Friday, November 13, 2015

PD commentary


from publicdiplomacycouncil.org

Murphy and Kuehl on a National Information Strategy (I) – Introduction

Wednesday, November 11th 2015
Murphy and Kuehl on a National Information Strategy (I) – Introduction

Donald M. Bishop

When the State Department detailed me to the Pentagon as a Foreign Policy Advisor (POLAD), the Air Force gave me the opportunity to attend a course on Information Operations (the military acronym is “IO”) at the Air War College.  It was one of the most valuable weeks of my Foreign Service career, opening a window on armed forces thinking in fields relevant to Public Diplomacy.
READ MORE
About: 

Public diplomacy professional standards, part of the Council's work

Wednesday, October 21st 2015
The Council has been doing a lot lately to advance professionalism for those who practice public diplomacy, and you can see it all on our updated Professional Practice tab.
Read about our recent training program for junior diplomats from Afghanistan with Meridian International; our mentoring sessions for Kathryn W. Davis Fellows; and our "Beyond PD" forums for U.S. Foreign Service Officers in the public diplomacy track.
And you can watch the first "Beyond PD" discussion as well as clips from recent First Monday Forums, a joint project with the University of Southern California, on our new YouTube channel, created and produced by our current Fellow, Tara Schoenborn.
READ MORE
Author: Joe Johnson
About: 

Quotable: Murphy and Kuehl on a National Information Strategy (II) – Looking at Content

Wednesday, November 11th 2015
The recent article in the September-October, 2015, article in Military Review, “The Case for a National Information Strategy,” by retired Army Colonel Dennis Murphy and the late Dr. Daniel Kuehl, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, focused on the DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic instruments of national power) and 3C (connectivity, content, cognitive effects) models.  Understanding the models used by the armed forces can foster closer and faster collaboration and cooperation between State’s Public Diplomacy and related efforts by DOD.  Public Diplomacy programs are loaded with content.  Here are some key comments on the 3C’s:

  • . . . the United States has developed multiple national strategies, including one for information sharing. Ironically, however, there is still no national strategy for information content.

  • Probably every curriculum taught at military staff and war colleges around the world attempts to explain and analyze the elements and instruments of national power using a model of some kind. The United States military employs a framework sometimes identified by the simple acronym DIME, representing the diplomatic, informational, military, and economic instruments of national power.

  • While the “D, M, and E” instruments are obvious and almost self-defining, such is not the case for the “I” instrument.
READ MORE
About: 

Quotable: Murphy and Kuehl on a National Information Strategy (III) – A Look Back at USIA

Wednesday, November 11th 2015
The recent article in the September-October, 2015, article in Military Review, “The Case for a National Information Strategy,” by retired Army Colonel Dennis Murphy and the late Dr. Daniel Kuehl, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, included a look back at the Cold War, the U.S. Information Agency, the Voice of America, and the response to 9/11.  Those who have inherited USIA’s role will benefit from the review.  I’ve bulleted some key quotes:

  • At the outset of the Cold War, U.S. policy makers broadly conceived of it as a competition between ideologies to be contested primarily through information power, albeit strategically supported by the threat of military force and mutually assured destruction.

  • USIA was to act as the agency responsible for achieving strategic cognitive information effects globally in support of U.S. strategy and policy.
READ MORE
About: 

Quotable: Murphy and Kuehl on a National Information Strategy (IV) – Paths ahead

Wednesday, November 11th 2015
“In the past, the United States was able to muddle along using information as power without a strategy to define and direct its use. However, an increasingly connected and complex world demands a national information strategy.”  This was one conclusion expressed by retired Army Colonel Dennis Murphy and the late Dr. Daniel Kuehl, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel.  Their recent article in the September-October, 2015, issue of Military Review, “The Case for a National Information Strategy.” Here are some of the two authors’ recommendations:

  • . . . the fact remains that no single executive government agency is in charge of the information instrument of national power overall. Therefore, there will continue to be conflict between agencies seeking to protect the technology and agencies seeking to exploit it to compete cognitively on the world stage.

  • . . . the United States remains at a crossroad that requires an overarching national information strategy incorporating connectivity, content, and cognition in all its forms. As Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, notes, “Our adversaries have a communications strategy. We, unfortunately, don’t.”
READ MORE
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)