REVIEW PAPER
STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION AS A NEW OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY –
CONSIDERATONS ON IMPLEMENTATION
1
Wojskowa Akademia Techniczna im. Jarosława Dąbrowskiego w Warszawie
2
Sztab Generalny Wojska Polskiego
Publication date: 2014-05-15
SBN 2014;5(1): 289-310
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to present Strategic Communication (StratCom) as a new
operational capability to be implemented in the Polish Ministry of National Defence and the
Polish Armed Forces (PAF). NATO adopted the Strategic Communication Policy in 2009,
calling on member states to determine their stance towards it. At present, in many member
states, Strategic Communication occupies a relatively new but solid doctrinal position for
further development. Whereas, the initial activities aimed at implementing Strategic Communication, as a routine practice of all levels of the Polish Armed Forces have only just started.
The challenges connected with this issue cover even some basics: proper understanding of
the definition and relations with well developed tools such as Military Public Affairs (MPA),
Military Public Diplomacy (MPD), Information Operations (InfoOps) and Psychological
Operations (PSYOPS) among others. The authors propose a new interpretation of the Strategic Communication term and discuss some controversial considerations which are still
contested in order to influence the widest possible audience, including decision makers,
with intention to avoid costly and unwanted mistakes during the implementation process.
REFERENCES (20)
1.
P.W. Charelli and S.M. Smith, Learning from our modern wars: the imperatives of preparing for a dangerous future, “Military Review”, September-October, 2007.
2.
T. Corn, The art of declaring Victory and Going Home: Strategic Management of Expectations, Small Wars Journal, September 19, 2009.
4.
H. Kennon, H. Nakamura and M.C. Weed, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Background and Current Issues, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, Washington D.C., December 18, 2009.
5.
D. Kilkullen (2006), Counterinsurgency Redux. Survival 48(4)ACO Strategic Communication Directive (AD) 95-2. B-7010 SHAPE, Belgium.
6.
K. Liderman, A. Malik, Bezpieczeństwo informacyjne jako cel ataku terrorystycznego, [w:] P. Majer, M. Stek (red.), Jakość w działaniach na rzecz bezpieczeństwa państw Grupy Wyszehradzkiej z perspektywy europejskiej, Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Gospodarki Euroregionalnej im. Alcide De Gasperi w Józefowie, Józefów 2011, s. 17-27.
7.
K. Liderman, A. Malik, Polityka informacyjna a bezpieczeństwo informacyjne, „Studia Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego”, IOiZ, Nr 4, s. 399-411, WAT, Warszawa 2013.
8.
M.G. Mullen, From the Chairman: Strategic Communication: Getting Back to basic, “Joint Forces Quarterly”, No 55, 4th Quarter, 2009.
10.
NATO Strategic Communication Policy. NATO International Staff, Annex to PO(2009)0141, Bruksela 29, September 2009.
11.
NATO’s Strategic Communications concept and its relevance for France, Prepared by the RAND Corporation for the Joint Forces Centre for Concept Development, Doctrine and Experimentation, France (semi-structured interviews carried out at NATO and the United States), Published 2010 by RAND Corporation.
12.
CH. Paul (2011), Strategic Communication – origins, concepts, and current debates. Publishing by PRAEGER.
13.
Strasburg/Kehl Summit Declaration issued on 4th April 2009 by Heads of State and Government participating in the NATO meeting. NATO press release (2009) 044.
14.
PH.M. Taylor, Public Diplomacy and Strategic Communications, introduction to Routledge Handbook of Public Diplomacy, New York, 2009.
15.
The Multinational Capabilities Development Campaign, MCDC 2013-1: Focus Area Strategic Communication in Combined Operational Access – Information Activities and Emerging Communication Practices.
16.
U.S. Commander’s Handbook for Strategic Communication and Communication Strategy, version 3.0, US Joint Forces Command, Joint Warfighting Center, 24 June 2010.
17.
U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic Communication Joint Integrating Concept, Washington D.C., version 1.0, October 7, 2009.
18.
U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic Communication Science and Technology Plan, Washington D.C., April 2009.
19.
White House (2010), National Framework for Strategic Communications, Washington DC: White House.
20.
R.S. Zaharna, The U.S. Credibility Deficit − U.S. Strategic Communication and Public Diplomacy after 9/11, Houndmills, UK, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.
| ISSN: | 2082-2677 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
