The role of information and health in the GWOT

I just added a fantastic blog that I follow, Mountain Runner. It's a blog about "public diplomacy", which is perhaps a mysterious term to the uninitiated. There are several discussions about the differences between, or tensions between, "public affairs", "information operations", and "public diplomacy". It seems to me, from the outside, that this debate over the proper roles and responsibilities of practitioners of each is somewhat like the false debate about the definition of terrorism. Definitions are symbols produced by their users which validate their perspectives and cause further definition of the environment. The point of bringing this up here is that information--whether it's passive or purposeful, to U.S. or outside audiences--is important. We can leave the definitions to the communities that struggle with them and focus on information communication for our purposes. While the topic of information-flow might seem tangential to the triad of health-national security-international relations that I propose to cover in this blog, it's not. Actions convey information, and lately I have been formulating a theory that a center of gravity for the GWOT might not really be "public opinion" since defining publics and their opinions during military operations is difficult. A center of gravity for the GWOT might instead (or additionally) be primary symbols. Recall the photos and TV coverage of soldiers pulling down the statute of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad. Simple example, but it conveys the point that symbols are powerful.

The use of information to actively change opinion might be more powerful if we understood the symobology of other people. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs sponsored a symposium on Culture, Health and Human security last week and two of the speakers discussed cultural creation of symbols. For example, I learned that there is a relatively specific culturally-derived view of women and health in the Jewish community. It strikes me that health, being at the very bottom of Maslow's hierarchy of human needs, is also perhaps a striking symbol that we should more carefully consider.

On December 12, the USS Kearsarge and USS Boxer will return to the U.S. after a trip to Latin America and the Caribbean where the staff delivered medical and veterinarian assistance to eight nations. There will be a media event at the University of Miami. Here's where there is more information: http://www.southcom.mil/appssc/index.php. These missions are designed to "foster goodwill and demonstrate U.S. commitment and support to Latin America and the Caribbean" according to the U.S. SOUTHCOM website. However it remains to be seen if these missions, which are being conducted in partner with other U.S. government partners like Health and Human Services, NGOs like Project Hope, and which are coordinated with the involvement of the public diplomacy community, are effective or efficient at communicating goodwill. It might be more effective, and more efficient, to examine the health symbols of the countries we visited and try to understand if there is a way to positively influence those symbols. This is not to say that these missions --the Comfort and Mercy included--are bad. It's easy to speculate from the comfort of one's own computer desk chair. However these missions are expensive and are using military resources so the question is a valid, if somewhat academic, question.

Switching focus to American audiences, the U.S. public is relatively unaware of these missions, which is unfortunate since we are a nation that likes to do good. And also a nation that likes to support its military. As symbols of both the military and our best wishes for the rest of mankind, these missions most likely could communicate powerfully to the American public. The current media focus seems to be on Latin American publics instead of the American public, oddly.

Consideration of symbols of cultures, and operationalizing a plan for communicating our intentions goes together. Creating good health for people around the world seems to be benign at worst, but are we sure?