Of note: U.S. Governmental Information Operations and Strategic Communications: A Discredited Tool or User Failure? Implications for Future Conflict
U.S. Governmental Information Operations and Strategic Communications: A Discredited Tool or User Failure? Implications for Future Conflict
Authored by Dr. Steve Tatham.
Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College
Through the prism of operations in Afghanistan, the author examines how the U.S. Government’s Strategic Communication (SC) and, in particular, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Information Operations (IO) and Military Information Support to Operations (MISO) programs, have contributed to U.S. strategic and foreign policy objectives. It assesses whether current practice, which is largely predicated on ideas of positively shaping audiences perceptions and attitudes towards the United States, is actually fit for purpose. Indeed, it finds that the United States has for many years now been encouraged by large contractors to approach communications objectives through techniques heavily influenced by civilian advertising and marketing, which attempt to change hostile attitudes to the United States and its foreign policy in the belief that this will subsequently reduce hostile behavior. While an attitudinal approach may work in convincing U.S. citizens to buy consumer products, it does not easily translate to the conflict- and crisis-riven societies to which it has been routinely applied since September 11, 2001.
Please click here for the full report from the Strategic Studies Institute: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1182
Georgetown University’s Saudi-funded interfaith center is in hot water. A speaking engagement with an Egyptian Nazi was cancelled but Islamists need not worry: Muslim Brotherhood supporters and 9/11 Truthers are still welcome, as is a senior Obama Administration official allied with the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood.
On Friday, November 22, Amir Fakhravar, Research Fellow at the Center for Culture and Security of The Institute of World Politics, spoke about “International Intervention in an Age of Terror: Oil Sanctions or Military Intervention” at the Sixth Annual Conference held by the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA).
The conference, entitled “Tides of Change: Looking Back and Forging Ahead in the Middle East and Africa,” took place from November 21-23 at the Key Bridge Marriott. Mr. Fakhravar’s talk was part of a series on “Iran: Forcing Reforms by Threat, Intellect, and the Law.”
Mr. Fakhravar, who also serves as Secretary General of the Confederation of Iranian Students and President of the Iranian Freedom Institute in Washington, D.C., has been an Iranian jailed dissident, award winning writer, blogger, and the recipient of the prestigious Annie Taylor Journalism Award.
This study on Iranian Negotiating Behavior by Harold Rhode was first published in 2010.
In an article for Foreign Policy, IWP research fellow Amir Fakhravar and co-author G. William Heiser argue that the West is deluding itself about the new Iranian president, Hasan Rouhani. They explain that, contrary to the optimistic views held by some U.S. leaders, Mr. Rouhani’s intentions involve advancing the regime’s nuclear program, as opposed to working out a resolution to the nuclear weapons situation with the United States.
From the American Center for Democracy blog:
While the blissfully ignorant of the world go about celebrating the Putin-Obama deal on Syria, the militant form of Muslim Brotherhood — similar to al Nusra in Syria, — al Shabab has been massacring “infidels” in Kenya.
The defeat of the “legally elected” Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood not only foiled their attempts to turn Egypt into a Shari’a state, but also marginalized their dogma elsewhere. In an attempt to reinforce the martyrdom message, the armed forces of the jihadi movement are using their weapons to “cleanse” their claimed territories from infidels, as the Nazis had done to non-Aryans in the last century.