Matt Armstrong remarks on his blog Mountain Runner that one of the main crises facing public diplomacy today is a clear lack of leadership that leads to a poor use of resources. “This is a core issue behind the Congressional examination into Defense strategic communication activities,” he notes.

Armstrong observes that eventually the inaction and lack of direction of the Department of State in matters of public diplomacy will leave a void for a “clumsy build up” by the Department of Defense establishing its own policy directives in strategic communication.

Armstrong further posits in an article for Foreign Policy Magazine, “The Pentagon now funds and controls a wide range of foreign-policy and diplomatic priorities -- from development to public diplomacy and beyond.” According to him, this betrays the fact that State Department has reached a low (or ‘the bottom’) in its ability to “respond to the new 21st-century paradigm.”

There is growing evidence that the internal machinations of the State Department have corrupted its "core missions" of traditional diplomacy and public diplomacy, illustrated by the conclusions of the GAO report earlier this year, noting a failure by State to reshuffle its bureaus.

He asserts that where the Department of State failed, the Department of Defense stepped up. Citing the example of recent strategic communication operations released by the DoD, Armstrong ventures, “Foggy Bottom relies on Pentagon funding and even personnel for basic operations central to its mission.”

Despite the suggestions by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, to use some of the DoD funds toward the State Department, Armstrong recommends that Secretary of State Hilary Clinton should work towards, “aligning the State Department with the Defense Department.”

He warns nonetheless that bureaucracy could impede such efforts and Clinton will need the clear and unequivocal support of the president and more importantly Congress, which authorizes State Department budget, to have a chance at success.

Andrew Bast deplores for World Politics Review that foreign policy institutions have failed to come up with a more efficient way to communicate its strategic message to foreign audiences. Referring to the recent scathing indictment on the state of “Strat Comm” by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mullen, Bast concurs that the US suffers from a serious credibility issue.

Above all, Bast indicates as well that DoD is affected by the poor performance of DoS; “State is responsible for communicating the country's message to the rest of the world. Yet, when it comes to public diplomacy, for years there has been a lack of leadership.”

While Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Judith McHale explains that public diplomacy is “not a propaganda contest -- it is a relationship race,” she also emphasizes the need to bolster the US's credibility to forge “an ethic of common purpose." Although it is a positive step and interesting remark, Bast deplores that it no concrete step has been undertaken.

Matt Armstrong underlines on Mountain Runner that some in Congress have unilaterally decided that 2010 is the year America's public diplomacy will no longer be influenced by DoD. He notes that the military has been the unwilling (if passionate once engaged) and often clumsy surrogate and partner for the State Department in representing the US and its interests in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere around the world.

The Senate defense subcommittee for appropriations recently weighed in with their cut that will effectively “remove the boots from public diplomacy.” The aim was eventually to contain DoD’s influence over public diplomacy. However, Armstrong suggests that a gap solution could be transitioning activities to be under State leadership even if "sub-contracted" to Defense (a likely gap solution) or to outside contractors.

“There is no disputing that the current situation is undesirable but there must be a transition. Funding is cut, not transferred - the defense appropriators only have the authority to add and subtract,” Armstrong comments. Current and future programs will suffer - including those run by the State Department that are in part or wholly dependent on Defense funding and resources eliminated by the appropriators.

Armstrong believes that it will undermine the stability of US presence and create vacuums that are adversaries will fill and use to show we are not a reliable partner. He continues, “It will take much more time and resources to catch up than if there was an orderly transition from Defense to State.” He also warns that while Defense has wanted the attention to fix its own house, this is more than it wanted as it quite simply threatens the President's goals for Afghanistan, Africa, and elsewhere.

Bast understands that the heart of the problem may not be limited to leadership and direction, and that it may extend to communication and coordination among the various agencies “independently defining and coordinating strategic communications programs," he reports for World Politic Review. Bast considers this is an urgent issue that McHale will need to address. Bast adds that there is a dire need for policy to “back up” any message as well.

Although he recognizes that President Obama’s overtures have changed the world’s perception of the US, Bast concludes, “rather than crafting an appealing message, perhaps the best remedy to the bungle that's been underway for eight years is to simply work on explaining exactly what it is that we're doing.”