Das ist doch mal Lesestoff (den ich auch noch vor mir habe): Die NATO hat ihre PR (bestimmt nicht der passende Begriff) in Afghanistan mal näher untersucht:
und der Blick in die Executive Summary zeigt, dass es interessant werden könnte:
A commonly held view is that NATO also ‘lost’ the Afghanistan strategic communication campaign. This report is an effort to deduce what is NATO and ISAF’s score on that point, and if it did not ‘win’ outright then how did Strategic Communications (StratCom) perform? (…)
This report nds that improved StratCom did not, and does not, temper the effects of bad policy and poor operational execution. In the end, strategic communications outcomes weren’t nearly what they could have been but were considerably better than critics suggest. Where policy and operations were well connected and showed results, StratCom ampli ed that effect. Where policy and operations were weak, negative outcomes could be mitigated but not overcome. Improving strategic communication effects needs to start with better policy, greater understanding of audiences including motivations, conducting operations following established and successful military principles, and skilled practitioners. In that respect, the weakest link in the Alliance communication effort at strategic, operational and tactical levels was the profound lack of trained, expeditionary communication- and information-related military capability in almost all NATO member nations (excepting the U.S., and perhaps Germany).
Den kompletten Text gibt es über die Webseite (siehe Link oben) oder zum Herunterladen hier.
[Technischer Hinweis: Es gab ein paar Kommentare, bei denen ich nicht weiß, ob es Spam war oder ein Hinweis auf einen defekten Link hier sein sollte. Die Links sind, für mich jedenfalls, in Ordnung.]