Strategeric Communication

To find credible voices that rebut some of the more egregious rhetoric coming out of the administration regarding our foreign policy, look no further than the Pentagon's own Defense Science Board, a group appointed by the Defense Department to give advice on policy. Their latest report "Strategic Communication" contains some interesting critiques on how the US needs to approach its foreign policy. Here are some key snippets:

"America's negative image in world opinion and dimininished ability to persuade are consequences of factors other than failure to implement communication strategies. Interests collide. Leadership counts. Policies matter. Mistakes dismay our friends and provide enemies with unintentional assistance." [In other words, it's not always what we say, it's what we do. Not everyone opposes us just because they hate our freedom or our way of life.]

"[T]hrough evaluation and feedback, it [strategic communication] will enable political leaders and policymakers to make informed decisions on changes in strategy, policies, messages, and choices among instruments of statescraft." [It is wise to be attentive and adaptive, willing to change course and approach when prudent.]

"Policies will not succeed unless they are communicated to global and domestic audiences in ways that are credible and allow them to make informed, independent judgments. Words in tone and substance should avoid offence where possible; messages should seek to reduce, not
increase, perceptions of arrogance, opportunism, and double standards." [It's tough to improve on that.]

But then when it gets to recommendations, things get strange:

"The Task Force recommends that the President work with Congress to create
legislation and funding for an independent, non-profit and non-partisan Center for
Strategic Communication to support the NSC and the departments and organizations
represented on its Strategic Communication Committee." [Is an independent, non-partisan thinktank possible in the realm of reshaping communication?]

"The Task Force recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy should
act as the DOD focal point for strategic communication and serve as the Department’s
principal on the NSC’s Strategic Communication Coordinating Committee." [The current Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is Douglas Feith, whose office has largely been regarded as responsible for the manipulation of intelligence and for manufacturing the need for war in Iraq. Surely, we don't want this individual in charge of strategic intelligence?]

It seems like the Defense Science Board wants to have it both ways. First, it makes clear statements that policy must be based on an understanding of interests, needs, histories, perceptions, and a host of other factors--pointedly not double-standard rhetoric from those without credibility. But then in the next breath, it recommends not changes in policy, but changes in our strategic communication structures.

Maybe that disjunction can be the first analysis project of the new independent, non-partisan strategic communication think tank. And maybe Doug Feith can author the report.