The paper is rather dense reading on a VDU and the layout needs to be improved.

I dislike the emphasis on the DoD being at the centre of strategic communications etc. Yes, relevant in combat zones like Afghanistan, not in Sub-Saharan Africa for example. What the USA has to communicate must come from clearly identifiable civilian sources, not the military.

The focus appears to be on the developed world, with it's electronic media access and variety of sources. In the less developed world internet access is the exception; radio plays a far more important role - cue the BBC World Service.

After 7/7 in London the Metropolitan Police (MPS) explained at a seminar that although they had excellent contacts with the mainstream media (of all types) they had next to no contact with two hundred plus non-English speaking radio outlets broadcasting in London. Reaching them would take time and a willingness to accept what MPS wanted to communicate. Curiously the multi-lingual press were not covered and in the UK their reporting / editorials appear rarely to reach outside their readership.

What media do non-American audiences use? I cannot recall seeing a mention of that, although it could have been in the footnotes.

IMHO designing a communication strategy without clearly stating that is doomed to fail.

Accepting a strategy is selected how will non-government US-based / US-owned media react? There will be no common "song sheet", rather I suspect the reverse - except in times of crisis.

What is the message the strategy seeks to deliver? That the USA is a good neighbour / friend and the worst enemy you can ever wish for once awakened?

In summary, I would not start this uphill fight based on this document.