This is the reading of my post yesterday called “Our dysfunctional relationship with information warfare starts with leadership.” Unlike my two other podcast versions of my posts, this one does not include additional commentary. To be honest, I think I avoided it because I wouldn’t be able to stop myself, resulting in audio that would likely hit twice the length, at least.
One comment that isn’t on the original post is on the image used for this and the original post. The diagram comes from an agency review by and of USIA’s predecessor. It was published at a time when several recommendations on fixing the informational element of policy called for keeping, not separating, this function within the State Department and for addressing the State Department’s deficiencies, which included attempting to strangle this semi-autonomous organization. The organization, the International Information Administration, had been formed to collect and protect the vast array of engagement operations under a single point of leadership, partly to protect them against the department’s bureaucracy. Later, some recommendations were changed to promote the separation programs from the State Department under certain conditions. The programs were partially separated and the conditions, including the proverbial seat at the table, were not instituted. If you don’t want to wait for more on this, see Chris Paul and my article, “False myths about USIA blind us to our problems… and to possible solutions.”
Audio: Our dysfunctional relationship with information warfare starts with leadership