Is the State Department so full of problems today that it requires rebuilding from scratch if there is to be effective civilian leadership of America’s foreign affairs? From the recent report on the dysfunction within the Africa Bureau (which ignored the failure of intra-agency integration), the militarization of foreign aid and situation with USAID, to the continuing problem of the militarization of public diplomacy and strategic communication underlying the question of who represents America to the world, are we seeing more of the iceberg?
If change is necessary, are the Secretary of State’s authorities and leadership enough to push the necessary changes without creating a paralyzing backlash from within? Must change come from Congress in a modern (and more sweeping) version of the Goldwater-Nichols Act (which would beg the question of who would be the modern Goldwater)?
What are your thoughts?
- Comparing the Areas of Responsibility of State and Defense (Updated)
- What is the purpose of Public Diplomacy if not to influence?
- Public Diplomacy is not an influence activity and the DOD can only use PSYOP to engage foreign audiences
- New Defense Department Plan on Strategic Communication and Science and Technology
- Broadcasting Board of Governors: empty seats at the public diplomacy table
- Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy is at Odds with Social Media, and What to Do about It: an interview with Matt Armstrong
- Defining Public Diplomacy (again)
- In America? Smith-Mundt means no SMS updates on the President's Ghana speech for you!
- Debating the Theory vs Practice of Public Diplomacy
- Report on the Smith-Mundt Symposium
- Must. Be. AWESOME! by Chris DuFour
- Government reports on public diplomacy you may have missed