Strategic Communications and the Decline of US Soft Power

• Author: Gene E. Bigler
• Position: Visiting Professor-Practitioner of International Relations, University of the Pacific, Stockton, California
• Pages: 217-234

XIII

Strategic Communications and the Decline of

US Soft Power

Gene E. Bigler*

Abstract

Four strategic communications practices tend to build on one another in con-

tributing to the widely noted and continuing decline in US soft power. First

is the problem of inattention to audiences. By neglecting them as we prosecute the

war on terrorism, the war of ideas seems to swell more with critics and combatants

than allies. Second, recent approaches to strategic communications tend to em-

phasize process and consistency in uniting messages, but the role of the national

executive in achieving convergence maybe more crucial. That is, sending identical

or even reinforcing messages may not be as important as making sure that the mes-

sages are consistent with audience expectations about US policy. Third, Depart-

ment of State (DoS) financing for public diplomacy has increased only

incrementally, if that, while the Department of Defense (DoD) weight in the total

flow of strategic communications, as in foreign policy generally, seems to have es-

calated along with its budget. The continuing deterioration of opinion suggests

that the mix of communications is not working, and it certainly contradicts expert

advice on the resources needed for public diplomacy.

Finally, the growing concern about the militarization of US foreign policy may

reflect the rejection of the "military as messenger" for the United States, even if

*Visiting Professor-Practitioner of International Relations, University of the Pacific, Stockton,

California.

Strategic Communications and the Decline of US Soft Power

civilians actually make the policy. The US affirmation of the preemptive use of

force puts the military at the forefront of US strategic policy, just as the conflicts in

Afghanistan and Iraq have overwhelmed and tended to color the perception about

the rest of our policy. Thus, the increasingly dominant role and resource endow-

ment ofDoD in strategic communications might actually worsen the impact on US

soft power. While general flaws in US policy and deficiencies in the work of DoS

may also contribute to the deterioration of America's international image, recent

experience suggests that DoD dominance of strategic communications, and of for-

eign policy in general, may be increasingly responsible for the deterioration of US

international standing.

Opinions of the United States and American Soft Power

Continue to Decline Together

Notwithstanding the global outpouring of sympathy for the United States follow-

ing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the

Pentagon, many observers noted adownturn in public support for the United

States during 2002 that reflected widespread deterioration in opinions of the

United States. The Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported in De-

cember 2002 that images of the United States had become increasingly tarnished

in the publics of NATO allies, former East European nations, developing nations

and especially Muslim nations and on avariety of dimensions. 1That report went

on to detail how pluralities had become critical of American unilateralism, but

this did not extend to rejection, except in Muslim nations, of the approach the

United States was taking to the war on terrorism. On the other hand, the report

was prescient in recognizing that apotential war with Iraq might "further fuel

anti-American sentiment."

As the Pew Center expected, important policy actions, such as the invasion of

Iraq, apparently caused afurther deterioration in opinions ofthe United States. At-

titudes, even among allied nations, toward the US approach to the war on

terrorism also turned sharply negative, and despite some break in the trend during

2005, the overall slide in global opinion of the United States continued to worsen

and spread.2Of course, this is aheavily nuanced phenomenon, and lots of other

variables and the particular circumstances of each nation are important. This is

also characteristic of the factors which are closely related to soft power, anation's

ability to attract and persuade others. Opinions are really asnapshot of people's

orientations at aspecific moment in time.

Professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and anumber of others have shown that soft power

is also highly situational. 3While acknowledging the influence of other factors that

218