Saturday, January 28th 2017
It is possible that the State Department Global Engagement Center could provide a good model for the coordination, integration, and synchronization of messaging but it will require a focus beyond counterterrorism and a home that can truly have access to senior interagency leadership rather than being buried in the bureaucracy. In whatever form, the new capability must operate with the agility of a new-media start-up.
Authors: Jim Ludes and Mark JacobsonRead More
Thursday, January 19th 2017
The most effective western responses to the challenge of Kremlin media fall across three categories of action: exposure of Russian disinformation, engagement with endangered populations and enhancement of local media.
Author: Nicholas CullRead More
Thursday, January 19th 2017
“You can call it ‘information warfare,’ ‘hybrid warfare,’ or ‘political warfare,’ but whatever you call it, an adversary’s attempts to shape the minds and will of people toward a political end is not new to the United States. Nor will this be the first time the United States sought to wield these weapons against its foes.”
* * * * *
. . . by blocking the development and deployment of civilian and overt activities, Fulbright’s actions on the Freedom Academy and the Smith-Mundt Act have done more to militarize American foreign policy than any other single act by denying Congress, policymakers, and practitioners critical experience, methods, and historical precedent to properly defend the nation through nonmilitary means.
Author: Matthew ArmstrongRead More
Tuesday, November 8th 2016
“Putin has borrowed a page from America’s Cold War playbook and seeks to expose the rot within the West, and especially within the United States, as a means of destroying Western cohesion, diminishing American influence and leadership, and reinforcing Russia. The means employed by Russia are modern, including hacking and cyber-espionage, but, at its core, this is an influence operation of the kind embraced by the United States in the first decade of the Cold War.”
Headline: The Russians Read our Cold War PlaybookRead More
Friday, November 13th 2015
Would the United States be “better off today if the U.S. Information Agency (USIA) were still around”? Was the nation “robbed of the ability to properly engage in information warfare today”? These questions were addressed by Public Diplomacy Council member Matt Armstrong in a November 12, 2015, essay, “No, We Do Not Need to Revive the U.S. Information Agency,” on the War on the Rocks website. “However, laments about USIA are really a coded way of saying that we lack a strategy, an organizing principle, and empowered individuals to execute information warfare today,” he concluded. This is a clarifying essay that deserves wide reading in its entirety. Here are a few of his points:
- Modern invocations of the USIA are based on a romantic notion of a simpler time. Like any nostalgic remembrance, these visions ignore the messy details of reality.
- While there are strong similarities between the present and early years of the Cold War, today is not yesterday.