Conflicting Images: Part 2

I wrote a post on 18 February, Conflicting Images, which discussed Secretary of State Clinton’s recent trip to Asia, and her attempts at outreach to the Muslim community.  The piece also discussed how Al Jazeera was attempting to improve its image with U.S. readers.  In the post I posited that maybe we should use some of Al Jazeera’s techniques for improving U.S. perception within the Muslim world.

Well, today I read an AP article, Terror Fight Must Include Battle of Ideas, about a study the Washington Institute for Near East Policy is preparing for release this week.  My key takeaways from the article were:

…the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argues that the U.S. must not only defeat terrorists, but also mute the influence of radical groups that spread extremist ideologies and can eventually lead to violence.

"We need to get beyond killing our way out of the problem," said J. Scott Carpenter, a former State Department policy adviser and one of the authors of the study. The key, he said, is to "empower Muslims within their communities to fight their own battles on the front lines of the ideological war."

The study, obtained by The Associated Press, suggests that instead of using goodwill ambassadors and other public relations campaigns to bolster opinions of the U.S. in Muslim countries, officials should build support for mainstream Muslim groups or activists to use their own voices to discount extremist discussions.

It will be interesting to see if the Obama administration chooses a different approach to this problem.  So far (and it's still early) they have essentially continued the Bush administrations strategy of using a “goodwill ambassador” (remember Karen Hughes) – in this case the Secretary of State – to reach out to the Muslim community; what I would call a top down approach.  According to the Washington Institute, we should employ a bottom up approach for this problem.  I suspect the correct answer, as usual, is going to fall somewhere in the middle…

Thinking About Gov 2.0

I was reading a recent blog by INQBATION, Government policy on the use of social media, and it got me thinking about the use of Web 2.0 tools in the daily execution of my professional responsibilities as a military officer.  The blog listed the below primary roles for Gov 2.0, which is the push to use Web 2.0 tools within the government.

1. Public outreach to communicate and deliver messages directly to citizens
2. Encourage citizen involvement, interaction and feedback on social issues
3. Provide leadership and public service announcements

 I agree whole heartedly with the above primary roles, and it’s great that the focus is on utilizing these powerful tools to communicate with the populace.  Web 2.0 tools like Twitter and Facebook are excellent channels for reaching large swaths of people. 

However, and I’m a relative newbie to Web 2.0, I think the government is sorely behind the curve in utilizing these tools internally.  In fact, I can’t even access the majority of these tools on the government network I use daily.  I wrote briefly about this in my 19 February post titled, Cyber Attacks on Government Networks and Web 2.0.

I can think of any number of ways to utilize these tools in the execution of my daily professional functions, and truth be told, I do use them.  However, because I can’t access them from my government network, I have to fashion workarounds, which wastes my time, and ultimately the governments’ time.

In many ways I find the Gov 2.0 movement encouraging, but also conflicted.  While we encourage the use of Web 2.0 tools to communicate externally, we discourage their use to communicate internally.  Why?

"Cutting" the DoD Budget???

Okay.  Lately I’ve been seeing many headlines about impending "budget cuts" at the pentagon.  What exactly does this mean?  I’m not an economist; in fact I was a C student in macro AND micro economics in college.  However, when I see the term budget cuts, to me that means some of the money in the big pot is going away. 

Does that make sense?  We still have Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines slogging it out in Iraq, and are getting ready to "surge" 17 thousand more troops into Afghanistan.  Does it make sense to cut the DoD budget?  One would think we would want to put more money into the pot to give service members everything they possible need, or want for that matter, to win these wars.

If the term budget cut means a reprioritizing of the DoD budget, that would make sense.  If it means taking some money from a pot for a specific project that is obviously questionable to the common man approach, that would make sense.  And there are clearly some big ticket defense projects throughout all of the services that do not pass the common man approach given the current state of the national security threats we are facing.

As a member of the military, I find it disconcerting when I see all the discussion about DoD budget cuts.  I can’t help but think to myself that we are losing sight of what should be the goal: to win the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and bring home the troops safely -- no matter what the cost.

To Netbook, Or Not To Netbook

I have a Dell Insprion 1501 that’s about 3 years old. It works fine, but lately I’ve been looking at netbooks. I’m starting to think the simplicity and practicality of the netbook would be a nice fit for my evolving computer requirements.

In actuality, over the past few years, I’ve converted the majority of my computing activity (probably better than 95%) to cloud computing. If you read any of my previous blogs from my Web 2.0 blog you will know that I am a big Google products fan - actively using Gmail, Reader, Docs, and Calendar to organize my personal and professional life. Additionally, I have been using Facebook and, most recently, Twitter (find me at http://twitter.com/A_E_B) to connect socially, keep track of my thoughts, learn from others, and share my knowledge.

What does all this mean? My realization is that I don’t need a thousand dollar, high-powered laptop with a bunch of features I don’t use to do what I need to do on a computer. I’m not a gamer and don’t do any multimedia production, all I really need is an Internet connection and a browser.

After some simple research, below is a list of the standard netbook requirements I’m mulling over, and a few of the netbooks I’m considering.

Standard requirements:
-Windows XP (I have not made the jump to Linux, yet)
-Traditional hard drive (some recommend the solid-state drive, but I’m not sold)
-Intel’s Atom processor
-Preferably a 6-cell battery
-Built-in web cam

Netbooks I’m considering:
-ASUS EeePC 901 1000HE
-Acer Aspire One (10inch)
-MSI Wind

Cyber Attacks on Government Networks and Web 2.0

The below USA Today article grabbed my attention. As a government employee, more specifically a DoD employee, I work on a network that confounds me. My email is suspect and the Internet regularly craps out when doing simple things like Google searches.

Raids On Federal Computer Data Soar

Reported cyberattacks on U.S. government computer networks climbed 40% last year, federal records show, and more infiltrators are trying to plant malicious software they could use to control or steal sensitive data.

Federally tracked accounts of unauthorized access to government computers and installations of hostile programs rose from a combined 3,928 incidents in 2007 to 5,488 in 2008, based on data provided to USA TODAY by the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT).

I waist more time waiting for web pages to load, only to have the network administrator tell me that the blog page I’m trying to view is not authorized.

I’m intrigued by Web 2.0 and the tools (wikis, blogs, social networking, etc.) that go along with the idea. I use these tools regularly to manage many aspects of my personal and professional life, and they make me infinitely more organized and productive in both realms. However, many of these tools are not authorized on my government network, so I am forced to fashion "workarounds."

Why is this? Is it because of cyber attacks like those referenced in the USA Today article? Is it because the government network folks perceive Web 2.0 tools as time wasters?

I suspect it’s a combination of things. However, if we are to fight the forces that fight us, we are going to have to figure a path that protects the network, but allows one to utilize the same tools those trying to do harm to us are using – the Web 2.0 tools.

Some Things Don’t Change: The Military Hammer

Interesting BBC piece below on Obama’s decision to send 17k more troops to Afghanistan. Obama hinted at the Afghanistan “surge” during the campaign, so those hoping for a change from the Bush military diplomacy policy should not be surprised.

However, the bottom line is that this is the first of many tough national security decisions in the Obama administrations future -- decisions that will require a balance of the instruments of national power, which most certainly will include the employment of military force.

For those that stood freezing on the Mall during the inauguration looking for a change in military diplomacy, I suspect you will see an attempt at a little more balance in the use of the other instruments in our national security tool kit. However, right or wrong, the military is still the hammer in that tool kit, and still an enticing, easy solution for the leader of the free world.

“Obama and the limits of liberalism”

After only a month in office, President Barack Obama has bumped up against the realities of war-and-peace decisions that face any American president.

Conflicting Images

Saw the below articles while going through my morning read:

“Al Jazeera fights "myths" in North American push”

Al Jazeera is starting a public relations campaign to dispel what it calls myths and misperceptions that have prevented it from reaching more U.S. and Canadian viewers, the international television news network said on Tuesday.

“Clinton Visits Indonesia on Second Stop in Inaugural Overseas Trip”

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is continuing the Obama administration's efforts to rehabilitate America's image abroad, especially with Muslims, during a visit to Indonesia that began Wednesday.

Later, in response to a student question about the Bush administration's perceived "prejudice" against Muslims in the war on terrorism, Clinton lamented that America's failure to communicate its intentions with the world is "one of the central security challenges we face."

Couldn’t help but think the U.S. has not done a great job of strategic PR when it comes to our national security strategy, maybe we should take a page from Al Jazeera. I realize that is a very simplistic view, but maybe that is what we need...

Did you ever wonder (I'm back)...

...and extremely motivated. I've been away for many months, but I'm back. For anyone interested in my earlier technology posts, please visit my Web 2.0 For Newbies blog. I will no longer update that blog. However, that technology content will be melded here along with random thoughts on world events, pop culture, and a little fantasy football.

You can also follow me on Twitter.