Matt, enjoyed listening to the audio of this. You flag leadership as a key variable in getting us the poor info/political war situation we have today. I don't disagree, but is the leadership not responding to a deeper 'aversion to influence' or an equation of influence with conspiracy baked in to US political culture? I am reading Osgood's "Limited War" and it seems, as a nation, we have long had a reflexive distaste for subtle and sustained political competition (we're either at "peace" or "war"!), which would then feed into a disregard for the utility of info/political warfare.
Also there is the 'I inform not influence" on the mil side - have you seen the same thing in State? Looking at the recruiting for State the PD cone seems like a far cry from anything resembling coherently organized political warfare.
Kevin, I argue the first problem with leadership is that information and public opinion are sideshows, at best, to international relations. This is likely a product of education as foreign affairs training looks at states, systems, readings, budgets and feelings, the last two being reinforcing of the prior. Government and Congress have that starting point and organize, authorize, and appropriate accordingly. The second problem is the propaganda of "propaganda." Ignorance, discomfort, lack of confidence, and the resulting unfamiliarty of the informational side maintains a relegation of the same in favor of far more tangible military-based deterrence and other tangible, relatable, and visceral policies, like trade. So the negative effect of the propaganda of propaganda meets no opposition and is not met by reactions (let alone proactive action) that clarifies or explains. The history is litered with arguments that the informational side is cheap and longer-lasting, arguments that I make and elevate, but these are drowned out for the reasons mentioned above.
Matt, enjoyed listening to the audio of this. You flag leadership as a key variable in getting us the poor info/political war situation we have today. I don't disagree, but is the leadership not responding to a deeper 'aversion to influence' or an equation of influence with conspiracy baked in to US political culture? I am reading Osgood's "Limited War" and it seems, as a nation, we have long had a reflexive distaste for subtle and sustained political competition (we're either at "peace" or "war"!), which would then feed into a disregard for the utility of info/political warfare.
Also there is the 'I inform not influence" on the mil side - have you seen the same thing in State? Looking at the recruiting for State the PD cone seems like a far cry from anything resembling coherently organized political warfare.
Kevin, I argue the first problem with leadership is that information and public opinion are sideshows, at best, to international relations. This is likely a product of education as foreign affairs training looks at states, systems, readings, budgets and feelings, the last two being reinforcing of the prior. Government and Congress have that starting point and organize, authorize, and appropriate accordingly. The second problem is the propaganda of "propaganda." Ignorance, discomfort, lack of confidence, and the resulting unfamiliarty of the informational side maintains a relegation of the same in favor of far more tangible military-based deterrence and other tangible, relatable, and visceral policies, like trade. So the negative effect of the propaganda of propaganda meets no opposition and is not met by reactions (let alone proactive action) that clarifies or explains. The history is litered with arguments that the informational side is cheap and longer-lasting, arguments that I make and elevate, but these are drowned out for the reasons mentioned above.
admin just FYI: his name is pronounced "stew-de-man" not stud-man
Thank you for the correction. I re-recorded the audio to fix that.