Rethinking Smith-Mundt SWJ Blog
Follow the link above to a brilliant essay by Matt Armstrong of Mountain Runner on Rethinking the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Over the last few years many, including Defense Secretary Gates and his predecessor Rumsfeld, have wondered how it is that a guy in a cave could out-propagandize the country which created public relations and marketing. Why are we losing the War of Ideas? Why is Al Qaeda seemingly better at purposively shaping the beliefs and ideas of others? Armstrong pins the blame on the misinterpretation of the purposes of the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act which at present strait-jackets American information activities.
The self-censorship imposed by the amendments is unique among America’s democratic peers. Moreover, it is out of touch and inconsistent with the today’s virtual geography of psychological and informational landscape. Information is, in effect, generated and distributed based on the physical terrain and not the ideological terrain. The result is an Act that is out of step with the needs of the Internet Age when porous borders allow an increasing flow of information.
It’s a compelling argument; Armstrong makes a strong case for rethinking Smith-Mundt as an essential step to winning the War of Ideas.
Today, the Act is viewed almost exclusively as an anti-propaganda law that ignores Congressional intent and purpose. The Smith-Mundt Act must be revisited so that America’s public diplomacy programs can be effective in an era of global issues, including capacity building, global health, economic trade, and violent extremism. Its limitations go beyond the permeability of borders enhanced by the Internet. There must be a critical examination on the purpose, management, and methodology of global, not just international, government information activities, education and cultural exchange programs, including reviewing how they are monitored and evaluated by Congress and the American public. This examination must be based on a proper understanding of Congressional intent when it passed a comprehensive bill of greater impact than anything being considered today.
The overarching problem is the artificial distinction between information activities abroad (considered OK) and at home (considered bad) in a globalized world in which such distinctions have been made a nonsense by the ubiquity of the Internet.
The territory of the United States is not neutral territory. Instant global communications and global news means friends and relatives in the United States can and do communicate with their families and their diasporas. They also share ideas with an expanding global community facilitated by Facebook, discussion boards, and blogs as they are brought together by interests like sports and politics, and just plain Google. And yet the government is prohibited by a law from engaging these audiences using the same means of engagement and language if the audience was overseas.
We are no longer in an era of communications based on the postcard and vacuum tubes; the whole notion of population as a centre of gravity needs to be rethought starting with the realization that the distinction between the insurgency (ie the contest of credibility) ‘abroad’ and ‘at home’ is breaking down.
It is time to revisit Smith-Mundt and understand its intended purposes. Invoking Smith-Mundt to censor the government simply limits America’s ability to engage in the global media environment. If preventing government advocacy and influence operations on the American public is the goal, Congress should limit appearances by the executive branch on the Sunday talk show circuit, implement campaign reforms, among other changes.83 It is necessary to refocus on the requirements of a high-quality and integrated information apparatus, focused on truth and removing the then-useful constraints on domestic competition and censorship of a questionable State Department. Weak American information and outreach programs are not just a liability but a strategic vulnerability in our national security.
Well put. There’s a book in here, incidentally. Armstrong’s essay is about a crucial contemporary strategic vulnerability but it’s also a fascinating history. We’d like to see more of this.
Tuesday, 29, July, 2008 at 1:48 pm |
Hi David,
great post. There’s not much doubt that we need to refine our tools of propaganda/public diplomacy, etc.
But is it clear that we ARE in fact losing the war of ideas? There’s a good deal of evidence to suggest that AQ are alienating opinion all over the world. They may be more agile at exploiting the media for immediate effect, but these little battles don’t mean that they are converting global opinion to their brand. Promiscuous, indiscriminate violence tends to undermine their message, or make their message look rather unattractive.
Tuesday, 29, July, 2008 at 2:16 pm |
No, it’s not clear. In large part this is because what is actually meant by The War of Ideas is not clear. Echevarria recently said it was:
‘a complex mixture of two types of conflicts, one external and the other internal. Externally, this war is an ideological struggle between the West, and in particular the United States, and terrorist groups, especially al- Qaeda and its spin-offs. The aim of the United States is to render al- Qaeda a negligible threat. For al-Qaeda, it is an effort to undermine the West’s support for moderate Islamic regimes, and to prevent its secular ways from corrupting Islam. To be sure, the ideas at odds here vary among those participating in, or describing, the conflict.46 That is to be expected in a battle of ideas, since competing parties will often use otherwise unrelated images, concepts, and slogans to support their causes.
Internally, this war is a battle over religious dogma within Islam. It is a struggle to establish a particularly militant interpretation of the Koran and of shari’a law, which would mobilize Muslims against the West, and thus lead to the purification of Islamic society and resurrect the greatness of the Caliphate.’ See, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB866.pdf
I think that’s a pretty fair definition. Basically it’s global counterinsurgency against global Jihad which is mainly fought by and amongst Muslims over the future of the Islamic world and its relations with others. How are we doing? I agree with you about Al Qaeda. Ultimately these guys are self-defeating; hopefully, they’ll alienate their own base before too long, if we can avoid giving them sustenance by crude meddling. But then I read reports like this one: Islam on Campus http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf which make me realize that the efforts to stem radicalization here among second and third generation migrants in the UK are a complete shambles. That’s more what worries me.
Saturday, 22, November, 2008 at 3:48 pm |
Becuase America doesn’t live by what they say!The worst of people do…Pleasure is a schitzo party…
Saturday, 22, November, 2008 at 9:27 pm |
betz,you are using bad analogy for reality!