UPDATE III: See Arkin's post today that doesn't require reading between the lines. I'll respond to Arkin's post later... w/ a more formed response.
Sharon Weinberger over at Wired's Danger Room posts what can and should only be described as an ill-informed commentary on the comments of former Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld. I know Sharon and I like her and what she writes, but this time she's way off base and doing the emotional knee-jerk without her typical understanding and analysis.
From her post:
[T]he former defense secretary has a bigger vision: he is advocating a "21st century agency for global communications."
This was one of the major themes in one of Rumsfeld's first post-Pentagon public comments at a conference today on network centric warfare sponsored by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement. According to Rumsfeld, the United States is losing the war of ideas in the Muslim world, and the answer to that, in part, is through the creation of this new government agency.
During the the Q&A after the speech, I asked Rumsfeld what this new agency might entail (he was pretty clear it wouldn't be a resurrected U.S. Information Agency, which was merged into State Department in 1999), and why, when there is an abundance of media available in the private sector, the government needs to get involved.
Now, I don't particularly like the former SecDef either. That should be clear from previous posts here on the blog. But this isn't just his idea. On the contrary, current Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has spoken on this, as have several other senior leaders.
Within public diplomacy circles you won't find a consensus on how or even if a new USIA-like agency should be structured, how close it should be to the President, and if it would be under the National Security Council (a popular suggestion) or have its own seat on the cabinet.
I've written on the subject before (see the links at bottom) so I won't regurgitate the points here (especially as I'm working two fronts on this, more later). However, it is essential the United States participates in the information war, the War of Ideas, the psychological struggle for minds and wills, or whatever you want to call. To do so requires a central organization like what USIA was designed to provide in the early years of the Cold War (through the mid-1950's, maybe early 1960s), but not just a resurrection of the old.
If you read Sharon's post, read the following. At least the first one:
- What the SecDef Didn’t Call For, But Should Have (Updated)
- Heritage on Smith-Mundt
- Off the cuff: Part 1.5 of What the SecDef Didn't Say
- In-sourcing the Tools of National Power for Success and Security
- What would you ask Jim Glassman?
UPDATE: Jeff Carr has a response to my post but while he points to facts in Sharon's post, misses my real beef, which I raised offline with Sharon.
To clarify, my specific beef is with the tone of the post rather than specific statements and seeming mocking of the suggestion because it was, unfortunately, uttered by Rummy.
The inclusion of OSI and Lincoln colors the argument. I'm sure Jeff knows the real history of Lincoln. My criticism, Jeff, doesn't "have to do with how she framed her question to Rumsfeld" but with the between the lines argument that we can continue to live with a less than 1940's communication model that segments PA / PD, or internal / external communication, unrealistically and imagines a USG that doesn’t already propagandize its own people. Sixty years ago, we were in a communications revolution and realized we were getting our ass kicked and that the "whisper" out of State was inadequate (see What the SecDef Didn’t Call For, But Should Have (Updated)). We did something about it. Today, we're getting our ass kicked again in an even faster comm environment and I don't think we moved as much in the last six years as we did in the six years after Smith-Mundt was passed formalizing USIA. This is about the notion of an independent organization and dissing the topic because the former SecDef raised the issue.
Update II: Ok, Matt's comments below are on the mark (I quoted Boykin? What was I thinking?). I'll concede my post is the ill-formed reaction here that could have been better framed and argued. The joy of new media. My beef, however, remains the same, after offline comm w/ Sharon and subsequent reader comments.
Follow on Twitter
Matt, I'm surprised and dismayed at the tone you took with Sharon W: "knee-jerk emotionalism"? I didn't read her article that way at all. Rather than repeating myself here (too bad you don't offer trackbacks), you can read my take on it at IntelFusion.net.
Matt, I read both blogs and so I went back to reread what was posted to Danger Room. I think you're reading too much into the post. I don't know Sharon, but I disagree with your thesis that she's pushing a "between the lines argument that we can continue to live with a less than 1940's communication model that segments PA / PD..."
I did not read was not that the need for communications model is questioned here. Rather I think Sharon expresses a well-founded and widely-held skepticism of Rumsfeld as spokesman or advocate of any such effort. I think she expresses a sense that any effort to stand up such an office will face the challenge of the missteps and poorly communicated ideas of the Rumsfeld era at DoD. Any organization, if it is set up close to the DoD, or the defense/intel complex as a whole, is going to face a lot of skepticism from abroad and at home. This is in large part due to the missteps during Rumsfeld's term.
Last summer, you posted about the ineffectiveness of Karen Hughes as USPDPA. Some of that was personal failings, some of it was her personal proximity a President, who has lost all credibility in communicating messages abroad. She was an ineffective messenger. In that post you quoted Gen. Boykin, and while his quote about losing the media war is accurate, he's perhaps just as destructive to our overall communications efforts when he says things like this: "I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol." in uniform in a church.
The messenger can often drown out the message, even if they're right.
Matt - I think we can agree that the USG needs a better forum for communicating with the world, to include to better explain its national and military strategies. However, using Rummie to deliver that message is sort of like using Phillip Morris to tell kids why smoking is bad.
Statements like this - "The Internet is there, pods are there, talk radio is there, e-mails are there. There are all kinds of opportunities" - just bring to mind his famous quote about WMDs: "We know where they [Iraq's WMD] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat." And to have to listen to this guy talk about communications??
Maybe you need a refresher on what the Bush administration considers information operations. There's a difference between strategic communications and offensive information operations. He wants the latter, not the former. This is not the guy to discuss this issue. For that matter, what the hell is wrong with people wanting to hear him talk in the first place?
Jason,
I guess I didn't distance myself enough from Rumsfeld. I agree with you he's not the guy to say this. He says it wrong and has credibility issues, which is Sharon's keypoint. My keypoint is don't throw out the baby with the bathwater just because he touched it.
On whether Rummy wants IO or SC (or PD), I don't really care what he wants.
Matt, good points.
WOW! A hot zone! You'll have to do that more often!