Military Strategic Communication in the 21st Century - Free Essay Sample

Introduction

Strategic communication involves planning and executing plans that aid an organization in achieving its missions and goals. It is a process that gives insight and engages primary audiences to create and advance organizational objectives. Strategic communication is also defined as a communication process designed to coordinate information, power, theme, plans, and programs, integrated with other national power (Baldwin, 2007). According to Corman (2016), strategic communication in the military has existed for thousands of years. The military first established strategic communication in World War I and then well implemented it in World War II.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The military is a robust institution in many states, including the U.S. Strategic communication is one of the military's success factors; however, the U.S. faces some challenges in implementing it. Strategic communication's primary goal is to create beneficial and commentary conditions for the country to achieve its state's power. Enabling successful strategic communication requires the military to adopt a more effective planning process and a better organizational structure. Strategic communication involves how leaders use their abilities to achieve their goals. A well-designed and understood strategic communication should not be only about words or explanations but also about achieving the military's desired goals or a state. Another vital aspect known as strategic influence depends solely on strategic communication. Strategic impact primarily relies on the coordination of government agencies. This assignment looks at strategic communication in the military in the 21st century.

Strategic Communication as a Success Factor

As per Baldwin (2007), the U.S. military and the U.S. government face strategic communication struggles. He mentions that, according to the Task forces' discussion and interaction, the transformation of strategic communication in the U.S. is necessary. This transformation vastly relies on considering the target audience characters, their culture, and social contexts, and engaging in a unified action. Baldwin (2007) further explains that the Department of Defense continues to modify its strategic communication at national power. The transformation began with the findings and recommendations of the task force's strategic communication report. The report advised on restructuring the DOD offices; this would enhance the integration of strategic communication elements. These elements include public affairs, public diplomacy, and international information. The change was more detailed in the QDR 2006, which was executed according to the QDR's published road map. This road map contains instructions and rules that are recommended for the implementation of the 2006 QDR (Baldwin, 2007). The QDR roadmap has three main aims in strategic communication; to establish the Department of Defense process that synchronizes with the strategic communication to develop policies, strategies, planning, and implementation. The second aim is to help explain the roles and responsibilities, and finally, this roadmap pursues to advance the creeds of strategic military communication and its significant enablers of communication. QDR roadmap, however, addresses the transformation at the strategic level only, forgetting the tactical and operational level; this indicates that the shift is unproductive and not unified with some military actions.

Baldwin (2007) further states that military-strategic communication pursues the transformation of conduct by impacting learning processes. It has implemented research methods to give insights about people, the targeted audiences, and provide them with reliable information. It is important to note that strategic communication exists in many related aspects; this will help improve strategic military communication planning and execution. Analyzing the target population is the primary concern in the military-strategic communication plan. The target audience should be categorized by; geographical location, demography, and attitudes in operation. It is vital to design a specific message as per particular groups; it can be critical to a particular audience. Identifying an audience is essential for the synchronization of messages and actions in the military. However, audience identification remains an issue. A commander in an operation area is required to identify an audience in both his place and internationally and share a message without undermining the message; it should maintain the same information, truth, and transparency. Some contemporary military beliefs and organizational factors like resources, statutory, and regulations pose a threat to military-strategic communication integration.

Strategic Communication as a Force Multiplier

The U.S. losing the war on extremist terror and Islamic ideas is a significant concern to its citizens and defense force. The loss is associated with failing strategic communication in the nation. Aguilar (2011) mentions that strategic communication in the U.S. is failing due to the absence of credibility and lack of coordination among government agencies. She argues that success in the war on terror does not entirely depend on destructive power and communication. Adopting strategic communication is the principal determiner of an organization's success (Aguilar, 2011). Coordination of messages is a significant determinant of achieving military objectives. The messages should be fast and short, considering the morals of the targeted audience. The U.S., however, has not been entirely successful in implementing strategic communication; this calls for more efforts on strategic communication. Many authorities agree that strategic communication is a determiner of success, but practical implementation continues to be an issue. This challenge is because of a lack of proper planning rules and guidelines and a lack of efficient execution creeds. Different strategies exist across various commands, and the results are so unequal. Aguilar (2011) recognizes Public Affairs as the most crucial capability of strategic communication. It guarantees integrity in reaching and governing a global audience.

Due to S.C. adoption's recurring issues, the DOD authorities have recommended Public Affairs as a strategic management power multiplier. P.A.'s significant duties are; giving guidance to CCDR on public relations activities, conveying reliable and credible messages on behalf of CCDR, and assessing available support operations. These duties of P.A. are generally tactical. Therefore, a communicator must consider the strategic part rather than focusing more on the tactical aspect. P.A. professionals are very credible; they form mutual relationships with the media. Gaining the trust and attention of the press can be disheartening but very rewarding when achieved. Getting the story right is also an issue with the press; significantly, the military should give reliable and accurate information to satisfy both parties. Giving false reports to the media may compromise a P.A. professional's credibility. When a P.A.'s credibility is compromised, the authorities will not renew the professional’s position because it threatens the relationship between CCDR and the media. Messaging is a primary element in strategic communication. Protection of messages against distortion is significant. Therefore, the military must access a fast and reliable 24-hour communication system. The PAs can be primary drivers of strategic communication due to their knowledge on media relations. Therefore, it is the duty of CCDRs to provide the PAs with resources to promote effective strategic communication. The abolition of implemented obstacles also aids in the unification of Strategic communication endeavors.

The 21st century is prone to non-state threats like terrorism, intrastate wars, and diminishing war and peace lines. The intervening countries in intrastate conflicts are criticized for using wrong strategies in contemporary wars and entirely lacking strategic systems of military intervention. The U.S. has demonstrated tactical strength for the past eighteen years. The nation has however failed in many battles against extremist countries. Equally, the other great countries have continued to defeat them in wars and influence. For example, China is expanding its economy into the U.S. territories like One Belt, combining soft powers with its new overseas bases and its military to be equal to the U.S. power. The concept of strategic competition seems to be changing. In the 21st century, everything is dynamic, including the strategic battle. Therefore, a country must be on par with the busy world to be on the front line of the competitive world. The military in the U.S. is encouraged to adopt this form of competition to avoid loss of lives, wealth, treasure, and prestige. According to Bryant et al. (2018), power fades when it proves susceptible; it means that the U.S. might quickly lose power when it proves weak. Therefore, the U.S. military should be flexible and always informed to continue being robust rich, and prestigious.

These authors recommend the adoption of strategic competition and population-centric warfare today. Strategic advantage in the 21st century is achieved by establishing productive relationships across countries, applying ordinary and unordinary methods of solving disputes and mapping human geography. They emphasize viewing the military as art that depends on connectivity and a new sector of competition, the social sector. As per the authors, the strategic game results from how humans relate, how they communicate, and how they access political, economic, and social networks. These networks are responsible for how America can gain a relative advantage over the competitors in the military (Bryant et al., 2018).

Strategic communication relies on the human domain and relations

Additionally, the relationships are not limited by geographical borders; they are more concerned with networks that are internationally connected and value authority. Controlling the military in combined arms in the 21st century has failed to control people or solve disputes. The competitors of the U.S. opted to use a new method of control and solving disagreements. Instead of joining the U.S. in using kinetic action, force, and confrontation, they adopted strategic competition (Bryant et al., 2018). The weak normally sabotage the strong ones by deploying their audiences majorly by manipulating their problems, weaknesses, and complaints. Such manipulations render the people vulnerable, contributing to massacres, terrorism, uncivil wars, and even cyber-attacks. The U.S.'s comparative advantage is weakened because the civilian audience has on-site clash and their relationship networks while the military has their old battlefield. Bryant et al. also emphasize that the 21st-century military should acknowledge and plan for its responsibility in the indirect clashes and establish that it will account for the necessity of competitive advantage in the social sector. Powerful countries like the U.S. should have a way to operate in an interrelated world where competition and influence are stiff. The U.S. military needs to be a part of the international security network and fully backed up by the military instead of the fighting military which is weakly supported by information operations (Bryant et al., 2018).