Air Force information operations doctrine includes public affairs among the various components of influence operations, which is one of the three major elements of information operations. In contrast, joint doctrine segregates public affairs and information operations, with the former serving as a related capability to the latter. Due to the inherent conflict between the core purposes of public affairs and influence operations, the Air Force approach poses a risk to the effectiveness of public affairs programs and activities, and may ultimately undermine the fundamental principle of civilian control of the military. Therefore, the Air Force should amend its doctrine to explicitly separate public affairs and influence operations, and ensure its operational concepts draw clear distinctions between these similar but separate spheres of military communication. This paper argues in favor of this course of action by summarizing the changes in the global information and security environment that have prompted the need to reexamine operational concepts involved in public affairs and influence operations, then identifying the essential purpose of the public affairs and influence operations, respectively, and the contradictions created by forcing public affairs into the influence operations yoke. Based on those contradictions, it advocates erecting clear and doctrinal boundaries between these distinct albeit related missions in order to better accomplish them, as well as to better honor and preserve the values underlying the civilian-military relationship fundamental to American democracy.