Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : THE END OF THE WAR ON TERROR?
Concerns loom about SC, PD by Fawzia Sheikh INSIDE THE PENTAGON July 9, 2009 - Vol. 25, No. 27 Lawmakers urge integration CONCERNS LOOM ABOUT STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION, PUBLIC DIPLOMACY As U.S. government strategic communication and public diplomacy programs grow in importance overseas, Senate authorizers are concerned about whether those programs are fully integrated within the Pentagon or the broader U.S. government and if lawmakers can properly oversee the funding for the multitude of efforts. Congress is awaiting delivery of a report on the government's strategic communication and public diplomacy activities mandated by the Fiscal Year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in the meantime, is directing the under secretary of defense for policy and the Defense Department's comptroller to develop budget documentation materials for FY-11 that "clearly articulate and document" DOD's objectives and funding levels for strategic communication and public diplomacy, according to the report accompanying the Senate version of the FY-10 defense authorization bill. The committee continues to monitor closely the Defense Department's funding for counter-support for terrorism and counter-radicalization strategic communication programs, as well as other public diplomacy programs, notes the report. "Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Government, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), has spent at least $10 billion on communication efforts designed to advance the strategic interests of the United States," authorizers say. Although DOD does not have a separate budget covering its strategic communication activities, the GAO reports the department has spent hundreds of millions of dollars each year to support its information operations outreach activities, add authorizers. The Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization and the geographical combatant commands have all carried out programs for strategic communication programs directed at counter-support for terrorism and counterradicalization, states the report. Many programs support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but military information support teams from U.S. Special Operations Command also deploy to U.S. embassies "in countries of particular interest around the globe" to bolster the efforts of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, indicates the Senate report. Authorizers say these efforts are in addition to many other small public diplomacy programs. Since the 9/11 attacks, the Pentagon has expanded dramatically its communication with foreign audiences, "without a great deal of coordination with any other element of government," William Rugh, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, told Inside the Pentagon. However, attempts have been made by Washington and in the field, through intergovernmental committees and liaison personnel between departments, to coordinate better among government agencies, Rugh added. Yet, a "huge imbalance" in resources exists between the Pentagon, with the lion's share, and the State Department, he maintained. Other differences regarding strategic communication and public diplomacy have surfaced between DOD and the State Department as well, he said. "It seems to me the Pentagon mentality, if you will, is to look for coordination and top-down instructions and manuals and doctrine, which is not necessarily what the public diplomacy practitioner in the State Department is looking for," Rugh noted. "The public diplomacy practitioner in the State Department, who's a foreign service officer, and spends his or her time at an embassy doing public diplomacy, has an appreciation of the fact that effective public diplomacy is local, that to carry out the practice of public diplomacy, you have to really understand the local environment and tailor your programs to that local culture," he said. "They take instructions from Washington, but they have to make use of them based on what the local conditions are." Military commanders and personnel based in Washington, in contrast, are "much more comfortable with a single doctrine and a substantive uniformity, if you will," Rugh told ITP. Debate in Washington is centered on whether to fund these programs through the two agencies "in the same way we've always done it," or whether it makes more sense to try to shift money from the Pentagon to the State Department, since the latter is "resourced poorly and the Pentagon is spending all kinds of money on what looks like public diplomacy," he said. A State Department official who spoke to ITP also raised the issue of a financial imbalance, adding that it "certainly does" impede efforts to integrate strategic communication and public diplomacy throughout the government. "State has, relatively speaking, so few people and so few dollars that it can't do all the things it ought to do," noted the official. "State even has a great deal of difficulty making it to all the conferences and exercises and participating in all of the planning sessions and everything else that DOD would like to hold, and sometimes DOD goes ahead without State." Despite resource problems, the State Department official acknowledged progress in working with the Pentagon and efforts not to step on "each other's toes," but said an "imperfect" relationship exists due to different institutions, sets of regulations and authorities from Congress. The House Armed Services Committee also tackled these issues. In its version of the FY-10 defense authorization bill, the committee urged the development of a strategic communication capability within the DOD as a "soft power complement to traditional hard-power tools," the House report states. The committee has explored policy, management, and organizational impediments to wider adoption of strategic communications capability, but is becoming "increasingly concerned that human capital planning in this area is insufficient compared to the needs," House authorizers say. DOD has a large and diverse pool of people with talents, experience, and skills that can contribute to strategic communication from which to draw, authorizers add. Further, the committee is concerned the department "lacks an effective management structure for providing the necessary leadership to guide the growth of needed capabilities in this area" since the office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy was eliminated, the report states. As a result, the committee would like the defense secretary to submit an assessment of the department's strategic communication workforce to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the bill is enacted. The committee, moreover, looked at information programs, expressing concern about the "clarity and agility" of existing policies through which the Pentagon and its partners carry out Internet-based strategic communication, the House report states. The committee believes that online strategic communication is an essential tool for the department to effectively counter the propaganda of overseas violent extremist groups, many of which operate exclusively in this arena and execute online media operations that "greatly outnumber, outpace, and outperform United States government initiatives," the report adds. Further, the committee perceives an "overly cautious approach" by the Pentagon and its partners' military messaging operations due in part to a misinterpretation of the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, commonly referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act. The law was created to apply exclusively to the State Department, authorizers explain. House lawmakers urge DOD to conduct "a legal review of the applicability" of the law and its "intersection" with DOD defense policy guiding online media operations. "The committee believes this effort is essential in clarifying any confusion or misinterpretation that may inhibit more aggressive strategic communications against our adversaries abroad, and ensure all elements of national power are utilized in executing this essential mission," the House report states. Finally, on public diplomacy, the House Armed Services Committee has asked for a report on military public diplomacy activities. The committee is uncertain about whether "a good accounting" for all of these activities within DOD exists, and whether dismantling the department's public diplomacy shop has left DOD without "the necessary management structure to coordinate and guide effectively the myriad activities that comprise military public diplomacy," authorizers write. This why the committee is directing the defense secretary to submit a report on the planning for, and execution of, military public diplomacy to the congressional defense committees within 120 days after the defense authorization bill is enacted. -- Fawzia Sheikh 
|