<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
        <title>Comments for Information War: The Best Defense is an Information Offense</title>
        <description>We&apos;re the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost.  All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT,  and KA 2003-2010</description>
        <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html</link>
        <atom:link href="http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1_rss.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />

        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 15:34:40 Z</lastBuildDate>
        <generator>Movable Type 4.12</generator>
        <language>en</language>
        <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
        <docs>http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification</docs>

        <item>
            <title>Information War: The Best Defense is an Information Offense</title>
            <description>[Denizen Commentary - Kat] Cannoneer No 4 Issued a request for thoughts on reconstituting the USIA (United States Information Agency) and received several responses. My own response revolved around the major stumbling block to the establishment and effective use of this agency: the great divide over the position of terrorism and non-state actors (ie, terrorists) on the scale of national security imperatives. Until we can come to a consensus as to its status and degree of threat, reconstituting the USIA would be an act of futility. Somebody high up must read the Cannoneer&apos;s site because Gates quotes the Cannoneer in...</description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:59:19 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>

        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Consul-At-Arms on 2007-11-28</title>
            <description>
                IIRC, USIA had a foreign service cadre wholly separate from the State Dept.&apos;s FSOs.  Since USIA was consolidated into DoS, those officers were rebranded as the public diplomacy &quot;cone&quot; of the U.S. Foreign Service.

USDA and, I think, USAID also have their own distinct foreign service components which are not the same as State Dept.&apos;s.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67126</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67126</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:12:07 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Cannoneer No. 4 on 2007-11-28</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[As I understand it, USIA was independent of State.  I think they both had Foreign Service Officers in their organizations.  

It did OK against the Soviets by keeping its distance from the American adminstration and putting out products and programs which generated warm and fuzzies about America. USIA was not perceived as a shill for the Adminstration. It was more like a window on America for external audiences to observe and make their own evaluation.  Mostly USIA was <em>conditioning</em> foreign TA's to have generally positive feelings about America even if they opposed specific US actions. Residual goodwill which got America benefit of the doubt it doesn't get anymore.

Even if we could reconstitute it, and keep it nonpartisan, it would take longer than one Adminstration's first term to pay off in higher approval ratings overseas. 
]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67116</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67116</guid>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:36:34 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from Consul-At-Arms on 2007-11-27</title>
            <description>
                <![CDATA[I've quoted you and <a href="http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/11/re-information-war-best-defense-is.html" rel="nofollow">linked to you here</a>.]]>
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67108</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67108</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:18:25 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-11-27</title>
            <description>
                State got much of USIA.  And haven&apos;t done anything any more convincingly good as far as I can tell.

Then again, we haven&apos;t been attacked by any Rhodesians or Tibetans, so I guess that&apos;s all good.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67102</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67102</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:00:05 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from subadei on 2007-11-27</title>
            <description>
                Wasn&apos;t the USIA integrated into another (not sure which) government collective?
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67100</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67100</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:29:22 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from StarCMC on 2007-11-27</title>
            <description>
                Hat tip for an excellent post.  I added you to my blogroll!

Keep up the good fight!
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67085</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67085</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:38:02 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-11-27</title>
            <description>
                Well, I think that the politics will keep it from happening.  I think that the congress might consider bumping states budget, but that the historical idea of the USIA, its relationship to cold war activities and the general view of all such activities as tantamount to the Soviet Pravda, people (congress) will be unwilling to invest in its reconstitution.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67084</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67084</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:25:32 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
        <item>
            <title>Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-11-27</title>
            <description>
                I disagree on the issue of USIA, Kat.  We can reconstitute the function, putting out our side of the story, without too much foofaraw on the specificity of the targeting.

So there&apos;s utility in resurrecting the capability.

The politics of it, that&apos;s a different issue, fought in a different arena.
            </description>
            <link>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67070</link>
            <guid>http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/11/information_war_1.html#comment-67070</guid>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:11:45 -0600</pubDate>
        </item>
        
    </channel>
</rss>


