TINS: Okay, there I was...

...buzzing around in email, talking to mid-level policy wonks in various PA shops around the Puzzle Palace and Combatant Commands, and I'm having this chat with a "Senior Government Official" as we were discussing the overall labyrinthine (and oft-times conflicting) blogging policies... among other things, the recently published blogging policy of the Combined Arms Center, put out by LTG Caldwell. [Update: the way that reads, you might take away that I'm not happy with LTG Caldwell's guidance - on the contrary, I think it's one of the best out there on the topic. -the Armorer]

The subject which lit this particular jet was some commentary about "Strategic Communications" and related subjects, which we had ricocheted to off a policy paper and onto a tangent... which led to a discussion of MountainRunner's blogpost on the subject of StratComms. Most specifically, this part:

Earlier this year, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen wrote the Pentagon placed too much emphasis on the strategic in "strategic communication." The modern environment of New Media and strategic corporals (or captains if you prefer) blur the distinctions (and stovepipes) of tactical, operational, and strategic communication and perception management.

Cue frustrated government official:

When can we get over scientisifyin' everything and just talk to people?

Everything in, around, and from the Pentagon is a strategic something-or-other so it sounds important and people can budget money for it. I've asked a couple of dozen people who have "strategic communication" on their business cards just what the term "strategic communication" means and none could tell me. I'd get a blank stare from them and then something like ... "I can't tell you. It's strategic." I'm with the Admiral on this one. If you can't define it you shouldn't be working on it. And what all this rhetoric boils down to is (as stated in the Marine Corps Strategic Communication Manual): do the right thing and then tell people you did the right thing. And then if you did the wrong thing tell people you did the wrong thing and fix it.

Honesty is the best policy.

I come from the old school, Communication = exchanging ideas, CommunicationS = wires, paper, phones, the hard stuff to do it with.

In my old world we typically used the "John Wayne Method" of communication. I keep quiet unless you do something wrong. I tell you that you did something wrong and to stop. You don't stop I warn you one more time and tell you how I'm going to make you stop. You don't stop and I do what I told you I was going to do. And then I hold your scrawny, beaten carcass up for the world to see as an example of what happens when you don't do the right thing. It was all really simple then. No spinning, no perception management, no strategic anything. It was usually a very short say-do loop.

As a leader of troops I found this the most efficient way to do things.

Don't over-think, see - say - do. You may not like what I say but you will DO what I say -- or suffer.

AND if informing and educating is NOT INFLUENCING WHY DO WE SPEND I-DON'T-KNOW HOW MANY BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR A DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION???

Why is this so hard?

Ok, I'm through ranting now.

Maybe ...

I responded with: Ooh. This *would* be a funblog! , while suggesting he start blogging...

His response (gratifying to know you're read by *someone*...)

Yeah, and if they fire me for blogging then blog I will. It'll be H&I Fires defined by grid squares.

Sweeeeeeeet.