Phil Taylor's papers
|
BACK TO : PROPAGANDA AND THE LONG WAR - Year 8 - 2009
The Good, the Bad and the Questionable by P H Kushlis 
Friday, 17 April 2009 The Good, the Bad and the Questionable By Patricia H. Kushlis The Pentagon announced earlier this week that it had disbanded its office of public diplomacy - the successor to Rumsfeld's controversial Office of Strategic Influence which was officially "closed" - for excellent reasons - due to Congressional pressure shortly after it was opened. Hopefully, the Obama administration understands - unlike W - that the US military should never again be the preeminent face of America abroad - even in wartime. Leading with the tanks - even pictures of tanks and other warfare paraphernalia - does not win friends or positively influence most foreigners. On the contrary, it angers and frightens them away. Psyops and public diplomacy are poles apart Likewise, the Pentagon should not be charged with leading or coordinating US information programs overseas. This sends the wrong signals - besides, the Pentagon doesn't do it all that well despite its oversized budget and far superior Internet skills. Military Psyops campaigns and public diplomacy should never be mixed but I question whether the military leadership really understands this. Moreover, I've never been convinced that Psyops belongs in the US government's information tool box at all. If nothing more than the problems encountered because of a far too large potential for blow-back of concocted stories into the US media. This is compounded in the Internet Age. Not only can it mislead the American public but it can also negatively impact foreign policy decision-making as well. For that matter, the Obama administration should review the overall efficacy of US Psyops - particularly in countries where the media especially the print media - is not read, viewed or listened to or considered a trusted source of information. Rather from what I understand, these are countries where word of mouth still often carries the day. I would also argue that radio - not television or the Internet - reaches far more people than any other mass communication tool available in many parts of the world. More questions than answers raised The Pentagon's announcement of its public diplomacy office closure raises far more questions than the New York Times report answers. This is also compounded by the White House's April 14 announcement of the nomination of Judith McHale to be the latest Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at State. I have had, and continue to harbor serious reservations about McHale as the new Karen Hughes or James Glassman for any number of reasons. Most importantly because I think the Obama administration could have chosen someone with far greater experience than a Hillary Clinton acolyte, funder, fund-raiser and foreign affairs neophyte. Sorry - Ms. McHale's history of Foreign Service brat-hood - does not translate into requisite foreign policy or public diplomacy expertise in my book. Neither does her more recent experience with The Discovery Channel. Television, after all, does not figure large in the Public Diplomacy State Department portfolio. Where it does come in is at the IBB and this is where I think she could have made a substantial contribution to righting what is wrong with America's international broadcasting as defined and implemented by the previous administration. Time will tell - but surely better than Karen In the end, of course, time will tell how well McHale will perform as Under Secretary assuming she makes it through the Senate confirmation process. Surely, she'll be at least better than Karen Hughes. The problem is that the public diplomacy operation under the State Department is largely broken - in particular the information side of the house. This began years ago. Its roots are in the aftermath of the Cold War, the Clinton administration and the isolationist Republican Congress of 1995 but the Bush administration made the situation worse. It will take herculean efforts to make it right again. Not only are major transfusions of funds (which could and should be moved from the DOD if the Obama administration insists on it), qualified professional staff and excellent leadership needed, but I remain skeptical that a genuine rejuvenation can take place under the State Department - it is simply too rigid, hierarchical and stodgy a bureaucracy. After all, State's failure in the public diplomacy realm was precisely why the Pentagon stepped in after 9/11. But I agree with Matt Armstrong on an important point that the Obama administration also needs to consider seriously. Relying on the president and the secretary of state's personal popularity and an NSC ad hoc operation will only go so far to repair and restore America's image abroad. Neither Obama nor Hillary can be all places at all times. The appointments of the various foreign policy Czars - especially Holbrooke and Mitchell whose credentials for their respective positions are far stronger than McHale's - make eminent sense. But the current Jerry-rigged public diplomacy operation will not be successful in the long run. Let's hope the administration not only understands this - but does something more about it that has happened so far. Unfortunately, McHale's nomination as Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at the State Department is not the answer. Posted by PHK on Friday, 17 April 2009 at 05:09 PM | Patricia Kushlis International affairs specialist in Europe, Asia, the US, politics, public diplomacy and national security. TrackBack URL for this entry:
|