Ridicule as Strategic Communication

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Kristin Fleischer at COMOPS comments on friend Mike Waller’s suggestion in Fighting the War of Ideas like Real War that ridicule is a “secret weapon worse than death.”

Although the suggestion that ridicule and satire are legitimate tools of strategic communication might receive some – dare I say it – ridicule, Waller’s argument is a good one. Ridicule and satire have a long history in warfare, and they have been deployed both offensively and defensively. In the U.S., ridicule was used in the Revolutionary War, both to mock the British troops and to raise the morale of the American fighters. In WWII, domestic use of ridicule targeted Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. In a more contemporary example, Waller cites Team America: World Police as an example of effective parody of Islamic terrorists and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il.  While a movie that features graphic sex between puppets might not have universal appeal, Waller is correct in pointing out that prior to the movie, American audiences would likely not consider the Korean dictator someone to laugh at. …

Waller’s suggestions regarding the strategic use of ridicule are an expansion of arguments he andothers have made about the importance of language use in ‘the war of ideas.’ In ‘buying into’ terrorist’s language – especially by using terms such as jihad and mujahidin – Waller argues that the U.S. and its allies, “ceased fighting on our terms and placed our ideas at the enemy’s disposal” (p. 54). If this is a war of ideas, and words are weapons, then we need to be using the right ammunition, so to speak. …

This is not to suggest that the threat of terrorism is non-existent or a call to underestimate Al Qaeda’s ideological appeal or material capabilities, and Waller is quick to point out (correctly) that ridicule can be as dangerous as any kinetic weapon when improperly deployed. In the nine years since September 11, however, far more people in the United States have died of heart failure, diabetes, or car accidents than terrorist attacks. Given this, pointing out that Americans statistically have more to fear from a cheeseburger than a ‘guy in a cave’ is not only true, it’s good strategy.

Read the Fleischer’s whole post here.

Glassman on “Strategic Public Diplomacy”

~ Matt Armstrong

The world is in turmoil – so to is America’s public diplomacy, strategic communication, or if you will, global engagement. How – and even why – the United States shapes and supports foreign policy with words, deeds, and understanding remains elusive in a vacuum of leadership. This is particularly ironic given that we are over a year into the Obama Administration, an administration that was elected in large part because it grasped the power of engaging and empowering individuals.

Tomorrow, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reasserts itself in the turmoil of equipping – at least doctrinally – the State Department so that it might become an effective leader in America’s foreign policy. Senator Ted Kaufman (D-DE), a former member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, will chair a hearing with current Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale and three of her predecessors: James K. Glassman, Karen P. Hughes, and Evelyn S. Lieberman.

In an advance reading of Jim Glassman’s testimony, Jim describes the purpose of the hearing and asserts the importance and centrality of public diplomacy, as well as its uncertain future.

This hearing asks four of us who have served or are serving in the latter post to address the future of public diplomacy. That future, in my view, is in doubt. …

[H]ere is the problem with public diplomacy: It is not today being taken seriously as a tool of national security by policymakers. Will it be in the future? Perhaps only in a desperate response to a terrible crisis. Such delay is unacceptable.

Continue reading “Glassman on “Strategic Public Diplomacy”
“ →

State of the Media: Adversarial Exploitation of the Digital World

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

We have long recognized the importance of information to shape attitudes and create action. The online environment is no different, but do you think you know what non-English speaking users of Google.com or YouTube.com see? You probably don’t. My friends at the White Canvas Group do and they provide fascinating insight into the online world of adversarial exploitation of online products. Our adversaries understand the utility of the online world as a medium that seamlessly blends with “old media” to influence global audiences.

A lot of funding that the brothers are getting is coming because of the videos. imagine how many have gone after seeing the videos. Imagine how many have become martyrs.

Check out this promo video from White Canvas Group and remember that Al Qaeda no longer needs to send its audio or video products to Al Jazeera for distribution. 

If you’re interested in more, WCG is putting on a one-day workshop that delves into this world of adversarial media. This will be a superset of the presentation WCG has provided to students of my training seminars and the public diplomacy class I teach at USC.

Cull: Restoring America’s reputation and the tragic children of Fallujah

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

By Nick Cull

Last Thursday (March 4, 2010), some of the top thinkers currently engaging the issue of America’s image in the world testified on Capitol Hill in hearings before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs under the title ‘Restoring America’s Reputation in the World: Why it Matters.’ Joseph Nye of Harvard stressed the value of smart power. Andrew Kohut of Pew pointed to the fragility of the recent promising trends in world opinion and J. Michael Waller of the Center for Security Policy provocatively challenged the assembled legislators to stop and think: ‘Would I run my political campaign the way the United States government runs its strategic communication?’ Meanwhile a story broke which has the potential to put yet another hole in America’s already leaky boat. TV, radio and web-based news services of the BBC carried an alarming report from the Iraqi city of Fallujah by the distinguished correspondent John Simpson.

Continue reading “Cull: Restoring America’s reputation and the tragic children of Fallujah
“ →

Nye: Restoring America’s Reputation in the World and Why It Matters

~ Matt Armstrong

Below is the prepared testimony of Joseph S. Nye, Jr. before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, March 4, 2010

In his inaugural address in 2009, President Barack Obama stated that “our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Shortly thereafter, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said "America cannot solve the most pressing problems on our own, and the world cannot solve them without America. We must use what has been called ‘smart power’, the full range of tools at our disposal.” Earlier, Defense Secretary Robert Gates had called for the U.S. government to commit more money and effort to soft power tools including diplomacy, economic assistance, and communications because the military alone cannot defend America’s interests around the world. He pointed out that military spending totals more than half a trillion dollars annually compared with a State Department budget of $36 billion. In his words, “I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better integrating it with hard power.” What does this mean for policy?

Continue reading “Nye: Restoring America’s Reputation in the World and Why It Matters
“ →

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
“ →

Establishing the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus

~ Matt Armstrong

By Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX)

On September 11th, 2001, America changed.  Since then the United States has been at war with violent Islamic extremists who plot and plan against us every day.  We have sent American troops to Afghanistan and Iraq to defeat them in combat.  Our intelligence and special operations forces have fanned out across the globe to disrupt terrorist networks and deny them safe havens.  And we have cooperated with friends and allies to reinforce existing counterterrorism resources and build new coordinated capabilities.  While these actions are necessary to defeat the jihadist threat against the United States, they are not sufficient to do so.

Continue reading “Establishing the Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy Caucus
“ →

This week: The Future of US Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

This week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hear from Under Secretary of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Judith McHale, and three of her predecessors: James K. Glassman, Karen P. Hughes, and Evelyn S. Lieberman. Chairing the hearing is Senator Kaufman, former member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Testimony should be available on the SFRC website the day of the hearing. Date/time/room: March 10, 2010; 3p; Dirksen 419.

The testimony should be worthwhile. This would be a good time for the current Under Secretary to unveil a strategic approach for the 21st century and how her office will strengthen US engagement with the world.

Continue reading “This week: The Future of US Public Diplomacy
“ →

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. 

An update on VOA Persia’s iPhone App

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

On January 22, 2010, Apple’s App Store had a new application from VOA’s Persian News Network. As noted last month on this blog, Alex Belida said,

This new application gives Iranians a unique opportunity to get the latest news on their mobile devices and to share with the world the news as it happens in their country. It is a groundbreaking way to expand our reach inside Iran and deepen our relationship with a key VOA audience.

This week, Alex sent me an update. 

[Between January 22 and February 19], there have been 5,040 downloads of VOA Persia’s iPhone app via the Apple App Store plus an additional 446 downloads through the Android app site. No info on jailbroken downloads. VOA has received video and still shots through the integrated “report” function but, according to VOA, there has been nothing so far of news value.

The Global Impact of Brown v. Board of Education: Use of the ruling in Cold War foreign relations

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 6 Comments

To those who think public diplomacy is something that done outside America’s borders or that cultural relations do not have a direct impact on foreign relations, I strongly recommend Mary Dudziak’s Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy. Dudziak documents the impact of domestic policies in the global ideological struggle to US-domestic interventions by the State Department and USIA to affect domestic policy and practice. For an example of this reality unknown or forgotten by too many, see Dudziak’s essay at SCOTUS Blog, a blog on the Supreme Court of the US. An excerpt is below:

In May 1954, Brown v. Board of Education made headlines, not only in American newspapers, but also around the world.  “At Last! Whites and Black in the United States on the same school benches,” was the headline in Afrique Nouvelle, a newspaper in French West Africa (now Senegal).  In India, the Hindustan Times noted that “American democracy stands to gain in strength and prestige from the unanimous ruling” since school segregation “has been a long-standing blot on American life and civilization.”  For the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, Brown would “go a long way toward dissipating the validity of the Communist contention that Western concepts of democracy are hypocritical.”

The global reaction to Brown was also noted in American news coverage.  The decision would “stun and silence America’s Communist traducers behind the Iron Curtain,” argued the Pittsburgh Courier, an African American newspaper, for it would “effectively impress upon millions of colored people in Asia and Africa the fact that idealism and social morality can and do prevail in the Unites States, regardless of race, creed or color.”

… When major Supreme Court cases are covered in the world press, they inform the understanding of peoples of other nations about the nature of American democracy.

… The Cold War balance of power itself seemed to turn on the faith of other nations in the benefits of democracy.  Yet in the world’s leading democracy, citizens were segregated by race, and African Americans were sometimes brutalized for attempting to exercise basic rights.

The Soviet Union took advantage of this American weakness. …

We may think that sending our legal ideas overseas helps others, but in this example American justice aided American diplomacy.

I strongly recommend you read the whole article at SCOTUS as well as pick up a copy of Dudziak’s book.

IIP responds to Pat Kushlis on IIP’s “Creative Destruction”

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 3 Comments

On February 4th, I posted a provocative comment sent by fellow blogger Pat Kushlis that drew a parallel between Microsoft’s “Creative Destruction,” as described by a former Microsoftie in The New York Times, and the State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs. Pat is a retired Foreign Service officer who was with the US Information Agency from 1970 to 1998. Several people in today’s IIP worked for Pat.

That post drew a response from Dan Sreebny, also a friend but more importantly a senior foreign service officer who is now Acting Coordinator for the Bureau of International Information Programs:

Continue reading “IIP responds to Pat Kushlis on IIP’s “Creative Destruction”
“ →

Rescheduled: public meeting of the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

~ Matt Armstrong

Last week’s event with the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy for February 11 was postponed due to weather in Washington, DC. The meeting is now rescheduled for 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. Note the duration is now 2 hours instead of the previously scheduled 1.5 hours.

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.

I will be one of two or three presenters at the meeting.

Conflict Prevention and Resolution: the Role for Cultural Relations

~ Matt Armstrong

On 2 March 2010, I’ll be in Brussels at Conflict Prevention and Resolution: the Role for Cultural Relations, a discussion hosted by NATO, Security & Defense Agenda, and the British Council . The discussion will be in three parts: Why Culture Matters, Case Studies in Cultural Relations in Conflict, and Designing a Cultural Approach to Civil-Military Relations.

image

Event information, including registration and agenda, is available here. More on the event will appear at www.MountainRunner.us.

DOD finally has a new Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

Al Kamen informed the public there is a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs: Doug Wilson. Confirmed last week, he’ll be on the job at the Pentagon by the time most of you read this, 17 February 2010. It’s been a while since there was an ASD(PA). This means there were will be two public diplomats at DoD’s public affairs shop: Doug and Price Floyd, who will report to Doug. This is good.

Spencer adds his nickel.

Information as Power survey: what date works best for you?

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 1 Comment

The successful Information as Power event was last week and even during the Snowpacolypse in DC, it was a success (not counting the few who were unable to attend due to weather). I am now working on the next iteration which will be in one (or both) of the following formats: a 2-day course with 12hrs of instruction (9-4 with 1hr lunch) or a 1-day intensive (9-5 with working lunch).

If you are interested in the course, indicate your preferred days for either the 2-day or the 1-day event at this link: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/P6HWXMX

Continue reading “Information as Power survey: what date works best for you?
“ →

[Off topic] NBC Olympic broadcast: an epic failure

~ Matt Armstrong ~ 8 Comments

I’d really like to see some statistics on NBC’s coverage of the 2010 Winter Olympics from Vancouver, Canada. Some quick gripes:

  • I’m in the same time zone as the Olympics, why must I watch events 3 hours after the east coast?
  • Why on Sunday, February 14, was there no Olympic coverage until 1p? Were the talk shows (8-10), paid programming (10-12!!), and Monk (12-1) really more important and revenue generating than the Olympics? Seriously, 2 hours of infomercials?
  • Is it really more important to broadcasting multiples of Keith Olbermann (5p, 7p, 10p), Rachel Maddow (7p, 8p, 11p),  and Hardball with Chris Matthews (9p) than to expand Olympic coverage on MSNBC? These three shows were squeezed between two Olympic hockey games. NBC couldn’t find its why to show more?
  • Why is it an anomaly for NBC to show two events back to back? They clearly prefer to show a single event then go to commercial rather than back to back events.
  • Please someone do a comparison between the time NBC spends on broadcasting actual competition with time spent talking about events and – as a separate comparison – time spent on commercials.

Why does NBC make it so difficult to watch the Olympics?