America’s bruised image and reputation

I suspect there will be many reflective stories in the media as we approach the 6th anniversary of the 9-11 attacks. The White House will no doubt measure the nation’s safety by the lack of terrorist attacks … that always seems to be their fallback message … even though all the reports I read say we are less safe than before September 11, 2001.

I look with sadness about what has happened to America’s image and reputation around the world in the last six years.

It may take decades to repair the country’s perception as a leader. The blame is not just limited to people like The Lincoln Group. You may know of them … a few guys in Washington with connections so close to decision-makers inside the Pentagon that they are awarded all of the lucrative U.S. public relations contracts in the Middle East even though the firm has no communications or PR experience. They are the ones who caused an international image incident for the U.S. by bribing journalists in the Middle East, among other scandals. They then were awarded even more multi-million dollar contracts by the Pentagon.

We may possess the weapons to burn the planet into a cinder but we also have a deeply damaged reputation today as a world power, and that is inflicted not by any bad guy but by people in DC. We as a nation are not respected as we once were. Why?

Take a look at the so-called strategic communications plan put forth a few weeks ago by Karen Hughes, Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. I know her job is tough but Ms. Hughes only now seems to be getting around to developing some blush of a plan. I urge you to read her remarks.You will note that her plan — which revolves around television and traditional ideas — is a tactical and surprisingly unimaginative and sophomoric wishlist (”I’ve challenged my team to come up with good ways to reach younger people.”). There is no strategy to suggest how the ideas might be achieved or benchmarks for measuring progress or timetable or line of accountability. There is really very little if anything strategic about it. (”I’d like to bring more people here to learn…”) Where is the dynamic strategy to help America’s bruised image regain its prominence as a world leader? (”… daily mission will be developing culturally sensitive messages.” Message de jour? What could be more confusing!)

Out of fairness, I know that Ms. Hughes is not a communications strategist as much as a political advisor (there is a big difference) and the president’s friend. Yet, with a mandate from the president and enormous resources, she has been handed such a good opportunity to make a difference. Too bad it’s not more effective.