis

| Key                        | Inputs             | Key Outputs    |
|----------------------------|--------------------|----------------|
| - Higher headquarters'     |                    |                |
| -                          |                    |                |
| lnit1al                    | deception estimate |                |
| planning directive         |                    |                |
| :..>                       |                    |                |
| Specified and              | 1m                 | plied          |
| - Other strategic guidance |                    |                |
| m1litary                   |                    |                |
| deception                  |                    |                |
| - Commander's planmng      |                    |                |
| tasks                      |                    |                |
| gwdance                    |                    |                |
| :J                         |                    |                |
| Deception goal             |                    |                |
| u                          |                    |                |
| Oescr1pl1on                |                    |                |
| of                         |                    |                |
| the                        |                    |                |
| :;;                        | Deception          | obJeCtives     |
| operational                |                    |                |
| Mission                    |                    |                |
| :.                         | Military           | deception      |
| environment                |                    |                |
| Analysis                   |                    |                |
| input                      | to                 | commander's    |
| ;)                         | Definition         |                |
| of                         |                    |                |
| the                        |                    |                |
| critical inrormation       |                    |                |
| problem                    |                    |                |
| requirement                |                    |                |
| ..)                        | Commander's        |                |
| 0                          |                    |                |
| Initial                    | military           |                |
| operational approach       |                    |                |
| deception                  |                    |                |
| requests                   |                    |                |
| for                        |                    |                |
| .:>                        |                    |                |
| Commander's                | Initial            |                |
| information                |                    |                |
| intent                     |                    |                |
| - Commander's refined      |                    |                |
| deception planmng          |                    |                |
| gu1dance                   |                    |                |

## Ftgure V-2. Deception MlssOn Analys1S

(2) Deception planners participate in the JPG and 10 working gmup mission analysis process under the JPP. MILDEC planners integrate. refine, and contribute to the oulputs from other statT sections such as planning facts and a~~umplion~, operational limitations, initial risk determination. and development of overall success criteria as necessary and appropriate within need to know and access caveats.

(3) During rhe mission analysis step, MILDEC planners work carefully with the
12 through tl1e RFI process to obtain analysis of the adversary critical to effective dtception planning.

This information will fonn the basis of the DIE that feeds the development of a viable deception concept in the next planning !';tep.

(4) The deception mission analysis step ends with the initial staff estimate briefing to the commander, approval of the deception goa\(s) and objectives, and the issuance of refmed commander's planning guidance for MTLDEC. The commander may provide additional guidam:e concerning specific deception COAs the staff should address when pn::paring estimates. Once approved, the deception goal(s) and objectives become the focus for all ~ubscqucnt MILDEC planning.

## B. Step 2: Drteption Concept Development

(1} During this step. MTLDEC planners combine operational art with the MlLDEC planning process to develop a viable concept of how MILDEC can achieve the commander's approved MILDEC goals and objccth.es.

Thic:; may involve the development of one or more distinct operational approaches based Cln the complexity and

## Sample Military Deception Goals And Objectives

variety of COAs developed by the JPG. The primary planning inputs and outputs for deception concept developR_J.ent are shown-in Figure V -4.

(2) Using their initial staff estimate, any revised commander's planning guidance, and a detailed knowledge of the adversaiy coiltained in the DIE, MILDEC
planners in the DOWG develop one or more deception concepts or COAs. The actual number will be detennined by considerations such as the number of JPG COAs. the suitability of each to some form of deception, or time and personnel available for MILDEC planning.

(3) For ease of understanding by the commander and selected staff, the DOWG
nonnaUy develops MILDEC COAs using the ~
baseline operational sequencing and phasing aS the JPG. Depending on the scope and complexity of the planiled operation1
MILDEC plans can range from fairly simple and short" in duration to extremely complex, spreading over multiple phases and JFC operating locations. Based on the approved MILDEc goals and o~jectives, the MILDEC COA migbt,includc multiple LOOs. For example, MILDEC activitiCs to mislead the adversary's conveittional_ force commanders, causing them to waste combat power ln phase ill (Dominate), might begin in phase I
(Deter) and be conceptually distinct from proposed MIL-DEC activity in phase IV
(Stabi-lize} designed to deceive violent extremist organizations about potential vulnerabilities in security infrastructure during lransition from major combat operations.

As with the Operation BODYGUARD plan, each distinct LOO at the operational level migbt, aS the Plan deVelops, be assigned a different codename with its own access and control measures n~sted_under-the overarching plan. MILDEC planners might also be

## Deception Concept Development

Key Inputs
Key Outputs
- Mission analysis
- Deception targets
- Approved deception
- Desired adversary
goal(s) and objectives
perceptions
- Commander's refined
- Tentative means
deceplion planning
- Tentative conduits
guidance
- Tentative measure of
- Deception intelligence
performance/measure
estimate
of effectiveness
- Proposed fnendly
- Initial risk assessment
courses of action
Mllitary
- Discreet participation in
Deception
- Military deception staff
estimate and concept
jomt planning process
Concept
brlef(s)
course of action
development. analysis
- Concept of operations
and wargaming, and
- Deception story outline
course of action
comparison steps with
- Initial cost estimate
information operations
eel! and JOint planmng
group

## . . F1Gure V-.4. Deception Concept Development

asked to support branch and sequel planning once a JPG COA is selected and finalized.

For a deeper understanding of operational design, sec JP 50. Joint Planning.

(4) Each proposed deception concept or COA must be capable of accomplishing the commander's deception goal(s) and meet the doctrinal requirementt: for COA
sufficiency: adequate, feasible. acceptabk. di~linguishablc, and complete. In some cases.

actual COAs developed by the operational planners can provide the basis for MILDEC
COAs, for example, portraying the operational indicators associated with COA "A" in support of COA "B'' or vice versa. Using alternative COAs developed by operational planners helps to ensure the deception COAs are feasible and practical military options.

Additionally. the proposed deception CO As should seek to promote actions the adversary is already conducting or considering.

(5) Each MILDEC COA developed in parallel with the JPP will contain, as a minimum, tbe deception target(s); desired perceptions arranged in a preliminary deception story; proposed deception types, techniques, or tactics; tentative conduits; draft MOPs and MOEs; preliminary sequencing, concept sketches, and accompanying narrative for presentation in the COA selection brief; and an initial assessrm::nt of risk.

Ariditionally. MlL])EC planners will observe the .lPG wargaming process for each COA

## Chapter V

in order to incorporate the action, probable reaction, counteraction, assets, and time used" understanding in refining their associated MlLDEC COA.

(6) The first step in creating the desired action or inaction as defined in the deception objective is the identification of the deception target that has the aulhority to make that action or inaction.

Key considerations in the appropriate selection of the deception target indude understanding the target's relationship to the MILIJEC
objective's action or inaction: their position relative to adversary goals, aims, and strategy; current perceptions; decision-making process; key advisors; and primary means or collecting infonnation.

As planning progresses, intelligence analysts supporting MILDEC planning are frequently asked to develop individual target folders on specific deception targets to aid in later completion of the plan.

(7) The operational design reflected in the development of the deception goals and associated objectives, and their alignment with potential LOOs. will determine the number of MILDEC targets across phased operations. For example, approved MILDEC
acti\'ity prior to the initiation or major combat operations in phase II (Seize the Initiative)
might target a national~leve! military council that is exercising tight control over escalatory confrontations. Later on in phase Ill (Dominate), when adversary command and control communication systems have been substantially disrupted Qr destroyed, and operational decision:; are likely delegated based on "red lines," the MILDEC target might be a corps-level commander that controls the operational reserve or another capability that we are ~eeking to affect.

(8) In sume cases, MILDEC planners and supporting intelligence analysts may identify key individuals who, by virtue of their position or personal relationships with a decision maker. affect or influence the MlLDEC target's deci~ion making without actually participating in it formally or directly. For c-larity of discussion. these persons are stakeholders and can either be conduits or filters depending on how they are utilized within the MILDEC plan. For example. stakeholders may affect the \11LDEC's target's decision through the addition of aggregation, synthesis, or bias to an observable on the way to the deception target, and/or lnlluence the deception target without actually participaling in the fonnat decision process generating the action or inaction. Because of their proximity tn planned MH.DF.C activitie~ (closer in the conduit!infonnation pathway flow than the deception target), stakeholders within the operational-level construct may also simultaneously be the deception target of a subordinate component's TAC-D.

(9) After selection of the deception target(s). the MILDEC planner establishes the desired perceptions that will focus later MILDEC events. Desired perceptions are the conclusinns, official eo;timates, and assumptions the MILDEC target uses in their assessment and decision-making process. These adversary perceptions will be formed from both objective (observation and analysis) and subjective (intuition and experience)
thought processes. They are also heavily impacted hy bia<::es. preconceptions. and filters applied in the col\ection, analysis, delivery, and reception of information. To properly construct a logical flow blending truthful and deceptive information and indicators
(observable conditions) later in the plan, MILDEC planners should determine the target's current perceptions and assess the level of change (or reinforcement) to create the desired perception. Desired perceptions should also exploit known adversary vulnerabilities m the physical. informational. and cognitive dimensions of the infonnation environment.

(10) Planners arrange desired perceptions into the preliminary deception story.

The deception story is a narrative statement, written from the perspective of the deception target or key intelligence analysts, which summarizes the deception portrayal.

[t is stated as a series of logical adversary conclusions about our capability, activity, and intent derived from all available observables. Deception stories are usually arranged in chronological sequence to facilitate planning and synchronization of events across phases and/or LOOs. The deception story is the operational-level "think'' in the "see. think. do"
methodology.

(II) Time is a key dement to consider in developing the deception story.

MILD:CC planners must determine how much time is available to present the deception story and estimate how mucb time is required for the deception target to make a decision and direct the desired action. The available time may detennine the scope and depth of the story.

Analyze the following time-related issues during the development of the deception story:
(a) Time of Maximum DisadYantage. When does the adversary's action
(or inaction) best suit the JFC objectives?

(b) The Deception Target. Is the target cautious or bold? Wilt the target react to initial indicators. or will the target require a series of events before reaching a decision? How long does it nonnally take the target to make a decision?

(c) AdYersary Response Time. Once the decision is made, how long will the target need to formulate and issue an order? For example. if the deception objective is the movement of an adversary mobile reserve to some distant point, allow time for the deception target to issue the movement order and for the unit to receive and execute the order.

(d) Intelligence Proce$Sing. How much time is needed for the adversarv's detection and collection systems to collect, analyze, and provide false intelligence created by the deception to the deception target? This will vary depending on the target's level of command.

te) Execution of the Deception Tasks.

When must displays, demonstration<;, feints, and other actions be detected or recognized by the adversary's intelligence collection methods and systems? How long should each la.c;t?

( 12) At this time in concept development. the MILDf::C planner normally begins to refine their operational design construct by selecting appropriate MILDEC
types (ambiguity increasing or ambiguity decreasing), MILDEC techniques (feints, demonstrations, ruses, or decoys), and applicable MILDEC tactics to help structure the development of key MILDEC events that will constitute the detail required to determine COA viability and desirability.

See Chapter I, "'General," for a description of these tt:rms.

(13) Using the preliminary deception
~tory and operational design considerations. the DOWU identifies indicators that most effectively portray the deception story, mentally allgns those indicators with one or more adversary conduits to create an observable, and begins the selection of MILDFC means to acttvate those conduits to create the ''see'' in the 'see, think, do" deception methodology. By a11alyzing which indicators most effectively portray the friendly a~tivities and prolilcs that convey the deception stol)', the MlLDEC planner is able to better focus his selected techniques and apply limited or costly means in a more effective manner. Contrast and anticipated exposure must also be factored into the deceptive portrayal.

(a) lndic.ators are the ''puzzle pieces" the MILDEC planner creates for the adversary to most effectively and efficiently lead them to a desired perception and subsequent conclusion.

This activity directly complements the denial and deception construct outlined in Figure !12, where OPSEC is focused on concealing critical information and indicators that constitute the commander'<; essential secrets related to the JPG's actual COA while the MlLDEC plan provides plausible alternatives that require an adversary response . .JP 3-13.3, Operations *Securiry,* idcntilics five characteri.~tics of an indicator that provide important understanding to the MlLDEC planner in the selection of indicators to portray the deception story. See Figure V -5 for their meaning.

(b) Identification of he most appropriate indicators 10 portray the deception story requires detailed knowledge of friendly operational profiles, as \Veil as reliable, current intelligence on "how'' the adversary sees the operational environment.

An operational profile is everything that a friendly force does to prepare for, conduct. and sustain operations. The creation of observables in this step aligns key indicators with adversary collection conduits and processes idemitied in the DIE (sec Chapter JV.

"lntelligenct: Support to Milital)' Deception"), If, for example, the plan calls for creating indicators supporting the perception that there is an additional carrier task force available to the JFC outside the observation range of adversary visual sensors, MILDEC planners will "'ork through the DOWG with the maritime component and OPSEC planners to determine what emitters are normally associated with that element and hov. they arc normally employed to include the location and signatures of supponing surface ships and assigned aircraft flight and communication patterns. If the deception plan calls for creating the perception that an additional Anny brigade combat team (BCT) is posilioncd on an alternate axis of advanc~ observable by adver~ary ~ignals intelligence and human intelligence. the MlLDEC planner will need to know not only what communications systems are found in the dispersed units and how they normally operate. but also hov.'
many vehicles and of what types, where and in what panem they are normally deployed, and the supporting logistical infrastructure and footprint. While it is not the JTfo-Jevel MTLDEC planner's job to plan the detal1s of each execution to be perfnnned by the tasked component in the examples above, the joint MILDEC planner docs need the level of detail outlined to assess concept feasibility during COA development.

(c) Indicator and profile information is available through each of the components. To facilitate more efficient planning, joint deception planners. working with component MIL DEC and OPSEC planners, can develop friendly component profite databases prior to the initiation of planning. This is particularly helpful when planning is time constrained. Such a database might contain profile data (all physical. technical, and administrative signatures and npnnal associations) for each service. capability, or function (e.g., IRCs, logistics, intelligence collection) by mission-essential task. by
-OPLAN activity. or any other logical conceptual boundary that facilitates analysis and subsequent ease of reference.

(d) Contrast- and anticipated exposure -must also be factored into the deceptive portrayal., While an unintended contrast can draw adversary attention to something friendly forces were. attempting to conceal, planned conttas.ts canbe used to draw adversary attention in unproductive directions.

Exposure, the frequency -and duration that an indicator is visible, can be- used by the adversary to confinn or deny analysis, and must be factored in the development of the overall deception progression.

By determining which indicators most effectively portray the friendly activities and profiles that convey the deception story, the MILDBC planner is able to better focus his selected techniques and apply limited or costly means in a more effective manner.

(e) Once the MILDBC planner understands the indicators and available adversary conduits that will be used to create the observables required for each perception in the deception story, the planners can begin to detennine which are already visible to the adversary' as part of the planned JPG COA arid identify observables that must be altered or created as part of the deception plan. An example of this blending would be the actual. mobilization and deployment of multiple mechanized Arn1y BCTs from the Us to theater versus using deceptive means to portray the operational positioning and readiness oflhose same BCTs aligm:d \Vith the deception story following their arrivaL
As with other steps in \liiLDEC planning, this requires a detailed and current understanding of the actual plan as formulated by the JTF JPG. as well as the activities of the IRCs coordinated by the J~3.

(f) Another key aspect of this process step is the identification and mitigation of competing ohservables.

Use OPSEC measures to hide competing obscrvablcs. If the observation of the competing observable cannot be mitigated, use other deceptive means to create plausible explanation for the existence of thnse observables,
(g) Once the DOWG identifies which obs~rvablcs best convey the deception story. the process of aligning specific means to create them begins. MILDEC
mean~ are the resources, methods, or techniques used to portray observables to the adversary deception target. A detailed discussion of MlLDEC techniques, tactics, and meam is found in Chapter (, "'General.'"
There are several factors to consider in Ueveloping and planning MILDEC events. The DOWO deve!Clps a sufficient number of tentative events for each proposed COA to facilitate the COA analysis and wargaming.

comparison, and COA approval (selection) steps of the JPP.

(h) One of the first considerations in potential means selection is sensorconduit linkage.

\Vhat adversary sensors are in a position to observe the selected indicator in the location and timeframc it would logically occur? Ideally, we want to employ complementary phy.si\:al, technical, and administrative means that activate a variety of sensor types that process information through both simple and complex conduits to the deception target. Considerations include such things as how will we know tbe sensor is active and transmitting information through the conduit? What is the anticipated reaction of adversary forces when the means are employed? What risks are associated with means employment (in terms of l'isk to three or risk to mission)?

(i) Selecting tentative deception meam employment also has substantial implications for friendly forces and operations.

The DOWG coordinates with other planning groups to address snch considerations as who will control the means employment and v.hat arc the preparatory steps and associated timeline. What is the breadth of need to know for the unit conducting the deceptive ac.tivity? How long or frequently wiH this indicator need to appear (exposure) to make sure it was seen? What is the concept for means employment and what arc the operational conditions and criteria that need to be established to optimize their cfTcc!ivcncss in portraying the desired indicator? How will the means employment be terminated and under what conditions?

\Vhat is tl"le estimated cost (in dollar~. other resources, and operational efficiency)
associated with this event?

(j) When developing tentative dt:ception events, the MILDEC planner must also consider MOPs and MOEs (see Chapter IV. 'Intelligence Suppon to Military Deception"). Proposed events that cannot be aligned with viahle assessment criteria are not suitable for further development. MLLDEC planner~ should be able to identify at least one solid MOP and MOE for each proposed event or event series.

## Chapter V

(14) A5 the MILDEC planner begins aligning MILDC means with selected indicators to generate observables, there needs to be a logical sequencing of events that supports completing and briefing the concept or COA. Planners can sequence and align tentative events by a variety of typographies to include LOO, desired perception, phase, component, geography. time, or any combination of the above. The DOWG will use this initial se-quencing and alignment to build a more detailed product called the deception event
~chedulc (DES) in MILDEC planning pro<,;ess step 4 (Deception Plan Development}.

(15) Once the DOWG has completed the steps above, they prepare sketches and an associated narrative that capture the salient elements of the concept. Sketches should graphically represent such infom1ation as the timing, relationship, and control of key proposed events or groups of related events called deception series, the conduits that will be urili:zcd to transmit the planned observables to the adversal')' decision maker. the location and function of key filters, the time fo; processing of the observable and any subsequent decision or order by the deception target. and any competing observables, along with their proposed mitigation plan.

The narrative ties toget!ler all of the illustrative COA sketches and provides any additional detail necessary to facilitate understanding.

A sample sketch, one of several that might be part of a tina] COA
briefing. is shown in Figure V-6.

(16) The final componl!nt that must be addressed as a basic pari of MILDEC
concept or COA development is risk.

Each deception event, series, LOO, and the deception concept as a whole require the application of risk analysis to infmm the commander's evaluation and subsequent approval.

Risk management begins in the planning process and continues through prcparalion, execution, and assessment-
Thcr~;:
are four general catcguries of risk associated with MIL DEC. They are deception Hlilure, expos.me of means or feedback channels (compromise). risk to third parties. and risks associated with success_
(a) Deception Failure.

.\11LDECs may fail for many reasons.

It is possible the target will not receive the story. not believe the story, be unable to act, be indecisive even if the story i.~ believed, act in unforeseen ways, or discover the deceptinn.

The failure or exposure of the deception can significantly affect friendly operations by redm:ing or eliminating the operational advantage the deception was to provide. For this reason, a commander must understand the risks associated with basing the success of any operation on the assumed success of a deception.

There are generally two broad categories of MILDEC failures. Deception planners either fail to plan or implement the
:v!ILDEC operation carefully enough, or the intended target detects the deception.

(b) Exposure of :\'leans or Feedback Channels (Compromise), Even if a
:\11LOEC is successful, it is possible for the adversary to compromise the deception means or feedhack channels. The risk of compromise of .~ensitive means and feedback channels must be carefully weighed against the perceived benefits of a ~fiLDEC
operation.

## Sample Deception Course Of Action Sketch

(c) RUk to Third Parties. Third parties (e.g., neutral or friendly forces not aware o.fthe deception) niay receive and act on deception information intended for the deception target. MILDEC -planners must ensure they are .knowledgeable about friendly operation planning at the joint and multinational force level and at the component level in order to minimize the risk to -third parties.

(d) Risk Associated witb MILDEC Success.

MILDEC can have unintended consequences if it is ~" successful or convincing. This is sometimes referred to as "catastrophic success." For example, a MILDEC LOO that portrays a larger. force along a supporting attack axis to dissipate adversary defensive preparations might PI1?Voke an unintend~ adversary spoiling attack if it is perceived as an operationallevel threat If the deception means for this sample series of events is a small element using primarily decoys and technical means, tilt) adversary response could cause significant friendly Joss of life, control of terrain, or even threaten the progression of the larger plan.

For this reason, deception plans and execution must be_ continuously monitored to help ensure the desired perceptions and effects remain aligned.

## C. Si:Cp 3: Deception Concept Approval

(I) MILDEC concepts m CO As arc nonnally presented in an acce~s-controlled briefing attended by a subset of the staff. the command group, and other personnel with a demonstrated need to know r~quirement. Prior to the briefing, the DOWG analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of each of the proposed MILDEC COAs using the !\ame or simi tar cril<'ria as dcvdopcd by the J-5 for primary COA comparison in the JPG. Some of the major considerations are feasibility, impact on actual operations. and security.

Ho'.Y the deception CO As support the overall 10 CONOPS is also considered. Planners preparing logistics, personnel, and intelligence estimates must also determine if the concepts they are examining can support the proposed deception CO As and determine the potential impact of the deceptions on their ability to suppon the operational mission.

Normally. the CMDO will identify which MILDEC concept or COA will best achieve the commander's objectives while still aligning with the .JPG recommended COA.

(2) The MILDEC concepts and proposed COAs arc normally briefed prior to the JPGs briefing that facilitates JPP step 6 (COA Approval). When the command~r finalizes JPG COA selection. the DPC will be informed which deception concept or COA
is to be developed into a completed plan and provided with any additional commander's guidance or changec; to previous guidance necessary to align the MlLOEC effon with the approved JPG COA.

d. Step 4: Deception Plan Development.

This s1ep in the \11LDEC planning proc.ess is performed in parallel with JPP step 7 (Plan or Order Development). Follov.-ing COA selection, the entire *JFC* staff will apply their previous work and any revised commander's guidance issued in the COA selection step to refine and complete their portion of rhe plan. The J-2 continues to develop intelligence based on the flow of RFis.

while the .lPG refines the operational appmach. JPG and component planners complete their appropriate written plans to a level of detail rcsul1ing in tasks to components captured in the OPLAN, and in 10ols and formats that support future execution such as the commonly used synchronization matrix. This resllhs in a series of nested joint and functional component plans and orders. MILDFC planners perform these same ta~ks relative to dc.,.clopmcnt and finalization of the MILDEC plan. Figure V-7 illustrates the primary inputs and outputs of this step.

(I) Using the approved MILDEC CO/\ or concept as a base, the MILDEC
planner integrates revised commander's guidance, updated intelligence analysis. an<l revisions to the primary COA to reline and 1.:omplete the MILDEC plan. The initial step m this process is to review all previous planning products and adjust them as required.

Are the MII.DEC goals and objectives still appropriate to the commander's objectives and end state::;? Are the phasing. LOGs. selected deception targc1s, deception story, and key indicators s.till valid and complete?

Are the selected deception means still appropriate to the conduits identified? Have any previous planning assumptions been invalidated?

(2) Following adjustment of the original concept, the DOWG tinalizes the deception story to guide completion of the MILDEC plan.

Using the same flow of

## Deception Plan Development

| Key                          | Inputs     |
|------------------------------|------------|
| Key Outputs                  |            |
| - Approved                   | jo1nt      |
| - Revised military           | decept1on  |
| gro~,;p                      |            |
| course                       | of         |
| course                       |            |
| of                           |            |
| act1on                       |            |
| or                           |            |
| - Approved military          |            |
| concept                      |            |
| of                           | opera11ons |
| deception concept            |            |
| or                           |            |
| -                            | Fmal1zed   |
| course                       |            |
| of                           | action     |
| - Revised military deception |            |
| - Finalized joint planning   |            |
| events                       |            |
| group                        | plan       |
| !                            |            |
| Military                     |            |
| -                            | Tasks      |
| - Updated deception          |            |
| means providers              |            |
| '                            |            |
| intelligence estimate        |            |
| Deception                    |            |
| - Military deceplion         |            |
| !                            |            |
| - Completed intelligence     |            |
| Plan                         |            |
| termination                  | plan       |
| directorate                  |            |
| of                           | e          |
| joint                        | staff.     |
| - Adaptive Planning and      |            |
| operations directorate of    |            |
| a                            |            |
| Execution,                   | Tab        |
| C-3-B                        |            |
| joint                        |            |
| staff.                       |            |
| and information              |            |
| operations                   |            |
| " Military deception         | pla('l     |
| append1ceslarmexes           |            |
| review                       | and        |
| - Request                    | for        |
| information                  |            |
| packet                       |            |
| responses                    |            |

activity used to build the MILDEC COA. the DOWG refines and increases the level of detail to what would actually be required to fully execute the plan.

This involves significant coordination with component and MILDEC means providers [0 build out planned deception event~ anJ series. Planners must also continue coordination with the J-2 to identify remaining intelligence gaps and plan the appropriate intelligence collection assets to support MOP and MOE collection neces.~ary tt"l a!';sess and adjtJst the MILOEC
plan (sec Chapter IV, ''lmclligcncc Support to Milital}' Deception'').

(3) One of the most tangible outputs of this step is the DES. The DES is the tool used to sequence MILDEC events for logical progression of the deception story and w synchronize the MJLDEC wilh the broader plan. This requires identifying when specific means are employed.

The objective is to ensure the deception targct"s perceptions are influenced in time co complete the desired action (the de<:eption objective) at the most operationally advantageous time. The DES captures what will occur, when it will take place, where it will occur. and who will conlrol the execution.

(4) Consider the tb!!owing factors during scheduling:
(a) The timing of actual friendly activitie~.
(b) The time required for friendly forces to conduct the deception activity.
(c) Where a particular activity fits in the normal sequence of events for the type of operation being portrayed.

(d) The time required for the adversary intelligence collection assets to collect, analyze. and report on the activity.

(c) The time required tOr the deception target to make the desired decision and order the desired aciion.

(f) The time required to execute the desired action/inaction.

{5) Each planned deception event wilt be given a unique number to facilitate coordination and execution tracking.

(6) The OF.S i"l published as an exhibit to tab B (\ltilitary Deception) to appendix J (Information Operations} to annex C (Operations) of the OPLAN or OPORD.

Flgurc V-8 provides an example of a simple DES.

(7) The completed DES forms the basis for the tasking and integration of JFC
components and MlLDEC means providers in the completed order.

(8) There are a variety of circumstances that might create a requirement to tenninate the MlLDGC in whole or in part. Developing conth1gencies for this eventuality is refe.rred to as termination planning.

(a) Termination planning ensures the controlled. orderly cessation of planned MILOEC events, protects means and resources, and sets the parameters for any release of information relating to the deception. Planning the termination of a deception operation requires the same care and attention to detail that went into planning the deceptions execution.

Termination planning should include contingencies for unforeseen events such as the deception's premature compromise.

In the event of compromise, termination planning for MILDC should include a notification to rapidly infonn those who may be affected.

(b) Controlling the exposure Clf the exio;;tence of a MII.DEC operation or of elements of a MILDEC may be difficult because of the nature of lhe operation. The deception target may know that it was fooled. \1ost of the time, it is better not to reveal a MILDEC-either to the adversary or to friendly forces-to avoid deception exposure. In some cases. h0wever. it is useful to announce the contribution of MlLDEC to operational successes, lf a MISO goal is to degrade tlle effecti\oeness of the deception target or to degrade the adversary leadership.

(c) There arc numerous potential termination scenarios. These scenarms are similar in concept to those used to identify risk in the previous step. Tennination scenarios include:

## Sample Deception Event Schedule

L. The successful MILDEC operation seenario, in which the deception has run its natural course, achieved its objectives, and termination will not expose or affect the deception.

~ The change of mission scenario, in which the overall operational situation changes and the circunistances that prompted the MILDEC nO longer pertain.

2.:_ Tbe,recalculated risks.and/or probability of success scenario, in which sonie elements ofthe MI:LDEC estimate have changed ii:J. a way that increases the rjsk and costs to thi friendly fon:es and the commander elects to end the MILDEC
comp~r.en.t of:the COA.

4. The poor timing scenario, in whiCh the MILDEC is proceeding and may succeed, but it is not alorig' a time line that is synchronous with other IRCs or other aspects of the operatiOn or Campaign.

Or it becomes ev~dent that the window of opportunity for exploiting certain cOnduits or the target itself has- closed. In this case, the MILDEC ce~s to be relevant to the ~verall operation.

. The new Opportunity scenario, in Which at some point in the execution of the MILDEC it' beComes appnrent that if some elements of the MIL DEC
(e.g., choice of conduits, objectives, targets) are modified, the probability of success wiU
increase, risks will be reduced, or the impact of the deception Will be greater. In this case, the commander may want to tennin:!ite some MILDEC events and activities, while reorienting other elements of the MILDEC.

6. The MILDEC compromise scenario, in which the commander has cause to believe that all or some elements of the MILDEC have become known to the adversary.

## Chapter V

(d) The termination concept provides the initial planning con::;iderations to implement and should include the follo\l.:ing:
L A brief description of each termination scenario circumstance included in the plan.

2_. Initial steps for initiating termination operations m each sccnano circums1ance included in the plan.

J,_ Identification of the commander who has termination authority.

(e) The DPC should anticipate that, as the plan proceeds in execution, the circumstances of termination will probably change. A terminati011 concept that may be entirely suited to the initial set of conditions may be far different from what is required as the MH *.DEC* matures.

(f) The termination concept should identify if and when information about th.e :v1ILDEC is released. h may provide a cover story ~huu!d questions arise about the role of \11LDEC in a particular operation. The termination concept should also include classificalion and dissemination instructions fix deception-related information.

(9) Following completion of the DES and the tennination plan. the MILDEC
planner has evel)thing req~tired to complete tnb H {Military Deception) to appendix 3
(Information Operations) to annex C (Operations) of the OPLAK or OPORD. The usc of exhibits, worksheets, and templates used in the development or tbc MILDEC plan can add clarity and detail to an on the shelf' plan so personnel who were not pan of the original planning process can rapidl;y grasp its contents (for review or contingency activation). Tab B (\1ilitatj' Deception) to appendix 3 (Information Operations) to annex C (Operations) and selected exhibits also form the basis of the deception plan review and approval package.

e. Step 5:
Deception Plan Review and Approval.

Review and approval requirements and processes are stipulated in CJCSl 3211.0\. (L~ .Joint Policy for Military Deception. The need to know criteria. remain in effect, however, and only a limited number of personnel participate in the deception plan review and appruval process.

## Chapter Vi Execution Of Military Deception Operations I. Execution Of Military Deeeptlon Events And Actions

'
The MILDEC p1an is normally executed as a component of the OPLAN/OPORD.

When a CCMD or functionally organized JTF receives an execute order for a given plan, the associated MILDEC plan may also be activated within the given authorities and approval processes as outlined in CJCSI 3211.01, (U) Joint Policy for Military DecePtion. As with the MILDEC planning process, the transition from MILDEC plan to MILDEC execution is haodled by the DPC, assisted by a furtctionally organized DOWG.

JP 3-33, Joint Task Force *Headquarters,* illustrates the process for transition of a plan from future plans or future operations to current operations. This same process is applied to transition the MILDECplan, although it is nonnally carried through execution by the same core deception team rather than transferred to other personnel.

## 2. Deeeption Eseeutlon Coordination

Once a plan is activated, 'it is critical that constant coordination at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels continues. There is potential for a tactical- or operationallevel, deception to have strategic implications. With this in mind, a continual process of coordination, called the deception execution cycle, must take place.

Figure VI-1
represents the primary activities within the deception execution cycle.

a. Adjust the MILDEC Plan as Necessary for Changed Conditions. The cycle begins with a review of the plsn by the DPC/DOWG. In this step, the DPCIDOWG
analyzes the current situation and compares it with the operational environment, anticipated conditionS and pl~g assumptions against which the plan was developed.

Existing RF!s are reemphasized, and new RF!s are developed to address shortfalls in necessary intelligence. Sample DPC/DOWG activities in this step are:
(1) Review and identify any changes to the adversary situation, such as adjustment to the adversary decision-making process or key military decision makers;
changes in adversary force structure, disposition, and inteUigence collection (conduits or infonnation pathways) to beSt facilitate the. effectiv.e deliVery of the deception story;
changes in third-party intelligence support; or potential new sources of open-source intelligence based in rapidly evolving social media or other networks.

(2) IdentifY and review chaoges to the friendly plan,. such as revised strategic or commanderls guidance; chlytg~ to allocated forces or -their flow into theater; addition, subtraction. or changed relationships with multinational partners; changes to basing or

## Deception Execution Cycle

overflight pennissions; changes to available MILDEC authorities,. resources, or tools; or adjustments to operational phasing or timing. The DPC coordinates with the J-3 on initial deception and operations exe<:ution timing to ensure a synchronous, supporting relationship exists that will aid the MlLDEC,.the operation, or both.

(3) Once the DPC/DOWG has updated their knowledge of the en~my and friendly situationS, all key elements of the plan, from the deception goal and objecti''"ves through the final DES, are validated or adjusied as required.

(4) While"this is the first step in the deception execution cycle, it is also a continuous process or ana1ysb and adjWitment as conditions evOlve aitd change over the course of mission execution. The traditional maxim that "no plan survives initial contact" is particularly true when applied to the complex and response-focused application ofMILDEC.

b. Sustain External MILDEC Syncbronlzatioo with the Actual COA aad OPSEC Plan. Among the MILDEC planner's most critical execution tasks is ensuring the MILDEC is proceeding in synchronization with the cotnmailder's overall operational concept and is in line with the command's einployment ofiR.Cs.

(1) The DPCIDOWG must conduct coordination both vertically and horizontally with commanders and staffs to ensUre up-to-date integratiort between realworld operations and deception operations.

This helps with synchronization of the deception story and helps to ensure the portrayal is credible, believable, and realiStic.

Changes to any operational aspect, such as presence, capability, strength, intent, readiness, fllture location, timing, or method of planned friendly operations, must be accounted for in the scheduled execution of MILDEC activities. This requires discrete MILDEC participation in the JFC's organizational elements that conduct such function~
as situational awareness, targeting, assessment, and providing routine updates and operational analysis to the commander.

(2) Since MILDEC and OPSEC work closely together in the holistic portrayal of friendly activities, and MILDEC activities are often supported by focused OPSEC
measure:; and countermeasures to protect their existence, special care is needed in keeping MILDEC and OPSEC clo'\ely synchronized. This includes close cooperation in the targeting or exploitation of adversary conduits so they are either neutralized or available as required to creal!: the desired OPSFC and MILDEC effects.

c. Sustain Internal MILDEC Synchronization.

MILDEC executions, \Vhile planned in detail. do not remain static activities on an access-controlled DES or operational-level synchronization matrix.

The DPC/DOWG maintains c.onstant communication with components, capability owners, and other resource providers tasked to execute or support each event so the portrayal of the deception story proceeds as planned. This includes operational-level tasks. such a"- synchronizing different MJLDEC
LOOs. and balancing or shifting lines of effort as appropriate, to sustain the desired story progression. Based on feedback. some planned executions or event series might need to be adjusted. repeated. postponed. or cancelled as appropriate.

d. Sustain Intellig~nce Collection during MILDEC Execution (MOPs. MOEs).

Working with the J-2 collection manager to help ensure intelligence collection assets are in position to collect MOPs. lhc monitoring of \IIOEs and indicators by the DPC/DOWG.

as outlined in the plan, is essential to the internal synchronization of the MILDEC plan, as well as informing the commander on its status and current levels of success and/or revised risk.

During <:embat operations in particular. the DPC/DOWG will have to actively compete for limited intelligence collection resources with much larger components and capabilities more familiar to the staff as a whole.

e. Assess and Monitor for Compromise and Counterdeception.

U-,ing the analytical feedback provided by MOEs collection, in conjunction with the assessment process. the OPC/DOWG determines the current progression and success of the MILDEC
plan.

Specially trained intelligence analysts. supported by MJLDEC planners, must remain alert for indicators that one or more components of a deception story may have been compromised.

This includes the identification of any possible adversary counterdeception efforts.

MILDEC compromise. when detected, may lead to one or more termination or exploitation scenarios as discussed in Chapter IV, Intelligence Support tu Military- Deception: and Chapter YIL Counterdeception.''
f. Keep the Commander Informed. The status of the MIT .DEC operation should be part of the commander's routine battlefield update and asscssme;,t proces<;es. As the principal authority for the execution of the plan. the command~r is responsible for any deci~ion to alter or terminate the deception or, conversely, order a change to either the

## Chapter Vl

MILDEC plan or the primary COA to exploit changing conditions. MILDEC atso factors largely in the overall computation of operational rio;k.

lncrea~ed risk might generate a requirement for adjustment to the plan in other areas.

g. Maintain Strict Security- and Actess Controls Tbroughout. It is imperative that tight security is practiced throughout the deception execution cycle to protect the Mll.DEC plan and its execution. While many decisions on need to know access will be made in the planning process, situations will arise that require legal and policy interpretation in addition to the best judgment of the CMDO and commander, as infonned by the complex balance of mission with risk. In the intense and fluid activity of managing complex military operations, it becomes even more critical for all involved personnel to apply appropriate classitication, handling, and access controls on a daily basis.

Any OPSEC or other security violations flf the MIL DEC plan at any level
(strategic, operational. or tacticol) should immediately be reported and evaluated for their potential impact. Frequently. the command Cl staff will he assigned responsibility to monitor for foreign intelligence detection, reflections, or responses to the t-.,IJLDEC plan.

## 3. Terminating Military Deception Operations

a. As discussed in Chapter Y. Military Deception Planning," the termination of a MILDEC is concerned with ending the MILDEC in a way that protects both the shortand long-term interests of the command.

b. When termination is ordered, the selected termination concept becomes the basis for final termination actions. The<;e action~ conclude th.P. operation in Hne with the deception events that have been executed, the assessed sratc of awareness. of the target, and the commander's speci[ic.: tcnninalion objectives at the time.

c. Termination of a MlLDEC also encompasses evaluation and reporting. After action assessment should he conducted hy the DPC/DOWCi.

This provides the commander an objective basis lOr determining the degree of mission success and for improving future \11LDEC' operations.

Because important information on various elements of the MILDEC may continue to become available over a long period of time. a series of interim after action report<> may be required hefore a final a .

.;:;es.<~ment can be made. The after action report provides a comprehensive overview of the deception as it was planned to \Vork cmd how it actually proceeded in xecution.

## Chaptervll . Counterdeception 1. Counterdeception As An Element Ofmilitary Deception

a. In taday's increasingly complex operational enviromilent. adversaries will more than likely use some form of deception to mislead friendly analysts and decision makers about their activities. capabi1ities1 or intent in order to offset a friendly superiority or gain some other fonn of operational advantage. Counterdeception is an effort -to detect, conflrm, and sUbsequently negate, neutralize, or diminish the effects of, or gain advantage from, a foreign deception operation. Friendly decision makers must be aware of adVersary deception activities so they can fonnulate- infonned and coordinated responses, but more importantly, so thitt friendly forces are-not placed at an operational disadvantage.

Counterdeception contributes to situational awareness and IO by protecting friendly command and Control systems and decision makers from responding to deceptive manipulation or faulty analysis of tbe operational environment.

CounterdeceptiOn is applicable across the range of military operations where adversaries might use deception in an attempt to alter our military engagement and security cooperation activities or even achieve operational surprise in the initiation of hostilities.

b. Knowledge of an adversary's deception plan enables a commander to take appropriate action against the deception. It also provides an opportunity to gain valuable insight into the means used to portray the deception and analyze adversary deception targets and objectives as an indicator of the broader context iJl which the adversary views friendly forces and operations. Counterdeception becomes a tool for influencing those perceptions and could subsequently be turned effectively against the adversary.

## 2. Detecting Adversary Deception

a. The IC has the primary responsibility to identify adversary deception. \11LDF.C
planners can assist in this effort. Trained Mli.DEC personnel should be postured and have access to intelligence data, information, and products during the deployment and execution of friendly operations.

b. The flm step in identit)'ing ad\'ersary deception is to understand the adversary's deception doctrine, techniques. capabilities. and limitations. Knowing how the adversary ha"l u~ed deception in the past is also important. The DPC and the J-2, S'Jpportcd by the broader lC, collaborate to collect and provide this information as part of the DIE.

Understanding the adversary's operational objeclives; nonnal operational profile~;
po~lure; tactics. tcchniqur::~. and procedures; and intent are also nucial to identifying tactical or operational indir;ators of possible deception.

Our own OPSEC doctrinal construct of signature, association, profile, contrast, and exposure can be used to assess adversary activity for its congruency with known patterns or expectations based on the evolving operational situation.

Indicators of potential deception can range rrom an intuitive sense that 'something is amiss" in the eyes of a dedicated analyst, to the outright compromise of dec:eptive means, methods, or activity by friendly intelligence collection assets. Properly balancing tactical and operational indicators with strategic assumptions is also important. The likelihood of surprise might be reduced if estimates weigh tactical indicators more heavily than strategic assumptions in some phases of the operation.

Dismissing tactical indicators or other minor contrasts because they conflict with our own biases and preconcept)ons may allow a hostile deception to succeed.

## 3. Confirming Adversary Deception

If intelligence reveals or ~uggests adversary deception activity, it is the responsibility of the JFC staff to fully analyze the situation and ensure that this intelligence and its potential impact on the friendly operation are presented to the commander. One method is to form a counterdeception working group (CWG) to perform this function. A sample CWG might consist of the CMDO, selected component MOOs, J-2 analysts. fC LNOs if assigned, red team members, J-3 planners, and any other staff members who could pmvide expertise on the ~uspected adversary deceplirm means or methods. If it has not already been done, the C\VU should analyze JFC vulnerability to adversary dcct.:ption using the physical, infOrmational. and cognitive dimensions. They could then review available intelligence products to determine what the adversary deception plan might be.

L.sing our own doctrinal methodology of 'see, think, do.'' the C\VG might use an abbreviated wargaming process to construct adversary deception goals and objectives, targets, desired perceptions and deception story narrative. probable events and means, conduits, and anticipated MOEs. The outputs of this technique could then be used to focus friendly intelligence collection ass.cts that confirm or deny tht.: existence and scope of an actual adversary deception plan and related executions.

## 4. Countering Or Exploiting Adnrsary Deception

Atkr an advcrsat)''s deception operation is confirmed, the CWG has two primary functions. The first is to examine past intelligence collection and analysis to detem1ine the impact the deception may have had on friendly planning, decision making, or current operational activities. The outcome of this analy.'>i~ may span the gamut from simple adjustment of planning assumptions to a fundamental change in the operational approach.

The second [unction of the CWG is to develop and present proposed counterdeception COAs to the commander.

For example. commanders can ignore, expme, exploit, or defeat adversary deception efforts.

Each COA involves a different level of risk or opportunity that must be weighed in the overall context of the operation and commander's desired end state.

a. Ignoring the deception might be the best option if acknowledging the deception compromises friend!; deception identification capabilities.

Such a compromi~e of friendly capabiliti;;s rnight kad to future improvements in adversary deception capabilities. This scenario requires the CWG to continue to identify deceptive indicators and base the friendly force operational decision making and subsequent activity on actual adversary capability, activity. or intent.

b. Commanders might choose to publicly expose the deception to cause embarrassment or to increase risk within an adversary's operational cost/benefit analysis.

Through exposure, the adversary might be persuaded that their deception operations are futile, too costly, or too risky to continue or that the discovery of their deception has left a primary LOO uncovered and vulnerable.

Exposure of a deception prior to combat operations might also serve to weaken the adver~ary'~ politica! or military position with allies or domestic audiences.

c. Exploitation of adversary deception focuses on forcing an adversary to expend resources and continue deception operations that have been detected by reinforcing the perception that friendly forces are unaware of the deception. In this scenario, friendly forces provide positive MOE that the deception is having the desired effect until the culminating point of the adversary's deception (their desired ''do or not do'' for one of our operational capabilities) and then reacting in an unexpected manner that turns the adversary's anticipated advantage again,;t himself.

d. Defeating the adversary deception effort could involve destroying or degrading the adversary's deception capabilities and resources so they are unable to sustain their pottrayal of the deception story. Like the other potential CO As, this outcome should include a wargaming step to identify possible ~econd- and third-order effects and associated risk.

Intentionally Blank

## Appendix A Military Deception Maxims

MILDEC maxims arc derived by the military from game theory, historical evidence, social science, and decision analysis theory and arc offered to enhance the MILDEC
concepts provided in this publication. These maxim!i provide additional insight that can be used by commanders and their staffs to develop their plans. There are 1 I deception maxims.

## 1. ":\Tag Ruder's Principle"

It is generally easier to induce a deception target to maintain a preexisting belief than to dcc.:ivc th!! deception rargct for the purpose of changing that belief. The Getman Army did this to the US Army in their Operation WACHT AM RHEIN,'' meaning
''Watch on the Rhine." Even the code name for their winter offensive in the Ardennes in
!944 connoted a defensive opera[ion, which is what US forces believed would occur.

## 2. "Limitations To Human Information Processing"

There arc two exploitable limitations to human information processing. First, the
''law of small number'' suggests not making conclusions hased on a small set of data:
there is no statistical certainty in doing so.

Second, there is a frequent inability of deception targets to detect small changes in friendly force indicators, even if the cumulative change over time is large. This is the basis for using conditioning (crying wolf) as a deceptive technique.

## 3. ~Multiple Forms Of Surprise"

Achieve surprise in the following categorie.~: si7.e, activity. location. unit, rime.

equipment, intent, and style (the manner in which and/or intensity with which missions are executed).

## 4, "Jones' Dilemma"

MILDEC generally become.s more diiTicull as the number of sources available to the deception target to confirm the real situation increases, 1 [owever. the greater the number of sources that are deceptively manipulated, the greater Ehe chance the deception will be believt:.:d.

## 5. "Cholce Of Types Of Deception"

Ambiguity-reducing deceptions are employed to make the adversary quite certain, very decisive, and wrong. Ambiguit)-cnhancing deceptions are designed to cause the deception target (adversacy decision maker) to become increasingly uncertain of the situation.

## Appendix A 6. "Husbtmding Of Deception Assets"

It may be wise to withhold the emplo~ment of MILDEC capabilities until the stakes are high. The adversary knows IJS forces arc rcvitaliz.ing \11LDEC capabilities, so let adversary lme!ligence collection and decision-cycle assets continually contend with US
threat capabilities, while ii'icndly commanders employ it at the time and place of their choosing.

## 7. "Sequencing Rule"

Sequence M!LDEC activities to maximize the portrayal of the deception story for as long as possible. Mask (OPSEC) unit activities indicating the true mission to the last possible instant. These activities mLtst he sequenced and coordinated in both time and space to be effective.

## 8. "Importance Of Feedback"

An a~sessment plan should be developed to determine if the MILDEC is being adopted, rejected. or deceptively countered.

Nominate MILDEC-related PlRs and establish named areas of interest to facilitate feedback on and exploitatifm of the MIL DEC.

## 9. "Beware Ofpossible Unwanted Reactions"

MILDEC may produce subtle, unwanted reactions from the deception target and friendly forces. Proper coordination can reduce *the* chance that deceptions wil! result in unfavorable enemy action. The deception objective should be framed in terms of what you wam the target to do, rather than think. In W.W. Jacobs story. "The Monkey's Paw," the 23rd Headquarters-Special Troops was a top secret organization attached to rhc US 12th Army Group Headquarters in World War II. This I, lOO~man unit conducted 21
MIL DEC operations from 1944 to 1945. In Operation BREST, it portrayed an armor attack buildup that wa~ apparently believed by the German Anny, but because of a lack of US coordination, an actual US armored unit tried to anack in that area. In another similar operation, the weakened German army division opposite the phony armor buildup believed the story, but the German army commander, believing he was about to be overrun by US armor, launched a ~roiling attack, which was definitely not what US
forces wanted.

## 10. "Care In The Design Of Planned Placement Of Deceptive Material"

Generally, if the deception target'$ intelligence collection assets have to work for the deception to he helieved, the greater the likelihood the adversary will accept them as truth. US forces cannot boldly announce what they are doing or the adversary will be suspicious.

## 11. "Integrated Planning"

MILDEC planning must begin ...... ith the initial opera!ional planning for the military operation supported and should continue throughout all phases of planning and execution.

Intentionally Blank

## Appendixb Suggested Background Readings

I. \11 IJ)EC planning is a creative process that requires imagination and creativity on the part of its practitioners. Additionally. M[LDEC plans should be carefully tailored lOr each siluation. For these reasons. this publication has not provided ~ list of possible MILDEC schemes or otherwise attempted to suggest potential deception COAs for particular situations.

2. Commanders, YIILDEC planners. and others can benefit, however, from the experiences of earlier MILDEC operations and from the theoretical work being done by academicians on the topics ofMILDEC and surprise.

3. The following is a selected bibliography of books and periodicals that deal with the subject of .\11LDEC.

a. The *Art qfWar.* by Sun Tzu (Dover Publications, 2002).
b. The Arr ofDecf?plion *in Jfar.* by Michael Dewar (David and Charles, 1989).
c. War, Straregy *and lmeiligence,* edited by Michael I. Handel (Frank Cass, 19R9).
d. Strategic and Operational Deception in the Second World *War,* edited by Michael l. Handel (Frank Cass. 1989).

c. ''Military Deception in War and Peace.'' by Michael I. Handel in Jerusalem Papers on Peace Problem.t, Number 38 (The l.eonard Davis Institute for lrltemational Relations. 1985).

f. Soviet .Military Deception in the Semnd World *War.* by David M. Gtan7 (Frank Cass, 1989).

g. The Double Crass Sy.stem in the War nf 1939 to *!945,* by J. C. Masterman (Yale University Press. 1972).

h. Deception in World War *lf.* by Charles Cruickshank (Oxford University Press.

1979).

i. *Strategic .'vfilitary Deceplion,* edited by Donald C. Daniel and Katherine L. Herbig
(Pergamon, 1911 I).

j. *D-Day,* by Jock Haskell (Times Books. 1979).
k. *Practice to Deceive,* by David Murc {William Kimber, 1977).
I. ,\la.<;ter nf *Deception,* by David Mure (William Kimber. 1980).
m. Soviet Operationa( Deception: The Red *Cloak,* by LTC Richard 1\, Armstrons
(Combat Studies Institute, US Army Command and General Staff College. 1989).

n. Pastel: Deception in the Invasion of *Japan,* b)' Dr. Thomas M. Huber (Combat Studies Institute, LS Army Command and General Staff College. 1988).

o ... Hritish Intelligence in the Sec-ond World War, by Sir Mit:hael Howard, in Strategi(' Deception. Volume 5 (Cambridge Cniversity Press. 1989).

p. The War *Magician,* by David Fisher (Coward-McCann, 1983).
q. The Wizard *War.* by R. V. Jones (Coward, McCann, and Geoghegan, 1972).
r. *Masquerade,* by Seymour Reit (NAL Books, 1978).
s. Codeword *JJARBAROSSA,* by Barton Whaley (MIT Press, 1973).
t. 1he Art ofA1ilitm:v *Deception.* by Mark Lloyd (Cooper, Leo Books, 1997).
u. The Art of Darkness: Deception and *Urban Operations,* by Scott Ger"'ehr and Russell Glenn (Rand. 2000).

v. *Bodyguard Qj'Lies.* by Anthony Cave Brown (Harper Collins, 1975).
w. The 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act.
x. *Secret Soldiers,* by Phillip Gerard (Dutron/Pl}lme, 2002).
y. Secret Soldiers:
Jhe Story of World War If's Heroic Army of *Deception,* by Philip Gerard (Penguin Group. 2002).

z. Forlflude:
The *D-Day Deception Campaign,* hy Roger Hesketh (Woodstock,
2002).

aa. The Man Who Never *Was,* by Ewen Montagu (United States Naval lnstitute,
2001).

hh. Deception Game, Czechoslovakian lmellixence in *Soviet Political Warfare,* by Ladislav Bittman (Syracuse Lnivt:rsity Research Corporation. 1972).

cc. De~perare Deception: British Covert Operations in the United States, 1939-J.I, by Thomas \ttahl (IJrassey's Inc .. 1999).

dd. Deception in PVar. '111e Art of the Bluff the Value uf Deceit, and the Alost Thrilling Fpisodes ol Cunninx in Militwy fhstory. from the Trojan llorse to the Gu{f JVar, by Jon Latimer (Overlook Press, 2003).

## Suggested Background Readings

cc. *Strate}{ic Denial and* Dec~tption: The *Twenty-First Cenl!!IJ' Challenge,* 5th ed., by Roy Goodson and James J. Wirtz (National Strategy-lnfonnation Center, Washington, DC. 2006).

ff. Opetation A1incemeat: How a Dead .Man and a Bi:carre Pian Fooled the Nazis and Assuted an A/Jied *Victory* .. , hy Ben Macintyre (Crown; first editio11 May 4, 20 l 0).

Intentionally Blank

## Appendixc Supplemental Guidance

This appendix is a classified supplement provided under separate c;:over.

The classified appendix expands on information contained in this publication.

Intentionally Blank

## Appendixd Refere:'>Ices

The development of JP 3-13.4 is based upon the following primary references.

## 1. Department Of Defense Issuance

a. DOD Directive 3600.0\.lnformation Operations (10).
b. DOD Instruction S-3604.01. (U) /)eparrment of !Jefense Military /)eception.

## 2. Chairman Of Tbe Joint Chiefs Of Staff Publications

a. C JCSI 321 0.01 C, Joint ln/(Jrmation Opera/ions Proponent.
b. CJCSI 3211.01 F, {Uj Joint Policy for Mililary De,eption
c. CJCSI 3213.0 I D, Joint Operations Security.
d. C.TCSI 3320.01 D, Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operarions (,IEMSO).
e. CJCSJ Ml 0.0 IF, lnformarinn Assurance (fA) and Support to Computer /Vetwork Defense (CND}.

f. CJCSM 3122.0 I A. Joint Operation Planning and Hxecution System (JOPf:Sj Volume 1, P/anninx Policies and Procedure,,.

g. CJCSM 3122.020, Joint Operation Planmng and Execution System (JOPES)
Volume 111, Time-Phased Force and Deplo_vmenr Data Developmenr and Deplovmenl Execwion.

h. CJCSM 3130.03, Adaptive Planning and Exe!'lllion System (APEX) Planning Formms and Guidance.

1. DOD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms.
J. JP 1, Doctrine for the Armed ForceY oft he United States.
k. JP 2-0, Joim Jmelligence.
I. JP 2-0 I, Joint and N(ltfanal lmelligence Support to Military Operatiom.
m. JP 2-01.3, Joim lmelligence Preparation ufrhe Operarional Environment.
n. JP 3-0, Joint Operations.
o. JP 3-05, Special Opemtions.
p. JP 3-08, lnterorxani:zutiunal Coordination.

## Appendix D

q. JP 3-13, infOrmation Operations.
r. JP 3-13.1. *Electronic* Wa~fare_
s. JP 3-13.2, *.Military lnformalion Support* Operation~.
c JP 3-13.3. *Ope1ations* Securi~r
u. JP 3-16, .Hu/tinafional Operations.
v. JP 3-33, Joint Task Force Headquarters.
v... JP 3-57, Civil-Military Operations.
x. JP 3-60, Joint Tcwgeting.
y. JP 3-61. Puhlic Affairs.
z. JP 5-0, .loim Planning
aa. JP 6-0, Joint Communications System_
bb. Joint Doctrine Note 1-15, Operation Assessment.

## 3. Army Publication

US Army Fidd Manual 27-10, The Law of *Lwul* Wa~/Ctre_. with Change 1.

## Appendixe Administrative Instructions I. User Comments

Users in the tield are highly encouraged to submit comments on this publication to:
Joint Staff J-7. Deputy Director, Joint Education and Doctrine, ATTN: Joint Doctrine Analysis Division. 1161.ake View Parkway, Suffolk, VA 23435-2697. These comments should address content (accur.tcy. usefulness, con.sislcncy, and organization), writing, and appearance.

## 2. Authorship

The lead agent and the Joint Staff doctrine sponsor for this publication is the Director for Operations (J-3).

## 3. Supersession

This puh!ication supersedes JP J-13.4. *Military Deception.* 26 January 2012.

## 4. Change Recommendations

a. Recommendations fOr urgent changes lo this publication should be submitted:
TO: Deputy Director. Joint Education and Doctrine (DD JED). Attn: Joint Doctrine Division,
7000 Joint Staff (.1-7).

Washington, DC 20318-7000 or emai I :j s.pentagon.j 7 .list .dd-je-d-jdd-al [@rna i I. m i I.

b. Routine changes should be submitted electronically to the Deputy Director, Joint Education and Doctrine. ATTN: Joint Doctrine Analysis Division, 116 Lake View Parkway, Suffolk, VA 23435-2697, js.dscj7.1ist.dd-je-d-jdad-all'gjmail.mil, and info the lead agent, the joint staff doctrine sponsor, and the JDD AO who manages the JP that is impacted by tile recommended change.

c. \Vhen a Joint Staff directorate submits a proposal to the CJCS that would change source document information reflected in this publication, that directorate will include a proposed change to this publication as an enclosure to its proposal. The Services and other organizations arc requested to notify the Joint Staff J-7 when changes to source documents reflected in this publication are initiated.

## 5. Le.Uons Learned

The Joint Lessons Learned Program (JLLP) primary objective is to enhance joint force readiness and effectiveness by contributing to improvements in doctrine, organization. training. materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy. The Joint Lessons Learned lnformation System (JLLIS) is the DOD system or record for lessons learned and fao;ilitates the collection, tracking, management, sharing, collaborative resolution. and dissemination of lessons learned ro improve the

## Appendix E

development and readiness of lhe joint force. The JLLP integrates with joint doctrine through the joint doctrine development p;ocess by providing lessons and lessons learned derived from operations, events, and exercises. As these inputs are incorporated into joint doctrine, they become institutionalized for future use, a major goal of the JLLP.

Lessons and lessons learned are routinely sought and incorporated into draft JPs throughout forn1al staffing of the development process. The JLLIS Web~ite can be found at https://Y..rww.jllis.mil or http://w\\.w.jiHs.smil.mil.

## 6. Distribution Uf Publications

Local reproduction is authorized, and access lO unclassified publications is unrestricted. However, access to and reproduction authorization for classified JPs must be lAW DOD Manual 5200.01, Volume l. DOD information Security Program:
Overview. Oass{ficntion, and *Declass{ficatitm,* and 000 \1anual 5200.01, Volume 3, DUD Information Securit).' Program: Prorection o.fClass{fled information.

## 7. Distributioo Of Electronic Publications

a. Joint Staff J-7 will not print copies of JPs for distribution.

available on JOF.TS
Joint Electronic r h1tps :/fjdcis j s .m i 1/jdcis/i ndcx .jsp (\II PRN ET)
(SlPRNET), and on the JEL at hup:/1'-A'WW.dtic.

n'!'\t'{)v, JPs. are relea.c;ahle outside the cnmhatant commands. Services, and classified JPs by sending written requests to
200 MacDill Blvd., Joint Base Anac:ostiac. JEL CD-ROM.

Upon request of a joint doctrine development community member, the Joint Staff J-7 will produce and deliver ont: CD-ROM with current JPs.

This JEL CD-ROM will be updated not less than semi-annually and when received can he locslly reproduced for use within the comhatant commands, Services. and combat support agencies.

## Glossary Part I-Abbreviations, Acronyms, And Init!Alisms

BCT
brigade combat ream
combatant commander
combatant command
counterintelligence
Chainnan of the Joint Chiefs ofS:aff instructirm
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff manual
command military deception officer
civilmilitary operations
cyberspace operations
course of action
concept of operations
concept plan
counterdeceprion wr,rking group
CCDR
CCM!l
CJ
CJCSI
CJCSM
CMDO
CMO
co
COA
CONOPS CON PLAN
CWO
DES
DIE
DISO
DOD
DOWG DPC
deception event schcdu!c
deception intelligence estimate
deception in support of operations security
Department of Defense
deception operations working group
deception planning cell
EM
EMS EW
electromagnetic
electromagnetic spectrum
electronic warfare
foreign intelligence entity
FIE
intelligence community
information operations
in!Onnation-related capability
information .system
IC
10
IRC
IS
J-2
J-3
J-4
.1-5
J-6
JFC
.!!POE
JP
JPG
intelligence directorate of a joint staff
operations directorate of a joint staff
logistics directorate of a joint staff
plans directorate of a joint staff
communications system directorate of a joint staff
joint force commander
joint intelligence preparation of the operational
environment
joint publication
joint planning group

## Glossary

JPP
JTF
join( planning process
joint task force
Ll\0
LOO
liaison offi,er
line of operation
MDO MlLDEC MlSO
MOE
MOP
military de<:eption officer
military deception military information support operations
measure of effectiveness
measure ofperfonnance
observe, orient, decide. act
operation plan
op~ration order
operations security
OODA
OPLAJ\
OPORD
OPSEC
public anairs
priority intelligence requirement
PA
PlR
request for information
rules of engagement
RFI
ROE
SJA
staff judge advocate
TAC-O
tactical deception

## Part Ii-Terms And Definitions

competing observable. Within military deception, any observable that contradicts the
deception stol), casts doubt on. or diminishes the impact of one or more required or
supporting observables. (Approved for inclusion in the DOD Dictionary.)
conduits.
Within military deception, information or intelligence gateways to the
deception target, such as foreign intelligence entities, intelligence collection
platforms,
open~source inte!ligence. and foreign and domestic news media.
(Approved for incorporation into the DOD Dictionary.)
~ounte.-deception.
Efforts to negate. neutralize. diminish the effects of. or gam
advantage from a foreign deception operation. (Approved for incorporation into the
DOD Dictionary.)
deception action. A collection of related dect::plion ~vents that form a major component
of a deception operation. (DOD Dictionary. SOURCE: JP 3-13.4)
deception concept. The deception course of action forwarded to the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff for review as part of the combatant commander's !';trategic
concept. (DOD Dictionary. SOURCE: .JP 3-13.4)
deception event. A deception means executed at a specific time and location in support
of a deception operation. (DOD Dictionary. SOURCE: JP 3~!3.4)
deception goal.
Commander's statement of tl1e purpose of military deception as it
contributes to the successful accomplishment of the assigned mission. (Approved
tOr inclusion in the DOD Dictionary.)
Methods. resources,
the deception target.
and techniques that can he t1sed to convey
(Approved for incorporation into the DOD
deception means.
infonnation to
Dictionary.)
deception objective. The desired result of a deception operation expressed in terms of
what the adversary is to do or not to do at the critical time andfor location. {DOD
Dictionary. SOLRCE: JP 313.4)
deception stotj'. A scenario that outlines the friendly actions that will be portrayed to
cause the deception target to adopt the desired perception.
(DOD Dictionary.
SOURCE' JP 3-13.4)
deception target. The adversary decision maker with the authority to make the decision
that will achieve the deception objective. (DOD Dictionary. SOURCE: JP 313.4)
decoy. An imitation in any sense of a person, object. or phenomenon that is intended to
deceive enemy surveillance devices or mislead enemy evaluation.
Also called
dummy. (Approved for incorporation into the DOD Dictionary.)

## Glossary

demonstration. In military deception, a show of force similar to a feint without actual
contact with the adver~;ary, in an area where a decision is not sought that is made to
deceive an adversary. (Approved for incorporation into the OOD Dictionary.)
desired perception. In military deception, what the deception target must believe for it
to make the det:i$ion that will achieve the deception objective. (DOD Dictional)'.
SOLRCE: JP 3-ll.4l
display. In military deception. a static portrayal of an actiVIty,
force. or equipment
(DOD Dictionary.
intended to deceive the adversary"s visual observation.
SOCRCE: JP 3-13.4)
dummy. None. (Approved for removal from the DOD Dictionary.)
feint. In military deception, an offen~ive action involving contact with the adversary
conducted for the purpose or dccci\'ing the adversary as to the location and/or time
of the actual main offensive action. (DOD Dictionary. SOURCE: JP 3-13.4)
honey pot. None. (Approved for remmal from the DOD Dictionary.)
military deception.
Actions exectJtcd to dclibcratcl)' mislead adversary military.
paramilitary, or violent extremist organization decision makers, thereby causing the
adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the
accomplishment of the friendly mission. Also called MILOF:C. (DOO Dictionary:.
SOURCE: JP 3-13.4)
ohsen-able.
In military deception, e detectable result of the combination of an
indicator within an adversary's conduit intended to cause action or inaction by the
deception target. (Approved for inclusion in the DOD Dictionary.)
ruse.
In military deception. an action designed to deceive the adversary, usually
involving the deliberate exposure of false informati.on lo t~e adversary's intelligence
collection system. (Approved for incorporation. into the DOD Dictionary.)
- lA ttlllcll Jllln*y ttMiw aulhorlty (PRA) to develcp tbll !ill
... li'DJ
- PRAilevilops FD loraldllig wllh JDDC
- FD COIIImlllt *llllrlx* adlf,ldiclllal
- JS ~7 pmdllllilhllnll c:cordnalloit (FC) dnllt,-ttals II!.
Ji)I;)C lind JS \iaJokll: std A!:llan PioCelillng (JS,AP) Qllllm
- ~
Slaft ~tpCIIIOI' (.isos) ldjldcaia fC allll!ll!fll
- FC )oint l'lfOfldl1o-Gf!l'IP