Storming Media: Pentagon Reports and DocumentsPentagon Reports: Fast. Definitive. Complete.     
New Account »
Forgot Password?
Advanced Search »
Social SciencesGovernment and Political Science

An Ever-Expanding War: Legal Aspects of Online Strategic Communication

Authors: Daniel Silverberg; Joseph Heimann; ARMY WAR COLL CARLISLE BARRACKS PA
Abstract:
Senior US leadership is redefining the war on terrorism as a global counterinsurgency effort, one that requires smart power collaboration by agencies. Although the requirement for interagency cooperation is a near-truism of US national security policy, finding the appropriate role for the Department of Defense (DOD) remains a challenge. This article examines one aspect of activities that potentially overlap with other government departments, DOD's growing involvement in the battle of ideas. Consternation exists in the foreign policy community regarding DOD's expansion into missions traditionally performed by civilians. A critical example of this growth involves DOD's efforts to use the Internet to craft a positive perception abroad, while attacking the ideological underpinnings of terrorism. Mid2007, DOD issued policies authorizing commanders to engage foreign audiences via online interactive methods. The guidance was in response to complaints from the Combatant Commanders that a terrorist could post videos of extremist propaganda, unhindered, while US commanders had to navigate legal hurdles to get psychological operations (PSYOP) approved. A key issue is DOD's communication activities are increasingly separated from a kinetic mission; are directed at broad, cross-regional audiences; and appear more like a public diplomacy campaign than a military program. DOD's expansion into the field of interactive communication is troubling on two counts. First, once the DOD no longer labels its communication measures as PSYOP, it potentially subverts its own statutory authorities to conduct such programs. Second, DOD may be encroaching upon the Department of State's mission to engage foreign audiences. DOD's mission is one of influence; the State Department's is relationship-building and dialogue. The amalgamation of these tasks potentially undermines the State Department's efforts; it forces one to ask exactly where does DOD's mission end.

Limitations: APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Description: Journal article
Pages: 18
Report Date: Jun-2009
Report Number: A402405
Keywords relating to this report:
*DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
*INTERNET
*PUBLIC OPINION
COUNTERINSURGENCY
COUNTERTERRORISM
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
POLICIES
PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS
REGULATIONS
Email This Abstract