1 Archetti C. (forthcoming 2018) “The Unbearable Thinness of Strategic Communication,” in J. Pamment and C. Biola (eds) Countering Online Propaganda and Violent Extremism: The Dark Side of Digital Diplomacy (Oxon: Routledge). DRAFT The unbearable thinness of strategic communication Cristina Archetti (cristina.archetti@media.uio.no) Introduction: A contested concept ‘Strategic communication’ is where it’s at. No matter whether we are talking about managing counterinsurgencies in Afghanistan or Iraq, countering the radical messages promoted by terrorist groups like ISIS or extremist right wing organizations, promoting a country’s interests among foreign audiences through public diplomacy activities, or addressing hostile propaganda and “fake news” from foreign countries. ‘Strategic communication’ figures in military doctrine (Department of Defense 2009; NATO 2009, 2010; Ministry of Defence 2011), in policy documents (White House 2010, for instance), think tank reports (Lord 2008, for one example), practitioners’ papers (Murphy 2009, 2010; Zwiebel 2006), as well as research (see the International Journal of Strategic Communication and Defense Strategic Communication) on both sides of the Atlantic. Although multiple definitions exist, 1 they all tend to converge on four main aspects. As Christopher Paul (2011, 4) outlines them, in a book that specifically examines this concept, strategic communication is based on the premises that ‘[i]nforming, influencing, and persuading is important; effectively informing, influencing and persuading requires clear objectives; coordination and deconfliction are necessary to avoid information fratricide; actions communicate.’ Although his analysis is mostly about strategic communication in the US debate, where the concept has undergone most development, this definition is well-suited to capture approaches from a range of organizations operating in different countries and domains of activity. When it comes to defense and security, strategic communication is regarded as crucial in an information environment that is increasingly transparent. The Department of Defense Strategic Communication Science and Technology Plan (2009, 2) states, for instance, that: ‘a compelling argument can be made today that the public perceptions and implications of military operations might increasingly outweigh the tangible benefits actually achieved from real combat on the battlefield.’ The UK Ministry of Defence (2011, iv) adds: ‘Everything we say and do is exposed to instantaneous global scrutiny, not just by conventional media with its own biases and agendas, but also by individuals able (and inclined) to transmit information and news via the world-wide-web; “What is heard in Helmand [Afghanistan] is heard in Huddersfield [West Yorkshire, UK]” and vice versa.’ Beyond the battlefield, a Chatham House report by Paul Cornish, Julian Lindley-French and Claire Yorke (2011, 3) underlines how strategic communication, is in fact a constitutional 1 For a collection of definitions by officials, academics and practitioners see Paul (2011: 185-191).