I like this consutruct. I am constantly hearing from folks that "we have an organization in charge of D and M and E, but we don't have an I!"
And you know that's the wrong argument.
Incidentally, this model works well with the Army's conception of information as a part of everything - METT-TC (I).
But didn't you argue elsewhere that DIME isn't about "instruments of national power" but rather structures of bueracracy (or something like that?). Does that even matter here?
Don, you're right that I've argued elsewhere that DIME isn't about "instruments of national power" but an organizational chart. I also pointed that out in Footnote 1 in the post above. The "enhancements" of DIME to give us the abominations DIMEFIL and MIDFIELD prove that truth. Adding Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Development, for example, reveal a fantastical misunderstanding of the purpose of DIME, the narrowness of the DIME components (D=Diplomacy=State, M=DOD, I=owner of info 'cuz it's someone else's job, it ain't mine), and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) of other agencies. I'll go into more detail with my arguments in a later post.
Great post Matt! You did an excellent job pointing out the flaws.
I've come to a similar conclusion. One of the most important sentences in my upcoming book: "Communication is a common denominator and often an antecedent for most forms of social interaction and resultant causality." More specifically, communication technology has monopolized one of the most heavily trafficked social intersections and is often a precursor to almost all judgment and action taken.
"Communication is the fundamental social process" -Schramm
I like this consutruct. I am constantly hearing from folks that "we have an organization in charge of D and M and E, but we don't have an I!"
And you know that's the wrong argument.
Incidentally, this model works well with the Army's conception of information as a part of everything - METT-TC (I).
But didn't you argue elsewhere that DIME isn't about "instruments of national power" but rather structures of bueracracy (or something like that?). Does that even matter here?
Don, you're right that I've argued elsewhere that DIME isn't about "instruments of national power" but an organizational chart. I also pointed that out in Footnote 1 in the post above. The "enhancements" of DIME to give us the abominations DIMEFIL and MIDFIELD prove that truth. Adding Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Development, for example, reveal a fantastical misunderstanding of the purpose of DIME, the narrowness of the DIME components (D=Diplomacy=State, M=DOD, I=owner of info 'cuz it's someone else's job, it ain't mine), and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) of other agencies. I'll go into more detail with my arguments in a later post.
Yeah - the DIME (or whatever variation someone decides to use) is often carted out as a model of absolute fact these days. The USA "does" DIME...
Meanwhile, I'm not sure everyone across the US govt thinks of it that way. DOD certainly does.
Great post Matt! You did an excellent job pointing out the flaws.
I've come to a similar conclusion. One of the most important sentences in my upcoming book: "Communication is a common denominator and often an antecedent for most forms of social interaction and resultant causality." More specifically, communication technology has monopolized one of the most heavily trafficked social intersections and is often a precursor to almost all judgment and action taken.
"Communication is the fundamental social process" -Schramm