Category: Defense Department

Pincus article on military information activities is part literature review, part ignorance

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

Once again, Walter Pincus of The Washington Post writes about military information activities. Once again, the esteemed Pincus exposes his lack of knowledge and ability to really investigate and qualitatively report on military information activities. Just as Pincus criticizes the military for expanding into areas it lacks expertise in, the same can be said about Pincus, an internationally influential reporter at a major media outlet.

In a June 29, 2010, article titled “Fine Print: Contractors’ roles in psychological operations raise concerns,” Pincus links the recent debacle of the Rolling Stone article on General Stanley McChrystal with the use of contractors in information-related roles while unfairly mocking the Defense Department’s effort to address fundamental organizational, doctrinal, training, and resourcing challenges.

Continue reading “Pincus article on military information activities is part literature review, part ignorance
“ →

Military Information Support Operations

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 11 Comments

On June 21, 2010, an announcement was made that the military intends to rename Psychological Operations, or PSYOP, to Military Information Support to Operations. The decision, made a few days earlier by Admiral Eric Olson, Commander, Special Operations Command (SOCOM), and Army Chief of Staff General George Casey, was propagated through a memo dated June 23, 2010.

The name change is “not a negative or punitive action” but rather the result of the success of the Psychological Operations Regiment, as the memo states. The new name builds on the flexible deployment of Military Information Support Teams, or MIST, in support of a variety of missions, including direct support to State Department posts described, in part, as public information support to diplomacy (see this previous post on a State Department Inspector General report that mentions MIST). The name change will, the memo concludes, help advance the mission of “Persuade-Change-Influence” in “operations of every type, anywhere, anytime.”

While the new name invites the obvious jokes – most of which were already tiresome the week of the announcement – this is a positive shift that creates distance from the “five dollar, five syllable” word that General Dwight Eisenhower, as a candidate for President, told us to stop fearing. We, as Americans, never did drop that fear and as a result believe that any activity from the big, bad scary PSYOP is an exercise in mind control. The reality PSYOP, and now MISO, brings analytics and methodologies necessary to engage today’s global dynamic and fluid environments.

The substance of this change is yet to be seen. Hopefully, this shift will help update the tactics, techniques, and procedures of the public affairs officer to be more proactive and engaging across mediums. This shift must also address PSYOP/MISO’s relationship to military deception, which PSYOP is too often and incorrectly synonymous with.

Real change will come only if the PSYOP/MISO force is properly trained, equipped, supported, and integrated. Unfortunately, it is not and hopefully this change will facilitate both the internal (within the Defense Department) and external (across the agencies and the Congress) awareness of the importance of information to influence relevant audiences and participants, increasingly regardless of geography or language. This name change is potentially a significant first step at rebranding through substance and not simply a squandered opportunity.

See also:

Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus briefing

~ Matt Armstrong

The Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus is holding a briefing this Thursday, June 17th at 9:00am in Room 121 of the Cannon House Office Building to discuss the National Framework for Strategic Communication, the Secretary of State’s Strategic Framework for Public Diplomacy, and the Secretary of Defense’s “1055 Report” on Strategic Communication.

Briefers include Mr. Pradeep Ramamurthy from the White House National Security Staff, Ms. Kitty DiMartino from the State Department, and Ms. Rosa Brooks from the Department of Defense. The one-hour briefing will include time for questions and answers.

RSVP with Katy Quinn in Rep. Adam Smith’s office at Katy.Quinn@mail.house.gov or with Michael Clauser in Rep. Mac Thornberry’s office at Michael.Clauser@mail.house.gov.

See also:

Public Affairs and Information Operations: an influence capability

~ Matt Armstrong

The April 2010 issue of the Marine Corps Gazette includes a discussion on the need for increased integration – doctrinal and operational – between public affairs and information operations. Public Affairs and Information Operations: An Influence Activity, written by Lieutenant Colonel Matt Morgan, USMC, and Major Jeff Pool, USMC, discusses the ideological struggle between military public affairs officers and others of whether public affairs is to “inform but not influence,” an impossible task since the intent of informing is to influence. Appreciation for the conditions and requirements of the modern age of global and instant information has yet to be fully understood in ways that can break down the firewalls between “inform” and “influence.” As Matt and Jeff point out, it is time that truthful and attributed information not be segregated or tainted by whether its delivery mechanism is active or passive – the real delineation between “inform” and “influence.”
Continue reading “Public Affairs and Information Operations: an influence capability
“ →

Attack or Defend? Leveraging Information and Balancing Risk in Cyberspace

~ Renee Lee ~ 3 Comments

In his article, “Attack or Defend? Leveraging Information and Balancing Risk in Cyberspace,” Dennis Murphy discusses the Department of Defense’s policy toward the Internet, which enables opportunities to counter misinformation online and tell the story of the U.S. military. He questions, however, if organizational culture will embrace this approach.Murphy, a professor of Information Operations and Information in Warfare at the U.S. Army War College and retired U.S. Army colonel, notes the government must consider the use of the Internet by a potential adversary in future warfighting challenges. Although military leaders openly regard the importance of using new media and Internet tools, recent Defense Department policy directs commanders to continue to carefully monitor online behaviors.
Murphy recommends that leaders manage risk online while exploiting emerging cyber capabilities. Specifically, managing risk while providing the opportunity to engage effectively and exploit online opportunities requires a rebalancing of command philosophy, Murphy says. This can happen when commanders become more open to opportunities as they remain aware of threats – and let leaders at all levels do their job.
Click here to read the full article.

National Security Strategy punts on strategic communication and public diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Last month, President Obama released his first National Security Strategy. It is a substantial departure from President George W. Bush’s narrowly focused 2002 strategy that imagined “every tool in our arsenal” as only “military power, better homeland defenses, law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist financing.” In contrast, President Obama’s new National Security Strategy acknowledges that countering violent extremism is “only one element of our strategic environment and cannot define America’s engagement with the world.”

Continue reading “National Security Strategy punts on strategic communication and public diplomacy
“ →

Why the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs tweets

~ Renee Lee

Last week, Federal News Radio interviewed Capt. John Kirby, Special Assistant for Public Affairs for Adm. Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on why the Chairman actively engages in social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The chairman, who began Tweeting and Facebooking in 2009, understood that social media was quickly becoming a part of mainstream media and it was just as important to listen to online conversations.

Prior to engaging in social media, the Admiral learned from his troops that his internal military audience, which includes younger men and women in uniform, frequently use social media to communicate with each other. 

Other federal organizations can learn from Adm. Mullen’s online efforts, who does personally “tweet,” as he continues to more effectively utilize Web 2.0 and Gov 2.0.

Click here to read the full article by Federal News Radio.

See also:

Renee Lee is a new contributor to MountainRunner.us and will be providing links and overviews of material – online and offline – deemed important for the individual or organization interested in public diplomacy, strategic communication or “signaling integration”, or global engagement.

Renee Lee is a graduate student in the Master of Public Diplomacy program at the University of Southern California. Renee spent six years in the U.S. Air Force as a public affairs officer in the Asia-Pacific region. Renee graduated cum laude from the University of Washington in 2003, earning a B.A. in Communications.

Understanding State’s Budget Woes

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

Andrew Exum at CNAS blames – only somewhat tongue in cheek – the absence of federal money creating jobs in Congressional districts for the State Department’s budget woes. His point, of course, is that Congress sees little direct benefit from State’s activities. My friend draws additional insight from Gordon Adams and Cindy Williams and their highlight of an operational difference between State and the Defense Department:

The State Department’s dominant culture — the Foreign Service — takes pride in [the department’s] traditional role as the home of US diplomacy. Diplomats represent the United States overseas, negotiate with foreign countries, and report on events and developments. Diplomats, from this perspective, are not foreign assistance providers, program developers, or managers. As a result, State did not organize itself internally to plan, budget, manage, or implement the broader range of US global engagement … State department culture focuses on diplomacy, not planning, program development and implementation.

This is evident across the board at State, including, but not limited to, inadequate budgeting processes and systems, rigid hierarchies, and cultural bias against outside advice.

Below is a quick list of some of the other substantive issues I’ve talked in various public and private forums:

Continue reading “Understanding State’s Budget Woes
“ →

The Social Media Strategy for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

~ Matt Armstrong

The Office of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military officer in the United States, published its social media strategy. The document provides an insight into the current intended purposes and audience size of the various social media platforms in use now by the CJCS. The document describes four goals in the strategy: Engage, Align, Drive, and Expand. Each goal includes objectives for each goal. This is a good step in the right direction for the Chairman and the Pentagon to increase its transparency and relevancy in the discourse over military and foreign policy. As the strategy notes,

With the internet being the primary source of information for individuals born after 1987, social media is quickly becoming mainstream media.

I recommend reading this strategy. True to the purpose and value of social media, I am sure the author would appreciate feedback.

Chairman’s 2010 Social Media Strategy

View more documents from Department of Defense.

Minutes of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy March 2010 Official Meeting

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 4 Comments

Minutes for the March 2010 meeting of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy are now available. At the meeting were Commissioners Bill Hybl (Chairman), Lyndon Olson (Vice Chairman), John Osborn, Penne Korth Peacock, Jay Snyder, and Lezlee Westine. In reverse order of appearance, presenting were Walter Douglas representing the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Rosa Brooks representing the Defense Department, and myself representing, well, another perspective.

The meeting was well attended, perhaps one of the best attended events in recent memory. If you weren’t there, then I suggest you at least skim the transcript with particular attention to Rosa’s remarks and the question & answer period after the presentations.

Continue reading “Minutes of the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy March 2010 Official Meeting
“ →

#1 Afghan People, #2 Afghan National Security Force

~ Matt Armstrong

COIN-Fox Company

The tactical guys in the field understand the significance of influence. From Command Sergeant Major Michael T. Hall at NATO ISAF HQ:

[The words on this cardboard] encapsulates everything we’re trying to achieve in Afghanistan at the strategic, operational and tactical level on a single piece of cardboard that is understood and practiced at every level in Fox Company.

We have all have got to take the mental leap and realize that the best way to protect ourselves and the population is thru the Afghan people and the ANSF.

Everywhere we build trust, there are examples of this. The ANSF are, our relief, treat them that way, help develop them that way, and understand it has to be an Afghan way, or it will not be sustainable and everyone knows that. We have to push as hard as we can, but the push can only be lead by example, and sometimes that doesn’t seem to be enough, but, remember, we have tours, this is life for them.

The cardboard reads from Fox Company 2/2 US Marines reads:

Best counter to IEDs: #1 The Afghan people, #2 ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] partners and then metal detectors, dogs, [Afghan] BOSS, [Airplanes], etc. More than 80% of our IED finds have been the direct result of tips from local nationals because of the respect that you show to the people – and because they’ve watched you ruthlessly close with and destroy the enemy. Never forget that the best X-IED TTP’s = #1 the Afghan people & #2 our ANSF partners.

See also:

Admiral Mike Mullen on Military Strategy at Kansas State University, March 2010

~ Matt Armstrong

100303-N-0696M-084 by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, delivered a speech at Kansas State University as part of the Landon Lecture Series on Wednesday, March 3, 2010. Some highlights are at the top, full text, including Q&A, is below the fold.

U.S. foreign policy is still too dominated by the military.

Secretaries Clinton and Gates have called for more funding and more emphasis on our soft power, and I could not agree with them more.  Should we choose to exert American influence solely through our troops, we should expect to see that influence diminish in time.  In fact, I would argue that in the future struggles of the asymmetric counterinsurgent variety, we ought to make it a precondition of committing our troops, that we will do so only if and when the other instruments of national power are ready to engage as well.

Because frankly the battlefield isn’t necessarily a field anymore.  It’s in the minds of the people.  It’s what they believe to be true that matters.

…quality of people, training and systems over quantity of platforms.  It means that we choose to go small in number before we go hollow in capability.  And it favors innovation in leaders, in doctrine, in organization and in technology.

Continue reading “Admiral Mike Mullen on Military Strategy at Kansas State University, March 2010
“ →

Revisiting House Armed Services Committee Report 111-166 on NDAA FY2010

~ Matt Armstrong

The House Armed Services Committee Report 111-166 on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 intentionally, as confirmed by this blogger, used the phrase “military public diplomacy” to describe certain activities of the Defense Department based on effect. For your reference, the relevant section of the report is below.
Continue reading “Revisiting House Armed Services Committee Report 111-166 on NDAA FY2010
“ →

The VOICE Act: Victims of Iranian Censorship

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE), chairing a hearing with four past and present Under Secretaries for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, mentioned the VOICE Act in his opening remarks. From my experience, unless you’ve sat in on one of my presentations sometime in the last eight months, odds are you don’t know what it is. The VOICE Act is a product of Senators in the Armed Services Committee: John McCain (R-AZ), Joseph Lieberman (ID-CT), Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Robert Casey (D-PA).

(Interesting note: Senators Kaufman and Wicker – plus Senator Jim Webb – are the only Congressman (House or Senate) that are on both an armed services committee and a foreign relations (Senate) or foreign affairs (House) committee. These two Senators chaired the recent Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing titled The Future of Public Diplomacy.)

The VOICE Act, also known as the Victims of Iranian Censorship Act, was passed by the Senate in S. 1391 on July 23, 2009. It passed the conference between House and Senate armed services committees on October 8, 2009 and with the President’s signature on October 28, 2009, it became Public Law 111-84: the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

The VOICE Act is a notable (and rare) example of Defense Department-focused entities – the armed services committees – authorizing substantial funding for the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. However, the $55 million (details are below) authorized is not yet funded. In what could have been a very visible demonstration of putting his money where his mouth is, to the best of my knowledge, the late Congressman John Murtha (D-PA), chairman of the defense appropriations subcommittee, did not push to fund the VOICE Act despite saying the State Department should be doing more.

The VOICE Act is on the books, but it lacks funding.

So what does the VOICE Act authorize? On his website, Sen McCain touts the VOICE Act as “bipartisan legislation that will help strengthen the ability of the Iranian people get access to news and information and overcome the electronic censorship and monitoring efforts of the Iranian regime.”

Continue reading “The VOICE Act: Victims of Iranian Censorship
“ →

Defense Department releases its Section 1055 report on strategic communication

~ Matt Armstrong

According to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, the Defense Department was required to provide a report on

the organizational structure within the Department of Defense for advising the Secretary on the direction and priorities for strategic communication activities, including an assessment of the option of establishing a board, composed of representatives from among the organizations within the Department responsible for strategic communications, public diplomacy, and public affairs, and including advisory members from the broader interagency community as appropriate, for purposes of (1) providing strategic direction for Department of Defense efforts related to strategic communications and public diplomacy; and (2) setting priorities for the Department of Defense in the areas of strategic communications and public diplomacy.

This report (PDF, 660kb) is known as the 1055 report, after the section of the NDAA that called for it.

Continue reading “Defense Department releases its Section 1055 report on strategic communication
“ →

Upcoming meeting of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

The next meeting of the US Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy will take place Monday, March 15, 9:00a to 11:00a in the conference room of the International Forum for Electoral Systems (IFES) located at 1850 K Street, NW, Fifth Floor.

The public may attend this meeting as seating capacity allows. To attend this meeting and for further information, please contact Carl Chan at (202) 632-2823; email: chanck@state.gov.

Presenting will be Rosa Brooks of the Defense Department, Walter Douglas of the State Department, and myself.

Guest Post: Sometimes it is Not Okay to be a Silent Professional

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

From the students at the School for Advanced Military Studies, Ft. Leavenworth, KS

As part of our studies we are looking at Strategic Communications (STRATCOM) within the Army. In considering STRATCOM, we are similarly considering the perceived culture of reticenece within the Army and its effects on operational effectiveness. We are fundamentally interested in what others have to say about this culture.

Soldiers have often prided themselves in being known as “quiet professionals.” The Army is steeped in traditions and values that encourage reticence among its service members. One of the Army’s seven core values, selfless service, is ingrained in soldiers and officers throughout their careers. Humility and a desire to serve on a team without expectation of individual accolades have often been the hallmark of a good soldier. However, in an era marked by unprecedented access to information, being a quiet professional can be detrimental to Army operations. The Army’s collective silence is deafening in situations such as the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal where a proactive response is demanded by a world audience with unprecedented global access to information. The societal and global conditions under which the military thrived as silent professionals no longer exist. It is evident that the Army has not responded to these changing conditions. The Army must change its culture from one of reticence to one of active and sustained engagement. Then and only then will the Army begin to see operations positively impacted by the power of strategic communication.

Continue reading “Guest Post: Sometimes it is Not Okay to be a Silent Professional
“ →

Defense releases its new Internet / Social Media policy

~ Matt Armstrong

This week, the Defense Department released “Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 09-026 – Responsible and Effective Use of Internet-based Capabilities” (PDF, 290kb) that “establishes DoD policy and assigns responsibilities for responsible and effective use of Internet-based capabilities, including social networking services.”

The memo establishes responsibilities for “Internet-based capabilities”, including establishing the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs – ASD(PA) – as the point of contact for DoD online activities. It accepts that there are “official uses of Internet-based capabilities unrelated to public affairs.”

However, because these interactions take place in a public venue, personnel acting in their official capacity shall maintain liaison with public affairs and operations security staff to ensure organizational awareness. Use of Internet-based capabilities for official purposes shall:

… b. Ensure that the information posted is relevant and accurate, and provides no information not approved for public release, including personally identifiable information

c. Provide links to official DoD content hosted on DoD-owned, -operated, or -controlled sites where applicable.

d. Include a disclaimer when personal opinions are expressed (e.g., “This statement is my own and does not constitute an endorsement by or opinion of the Department of Defense”).

Read the whole policy here (PDF, 290kb).

If you want to talk about the policy, on Monday, March 1, at 1p ET, DoD’s Blogger Roundtable will (appropriately) host Price Floyd, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, discuss what the new policy means for the DoD community and answer questions. Email DoD’s Blogger Outreach if you’re interested in getting on the call.