The latest Principles of War seminar series featured John Rendon of the Rendon Group who spoke on the topic of strategic communication. This is an issue dear to my heart as a former PR man with a technology bent familiar with the monolithic industrial-age government department system and its lack of timely communication capability.
Rendon hits all the buzzwords mentioning tipping points, communities of interest, long tails, social networks, user-generated content, Blink, etc. Without getting bogged down in all the jargon the presentation remains interesting for an audience wider than just MountainRunner and yours truly. Rendon gives insight into the problems a modern-day government faces in an unpredictable news cycle, and highlights the dangers of not knowing how a diverse and asymmetric audience will receive your message. His speech is wide of scope and blasts through a slew a topics. His scenario of a cyber attack perpetrated on a sovereign country by a community of interest geographically located in America raises an interesting legal point related to the legality of the US invasion of Afghanistan: can a country claim the right of self defence if attacked by a group within a sovereign country? Rendon brings up a number of diverse issues, connecting them in interesting ways that will give you a new appreciation of the problems in “official” communication in the 21st century.

Comments to this entry
IJ
December 26, 2007
12:11 pm
For example, Time magazine published an interview this month with Russian president Vladimir Putin. He suggests that Russia has a lukewarm attitude towards the United Nations.
Might still makes right. The P5 won't agree to anything else.
Daily Links 12/27/2007 « Umbrella
December 27, 2007
6:04 pm
purpleslog
December 27, 2007
7:15 pm
Who is asking?
Why could a country not claim self-defense?
The host government of the country were the attack originates from is to either presumed to have a monopoly on force and therefore implicitly allowed the attack to occur (unless they explicitly tired to counter it) or to not really be in charge (aka not a legitimate government).
In either case, why would the country attacked not have a moral right of self-defense?
Younghusband
December 28, 2007
12:53 am
purpleslog
January 25, 2008
7:07 pm
If the USG said to china "too bad - we didn't do it" and if the USG made no legitimate effort to get the hacker terrorist, then from China's PoV, the US is either really behind the attacks, or is no longer in control of its territory (not legitimate as a gov).