Strategist’s Weltanschauung
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 12
1. Emergent North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) doctrine on Information Operations cites Diplomatic, Military, and Economic activities as “Instruments of Power.” It further states that Information, while not an instru-ment of power, forms a foundation, since all activity has an informational backdrop. See Allied Joint Pamphlet (AJP)-4, Allied Joint Logistic Doctrine, Brussels, Belgium: NATO, December 2003.
2. Ronald Reagan, National Security Decision Directive 130, Washington, DC: The White House, March 6, 1984, available from www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-130.htm.
3. Daniel T. Kuehl and Robert E. Neilson, “Evolutionary Change in Revolutionary Times: A Case for a New Na-tional Security Education Program,” NaNa-tional Security Strategy Quarterly, Autumn 1999, p. 40.
4. Jeffrey L. Groh and Dennis M. Murphy, “Landpower and Network Centric Operations: How Information in Today’s Battlespace Can be Exploited,” NECWORKS Journal, Issue 1, March 2006.
5. Kevin J. Cogan and Raymond G. Delucio, “Network Centric Warfare Case Study, Vol. II,” Carlisle, PA: U.S.
Army War College, 2006, p. 4.
6. Catherine A. Theohary and John Rollins, “Terrorist Use of the Internet: Information Operations in Cyberspace,”
Congressional Research Service Report, March 8, 2011, pp. 3-4.
7. “The Center for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications,” Information Operations Primer, Carlisle, PA: U.S.
Army War College, November 2011, p. 103.
8. U.S. Department of State, “21st Century Statecraft,” available from www.state.gov/statecraft/overview/index.htm.
9. Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Troop Rise Aids Iraqis, Bush Says, Citing Bloggers,” New York Times, March 29, 2007, p.
17.
10. James B. Kinniburgh and Dorothy Denning, “Blogs and Military Information Strategy,” IOSphere, Summer 2006, p. 5.
11. For interestingly different perspectives on the impact of social media on political movements, see Robert Co-hen, “Revolutionary Arab Geeks,” New York Times, January 27, 2011; and Malcolm Gladwell, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted,” The New Yorker, October 4, 2010.
170
12. Evgeny Morozov, The Net Delusion, New York: Public Affairs, 2011, p. xiv.
13. “After Deadly Kabul Siege, NATO Takes on Taliban . . . on Twitter,” ABC News, available from abcnews.go.com/
Blotter/kabul-siege-nato-takes-taliban-twitter/story?id=14518138.
14. The author attended a conference on “New Media” sponsored by the Open Source Center at the Meridian House in Washington, DC, in April 2007. The referenced comments reflect panelists’ presentations. IBM already has a presence in Second Life with over 7,000 associates meeting and conducting business there. The conference was held under Chatham House rules allowing free and open dialogue while ensuring the anonymity of speakers.
15. Natalie O’Brien, “Virtual Terrorists,” The Australian, July 31, 2007, available from www.theaustraliannews.com.
au/story/0.25197.22161037-28737.00.html.
16. Anand Giridharadas, “Where a Cell Phone is Still Cutting Edge,” New York Times, April 9, 2010, available from www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/weekinreview/11giridharadas.html?ref=weekinreview.
17. John Moody, “A ‘Celler’s’ Market for Information in Iran,” FoxNews, June 14, 2007, available from www.foxnews.
com/story/0,2933,282456,00.html.
18. Richard Willing, “Growing Cell Phone Use a Problem for Spy Agencies,” USAToday, August 2, 2007, p. 2.
19. Marvin Kalb and Carol Saivetz, “The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict,” Research Working Papers Series, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, February 2007, p. 4.
20. Phillip Meyer, “The Proper Role of the News Media in a Democratic Society,” Media, Profit, and Politics, Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 2003, p. 12.
21. “Americans Spending More Time Following the News,” The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, September 12, 2010, p. 66.
22. J. D. Johannes, “How Al Qaeda is Winning Even as it is Losing,” TCS Daily, July 11, 2007. The author provides a statistical analysis using “gross rating points” to convey that 65 percent of coverage of the Iraq war is pessimistic.
23. Roxie Merritt, Director of Internal Communications and New Media, Armed Forces Information Service, inter-view with the author, February 22, 2007.
24. Apropos to the discussion above, the DoD recently changed the definition of propaganda from that shown in this article to “any form of adversary communication, especially of a biased or misleading nature, designed to influ-ence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of any group in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indi-rectly.” See DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, November 15, 2011, available from www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary.
25. Interestingly, the U.S. Government avoids using the term “propaganda” in any of its official publications, short of the DoD definition. Instead, the terms “military information support operations (formerly psychological opera-tions),” “information operations,” “public diplomacy” and “strategic communication” are found, apparently as an ironic twist to change American perceptions favorably toward the use of information to influence foreign audiences.
26. Lynne Duke, “The Word at War; Propaganda? Nah, Here’s the Scoop, Say the Guys Who Planted Stories in Iraqi Papers,” The Washington Post, March 26, 2001, p. D1.
27. David E. Kaplan, “How Rocket Scientists Got Into the Hearts and Minds Game,” U.S. News and World Report, April 25, 2005, pp. 30-31.
28. David Barstow, “Pentagon Finds No Fault in Ties to TV Analysts,” New York Times, December 24, 2011, avail-able from www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/us/pentagon-finds-no-fault-in-its-ties-to-tv-analysts.html?pagewanted=all.
29. Kevin Peraino, “Winning Hearts and Minds,” Newsweek International, October 2, 2006.
30. Various definitions of strategic communication exist. The one shown here is taken from the DoD Dictionary of Military Terms.
31. Ibid.
32. U.S. Department of State, available from www.state.gov/r/pa/.
33. DoD Dictionary of Military Terms.
34. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Strategic Communications (SC) Execution Roadmap, Washington, DC: Depart-ment of Defense, 2006, p. 2.
35. DoD Dictionary of Military Terms.
36. Information Operations Primer, p. 12.
37. Harry R. Yarger, “Toward a Theory of Strategy: Art Lykke and the Army War College Strategy Model,” J.
Boone Bartholomees, ed., U.S. Army War College Guide to National Strategy and Policy, 4th Ed., Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, June 2006, p. 107.
38. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication (JP) 3-13, Information Operations, February 13, 2006, p.
I-1. This publication indicates that the information environment consists of three interrelated dimensions: physical, informational, and cognitive.
39. The author has attended numerous briefings by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Joint Commu-nication (DASD, JC) and his staff, where this has been stated. Note: The DASD, JC is responsible for the DoD Strategic Communication Roadmap.
40. Anju S. Bawa, “U.S. Aid Ship Cures Public Opinion,” Washington Times, November 17, 2006, p. 15.
41. John S. D. Eisenhower, Agent of Destiny: The Life and Times of General Winfield Scott, New York: The Free Press, 1997, pp. 245-246.
42. Margaret McMillan, Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World, New York: Random House, 2002, p. 15.
43. David M. Kennedy, Over Here: The First World War and American Society, New York, Oxford University Press:
1980, p. 81.
44. Allan Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information, 1942-1945, New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-versity Press, 1978, p. 60.
45. Ibid., p. 97.
46. The Smith-Mundt Act is still in effect to include the requirement not to “target” U.S. audiences. The current information environment—with ubiquitous, worldwide media outlets, satellite communications, and real-time re-porting—makes it difficult to target foreign audiences without exposing U.S. audiences to the message. This is a fact not envisioned in 1948 when the act became effective, and one that continues to cause friction between the military and media.
47. David E. Kaplan, “Hearts, Minds, and Dollars,” U.S. News and World Report, April 25, 2005, pp. 25, 27.
48. U.S. Department of State, “Senior Officials: Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs—Karen Hughes,” U.S. Department of State Homepage, available from www.state.gov/misc/19232.htm.
49. Executive Order 13584, Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 179, September 15, 2011, available from www.carlisle.army.
mil/dime/documents/Executive%20Order%2013584.pdf.
50. QDR Strategic Communication Execution Roadmap, p. 3.
51. Robert Gates, “Department of Defense Report on Strategic Communication,” Washington, DC: December 2009, p. 1.
52. Robert T. Hastings, “Principles of Strategic Communication,” memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments et al., Washington, DC, August 15, 2008.
53. Torie Clark, Lipstick on a Pig, New York: Free Press, 2006, p. 1. Clark was the chief spokesperson for the Pentagon during the first George W. Bush administration. The quote is the title of the first chapter of her book.
54. An excellent overview of the effectiveness of a local military approach can be found in an article written by Colonel Ralph Baker, U.S. Army, on his application of information operations as a brigade commander in Baghdad, Iraq. The article appears in the May-June 2006 issue of Military Review.
55. Bawa, p. 15.
172
CHAPTER 13
DIPLOMACY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POWER