Smart Power Blog

There's this great scene in "My Fair Lady" where Eliza Doolittle launches into a musical tirade against her new suitor with the following lyrics:

" Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! I get words all day through;
First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do?"

She follows with a plea to be shown his feelings via actions instead of just his talking about how he feels about her.

That's how I imagine those who are the intended targets of our Public Diplomacy-fueled-Soft Power-"Winning Hearts and Minds" campaign feel, albeit with much less humor or forgiveness.

Disclaimer: Not a rant about the solely horrible nature of hard power or pure negativity of brutality.

Military. An armed force, meant to be used solely for the purpose of warfare.

This may sound unconceivable or untruthful at first, but there was a time not too long ago when the intersection of arms, insecurity, the desire for 'unjust' power, and brutal competition were associated with a domain and reality other than the 'normal'.

In referring to the US as our point of analysis, it is key to remember that relative analysis is as essential as absolute. In leveraging criticism of US policy (if I may naively ever do so - smiles*), I do so not because the US is unique in its manipulation and methods of maintaining superpower status. I do so on the basis of what the US has projected of itself internationally since its inception - a (correction - 'the') beacon of 'liberty' (there are two other principles, but this would be primary, especially through the Cold War). That, too, as it defines liberty (the French and international administrations might define it differently). If other nations are adept at projecting certain images abroad of themselves in this day and age, they have learnt only from the best.

So... if the US now faces harsh criticism for its policies, it's not because their aspirations are different from other states (although, I wouldn't go as far as to propose that every nation-state wants to be the 'leader' - for good or for bad). This evergreen trend prevails mostly because international publics feel a sense of betrayal (and regional political entities utilize this public emotion/view to their advantage). There is a true discrepancy between the ideals of Disney's 'It's A Small World' and that of its profit networks. The same can be said for the US in general. The Americanization of international cultures and ethos has resulted in not just power for the US, but certain expectations on the part of international publics (no matter what strata of society to which they may 'belong'): People around the world expect 'America' (the US admin) to 'behave'.

Reading the defintions of war, of diplomacy, of defense, of all those words...and I don't know why exactly I am so stuck on verbage these days---but all the explanations are so harsh, linear, and, so sure in their justification and meaning. No room for doubt. Written in stone. But policies are driven by these descriptions, graveyards are filled, governments are formed and re-formed.

This post will be fairly brief compared to my posts thus far due to the my inability of integrating my views on intelligence in a tangible manner. However, this integration is currently in progress, and I will have more to say soon. For now, I have been able to identify 2 concepts with regards to the discussion of the so-called RMA (Rev. in Military Affairs) and RIA (Rev. in Intelligence Affairs) that have not been as obvious as there being a need for integration and dramatic rethinking of institutional culture..

Not fully formulated, but presented here for your consideration:

I felt from content and approaches in the readings on bot military and intelligence that the relationship between the two seems to be viewed as more or less linear: RMA has enabled an RIA. Wouldn't it be wise to avoid such linear projection, since intelligence structures and approaches can and have possibly been reformed more frequently than military structures and approaches, just in less visible ways, because of the inherent difference in nature of the military and of intelligence - intelligence, I would say, is a comparatively less...tangible. Often less visible...often intentionally. Military entities are also easily captured visually than those of intelligence - visibility can be seen as key to power, its purpose, its execution, what it achieves, and how it changes and builds on itself.

I suggest you read Shakespeare and the Art of Reputation Management from Hill & Knowlton's blog. Hill & Knowlton, for those who don't know, helped Kuwait strengthen the drumbeat for war against Iraq in the first Gulf War (for an excellent case study of H&K's role, see Jarol Manheim's Strategic Public Diplomacy and American Foreign Policy: The Evolution of Influence).

While the post is aimed at corporate communication, the quotes from Shakespeare's plays are easily transformed into guides for public diplomacy itself. Some bits from the post:

"Nothing can come of nothing: speak again." -- King Lear

“O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial. -- Othello

“If you can't get rid of the skeleton in your closet, you'd best teach it to dance.” -- Richard II