Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
on my first reading; very bad format, over long, redundancy, developed world centric, inadequate attention to AM radio, etc. etc. DoD should only be involved at the operational and tactical level and then only lightly. It does not really address interface or dealing with a potentially hostile US media presence who will challenge anything done by the government just so they can say they did...

That said, however, like Sam, I'm still mulling.
Long enough that I decided to wait till next week to really dig into it.

That said I think this right towards the beginning is somewhat indicative of the problem your both pointing out.

DoD has the opportunity, if it so chooses, to strengthen its participation in national public diplomacy
and public affaires engagements. At the conclusion of the paper, we present recommendations in support of DoD public
diplomacy and public affairs transformation
DoD must not act alone: The interagency community and affected
stakeholders must craft a strategic path forward under the auspices of a common national communication strategy.
Not so sure that it sure ever be approached as DOD strengthening a position IN National public diplomacy. The two need to be definitively different in both their approaches and who's pushing them. Somewhat of a slippery slope there which pols might pull mil in whence they do not belong. That said the second part; NOT acting alone and making sure there is a common strategy and path forward is where DOD belongs as it is one of the largest stakeholders in that strategies success or failure; seems on the right track.