The Pentagon’s Strategic Communications Overdrive Continues – Back to the Future

By Patricia H. Kushlis  

In a May 25, 2010 news story entitled “Pentagon tries to steer media coverage on Iraq,” veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus pointed out that although the Pentagon may be sharply reducing its combat forces in Iraq, plans are well underway to expand its media activities in that country, throughout the broader Middle East and also in the US – under a single contract to some apparently yet to be named strategic communications company. 

Pincus’ report which in essence turns this troubling pre-contract, contract announcement from jargon into English is crucial reading for all sorts of reasons including some beyond those Pincus identifies. 

What is the Obama administration thinking?

Or is the National Security Council even cognizant of the Pentagon’s latest strategic communications contracting out shenanigans?  If so, why did it allow this blunder bus of an announcement to move forward?   

Think about it yourself. It strikes me as if – here we go again – the U.S. military is stepping into something that the civilian side used to do, and do well. Some, if not all, of the media monitoring included in the pre-contract contract announcement should still be being done by civilians at the State Department and the CIA (the Pentagon announcement only suggests that the yet to be named contractor cross-check with the Defense Intelligence Agency for potential redundancy).

If, however, the shrunken State Department is not doing what USIA used to do as a matter of course - or at all - in terms of monitoring foreign media globally, and the administration wants to reduce America’s military boot-print abroad (which I thought it did) shouldn’t media relations of this sort be among the first functions transferred back to the civilian side?

Common sense, please - not to mention obeying the law?

Furthermore, the US component of this package is likely in violation of the Smith-Mundt Act, a law that prohibits the US government from propagandizing Americans.  Period.  End of story. Although Pincus left this little question out of his news report, whoever is overseeing strategic communications these days at the Pentagon should be well aware of the legality problem.

The Master and Margarita's Apparent Move from Moscow to the Pentagon

And finally the scope of the personnel and media monitoring requirements verge on the theater of the absurd.  As Pincus concludes – “it’s not surprising that the notice adds: “All personnel (10-12 of them) assigned under this contract will be expected to work a minimum 72-hour workweek.” 

And Walter, don’t forget they must also “display the highest degree of professionalism in appearance, personal behavior . . .with no more than one personal conduct incident occurring over the period of performance.”  One could doubtless ask that with a minimum 72-hour workweek – how much time is left over to get into trouble - let alone eat three meals a day - anyway.  

This last requirement sounds like a combination of "Jailhouse Rock" and high school detention.  If these qualifications need to be included in the pre-contract announcement, something’s really wrong with this picture.  Or is this just language that has become a mandatory part of US military contracting out boiler-plate these days?  Too bad Blackwater and Halliburton didn’t have to begin to meet such personal conduct requirements years ago.

Then there’s speech writing, prepping military officers for innumerable news conferences and interviews.  This includes the need to ascertain what questions reporters plan to ask before interviews (good luck – doesn’t mean they’ll stick to them), and submission of an electronic report within 24 hours that recaps the interview’s main points (personally I'd rather have the tape and the transcript - then I can check the veracity myself). 

Sure, there are certainly parts of this contract description that should be done by the US military of, by and for itself – especially the speech writing, handling media conferences and interviews for the military Command – but really this pre-contract contract is full of overkill, redundancies, wreaks of illegality - all of those things that need straightening out in the post-W era.

One Compelling Reason to Leave Smith-Mundt As Is 

I never was a great fan of Smith-Mundt  – and I am quite well aware of what the Internet has done to weaken the law’s intent – but an ill-thought through contract announcement like this one puts a different cast on whether Smith-Mundt should even be touched.  This announcement resembles the sound of finger-nails scratching on a blackboard.  Seems to me that if the Pentagon is going to behave like this, the US government not only needs to enforce this law, but also leave it just as it is.