Minimal Disclosure, Maximum Delay: The United States Air Force and the Institutional Reticence Towards Accurate and Timely Communication

By Aaron J. Henninger

Culturally, the United States Air Force has created a system in which those individuals who demonstrate the doctrinal principles of maximum disclosure, minimal delay are professionally ostracized and excluded from further decision making circles. There is a professional liability in detailing, within operational and security constraints, those pieces of information that go beyond that which is simply “required”. The mentality in most if not all Public Affairs shops is that there is, “the school house way” (referring to the principles and curriculum of the Defense Information School) and then there is “the real world way”. This Jekyll and Hyde approach towards the practice of conducting communication based on the concept of credibility and accuracy poses several inherent dangers. The command structure based on historical interaction with the media, it’s roots all the way back to the revolutionary war, with Gen Washington referring to the embedded press corps as “traitorous spies”, there has been a reticence for divulging the truth in its entirety, devoid of spin. This avoidance and abhorrence on the part of senior leadership still exists today.

With models of strategic communication, private consultants and PhD’s we have taken a simple model and muddled it with hypothesis, hyperbole and hysterics. The tried and true model of “communicate, communicate, communicate” still has application and purpose. The insurgents and those irregular forces of the global jihad have identified the value and legitimacy of this principle and employ it with maximum effectiveness, at our expense.

The Department of Defense Principles of Information state, “It is Department of Defense policy to make available timely and accurate information so that the public, the Congress, and the news media may assess and understand the facts about national security and defense strategy. Requests for information from organizations and private citizens shall be answered quickly”. Specifically, it goes on to detail that, “Information will not be classified or otherwise withheld to protect the Government from criticism or embarrassment”.

In an era of Abu Ghraib, Haditha and the like, current crisis communications plans are melded around increasingly worrisome senior leader decisions to meld strategic crisis planning into a crown that scapegoats are made to wear. There are institutional firewalls and obfuscations that preclude the public from understanding the totality of issue that impact scenarios such as this, furthermore, it not only limits the understanding on the part of the public, but that of the military complex as a whole.

With the advent of new media and the explosion of technology and information delivery systems, there are no more secrets, no more shadowy corners or remote information outposts, people are dialed in, logged on and waiting for information. The Air Force is operating with a Pony Express or dial-up mentality.

A senior British commander in Afghanistan's Helmand Province said he had asked the U.S. military to withdraw its special forces from his area of operations because the high level of civilian casualties they have caused was making it difficult to win over local people. This illustrates the focus today of kinetic effects over non-kinetic. The yield may be more readily and immediately identifiable with kinetic targeting, but the lasting impact and strategic balance is set and maintained through the non-kinetic. A point that has been sorely lost on most in the military echelons.

With force transformations, huge defense contracts, force recapitalization and a myriad of other politically charged issues hanging in the balance, postures are predicated on corporate interest, not public interest. With our decision makers in the military concerned with donning the next rank, the interests of the general public have been deemed non-expedient in the final analysis of how to rise up in the ranks.

We face a cultural environment today in which individuals infuse personal ego and pride into the equation of telling the truth. Half truth or selective truth does not pass the mustard test when it comes to the Principles of Information. This point is important, focus on the word principles; this implies the very basic and most elemental of concepts. Time will tell what the everlasting impacts will be on the force with these patchwork, here today gone tomorrow mentality decisions made by senior leaders. Trust and credibility requires constant work and effort- it may never be fully realized, however, infarctions on accuracy and honesty will instantaneously render future success null.

Army Does About Face on Social Media Access

Wired.com has just posted a story detailing the Army's new order to unblock and unfilter web access to social media platforms on government computers and networks. This marks the first policy statement that looks to grant access universally to all soldiers. It is a sharp departure from the Air Force posture on computer access. Stories about restricted network access, email firewalls, thumb drive prohibiitions have caused a general perception with the public that the service does not trust its' members with these sorts of sites with goverment resources. Undoubtedly, some sort of Army doctrine of engagement is soon to follow. Should be interesting to see if the other services follow suit or if they hold their ground. Surely a topic that will be debated now and in the future.

Pimp My Air Force

Amid plummeting stock prices, a furthering recession and an domestic auto industry tattered and torn-- the Air Force has decided to lend it's own economic stimulus by purchasing a Dodge and a Ford for recruiting. It does strike me though, how much did all of this customization cost, and ultimately, is the payoff really there?

Click the post title for a link to the full story and more photos on the Edmunds website.

GAO REPORT: Military Hardware Easily Had, Sent Abroad

According to a Government Accounting Office investigation, materials used in the creation of nuclear weapons can easily be purchased in the U.S. through dummy organizations and shipped abroad. This comes from a report released earlier today.

Click on the title of this post to read CNN's story on the matter.

This brings in to question background checks on military related purchases. If someone has to wait to purchase handguns and some types of fertilizers, shouldn't they have to wait to purchase nuclear weapons components?

Also, who is checking our overseas shipments? Port security is always a big political issue, that is what's coming into our ports. Are we effectively monitoring what's leaving?

Does Freedom of Information Ever Go Too Far?

I recently got done reading a post on Wired about some of the advanced tagging technology used by the military in targeting ops. It raises the question in my mind at least about that line that seems to be ever increasingly blurred between open source and classified information. Bob Woodward has already alluded to "secret weapons" the military possesses when tracking terrorists. Do you feel that some reporting goes beyond the bounds during on-going operations during a time of war? This leads into the large realm of FOIA requests. Are there some things that are released that should not be?

Click the title of this post to see the Wired article

ONE laptop ONE detainee

Does it surprise anyone to learn that on top of getting fast food from on post once a week, having access to phones, the gov't is now prepared to give select detainees computers-- in an effort to teach them to email! Not bad enough, the specific detainees in question are of Chinese descent-- so on top of arming the Chinese with computers and web training--our military and gov't are on the record stating that one of our biggest cyberspace threats in terms of hacking and attacks comes from the Chinese! Is this some sort of perverse game of Good Cop/Bad Cop....."go ahead, send a email...I don't mind....but my crazy, lunatic partner over there won't be too pleased!".....it defies logic. Apparently this is all part of a larger "jobs" program aimed at the detainees. Does it strike you that this is a more robust jobs program that many non-violent U.S. citizens will ever enjoy?

US Gov't: New Media for the Sake of New Media

Has it becoming painfully apparent to any of you how blindly those in the Federal government have been fumbling around with the notion of new media?

I can remember roughly 5 years ago, discussing the merits of engaging with non-traditional media. The fear factor at this time was unbelievable.

Given the new administrations success with employing new technologies and platforms for communication (see YOUTUBE video link at end of post), it seems that everyone in the federal government with hopes of getting a favorable performance feedback or a possible promotion is jumping on the bandwagon.

Unfortunatley, most people do not seem to get the idea behind using these non-traditional means of communicating--meaning you've got Twitter and Facebook sites for the Department of the Interior and the US Oceanographic folks. I'm not knocking the willingness to get involved, but stress the need for original, compelling and relevant info to be shared.

Just having a site or a presence does not confer relevance. Just a observation/opinion....but a necessary one in my mind.

Discuss.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPBqEdjYw-E

Ramping Up Strategic Communication

It's been a stated goal in the campaign, government white papers about, even the key language being used in speeches has gone well beyond "hearts and minds"....yes friends, Strategic Communication is back on the table. With fronts in Afghanistan and Iraq-- not to mention a rhetorical drive towards Pakistan of late-- administration officials are attempting to seize the initiative to wield information/communication as a "weapon". What does this mean in the long term? Most likely State Dept. will have the lead and the military will serve as the "communication surge" capacity for this endeavor. Problem? Placing one group in a secondary role overall to another can become problematic. Historically the State Department has been very good at communicating some issues and horrible at others. Likewise, DOD has some very good niche issues. Ultimately, in a war of ideas, we will need to be firing on ALL cylinders. The enemy is not encumbered by budget fights, or issues of pride and prestige-- unfortunately the US government is rife with these sorts of egotistical "credit" issues that will invariably stand in the way of a truly unified message.