Saying the US Government has shortcomings with strategic communication is like saying Lindsey Lohan has shortcomings with alcohol. Or, as a recent study by the Defense Science Board puts it:

This task force’s primary concern is that fundamental transformation in strategic communication has not occurred at the strategic and interagency level. Reforms within organizations are important, but they are not a substitute for strong White House leadership and enduring, flexible networks that connect strategies and capabilities, departments and agencies, government and civil society.

And yet, what do the DSB's recommendations boil down to? More of the same. A new bureaucracy, a new White House advisor, and a new Defense Undersecretary, among other things. This is no doubt a source of amusement to our enemies, who spectacularly eschew all of the above in favor of a radically decentralized network that allows them, not us, to be first on the scene in Information Operations (IO) and control the tenor of what comes out in the global media. It is our own rigidity and insistence on hierarchical control of media messages that has crippled our efforts to tell our own story and counteract the subversive messages of our enemy.

Now, finally, a senior uniformed official has joined the chorus of voices calling for another way. In a recent post on the always-outstanding Small Wars Journal, "Frontier 6" (aka Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas) writes:

Responding to this challenge [of decentralized information warfare] requires changes in our approach to warfare. The one thing we can change now does not require resources – just a change in attitudes and the organizational culture in our Army.

He goes on to list four key tenets of change: encouraging soldiers to tell their stories, empowering subordinates to reach out to global media, educating soldiers on the impacts of their actions, and equipping soldiers with the tools they need to succeed.

These concepts seem simple enough, and yet they are exceedingly powerful in practice. Take, for example, the recent horrific bombing of the al-Ghazi market, where insurgents used "mentally disabled" women to inflict significant civilian casualties. Both Iraqi officials and coalition spokesmen did the IO equivalent of "hey diddle diddle, straight up the middle" - a press conference and a strongly worded official release. The global audience collectively yawned and moved on.

But what if instead we had empowered and equipped the soldiers on the scene to tell their story? In a matter of hours, the world would have heard instead the anguish of ordinary people and their rage at such savage practices. They would have read the heartbreak of the troops who were trying to help put life back together after the blast. They would have seen American and Iraqi troops working side-by-side as they struggled to get the wounded to safety. In short, it would have been the best kind of IO victory - one that doesn't require spin, deception or obfuscation to get a clear message across.

LTG Caldwell's message points the way, but even his own efforts seem curiously handicapped. His post (on an unofficial website) is really no different than the type of short missives in official journals that are typical of the way senior officials communicate with the force. A far more powerful message would be sent by hosting the post (and others like it), along with a section for comments, on the Combined Arms Center website itself. When I see that, and similar commands taking similar steps, then I'll know we're taking our first steps in the right direction.