Politization of Military Public Affairs? by James L. Bullock

Public diplomacy, of course, is part of the larger U.S. government public communications effort, military and civilian, with the terms “public affairs” and “public diplomacy” often conflated. What is happening now in the military public affairs community should be of interest and concern to those of us whose focus is primarily foreign affairs.

A recent military.com article reported that the new Army Chief of Information will be a political appointee. Although State Department PD officers often work for political appointees, that has not usually been the case with our military counterparts.

At about the same time that Congress created USIA after World War II, the military was standing up its own professional public affairs operations. During my years as a Navy PAO, before I joined USIA, I learned of the legendary “forty thieves” as the initial post-WW II cadre of uniformed Navy public affairs officers called themselves. Over the years, the authorized number of “designated” Navy public affairs officers grew, ably assisted by non-specialist officers and senior enlisted serving in PAO billets, other enlisted colleagues in what is now called the mass communications rating, and civilian staff ashore.

At the head of this operation, on the Secretary of the Navy’s staff (“double-hatted” to the CNO) there was always a uniformed naval officer, with responsibility for overseeing the service-wide PAO function. Eventually, that billet – known as “CHINFO” (for Chief of Information) – was reserved almost exclusively for a “designated” specialist public affairs officer with flag (one-star) rank. Similar structures were set up within the other uniformed services.

The recent appointment of a civilian political operative at the head of Army public affairs has sparked speculation that similar developments are coming for the other services, but the retirement message of the current CHINFO, Rear Admiral Ryan Perry, notes that he expects a selection board to be convened in the fall to choose as his successor another PAO-designated career naval officer. Concerns that a civilian political appointee could be the next CHINFO may have prompted Admiral Perry’s early message, mid-week in August, six weeks before his scheduled October 1 retirement.

To prepare this item for the PDCA newsletter, I reached out to acquaintances within the military public affairs world, uniformed and civilian, active duty and retired, and a couple of journalists, as well. Most, understandably, did not wish to comment on the record. One pointed me to another news item of concern: The Navy is downsizing its civilian PA work force by over one-third and centralizing all civilian PA hiring at Navy Department headquarters.

What does all of this mean?

Former Air Force PAO, NSC Staffer, and Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P.J. Crowley commented that:
 
“The expression ‘politics stops at the water’s edge’ was never true….You can’t run the largest organization in the world, with a trillion dollar budget and not be surrounded by politics, but there is a big difference between being political and being partisan. That line is being erased, and it is not a positive development for the military as an institution.”

Crowley and others did allow that a civilian service secretary might prefer a PAO/senior spokesperson more attuned to political sensitivities, but much depends on who actually gets the job. In fact, at the DoD-level, and in some of the other military services, civilian appointees have been more common than in the Navy. 

Most important, is that the appointee also understand military affairs, have credibility with defense-specialist media, and be able to manage the career development of members of that service’s PAO community. The current DoD spokesman is a 27-year-old whose credentials are debatable. The civilian reportedly being put in charge of Army public affairs, a campaign worker, is replacing a 27-year veteran who was formerly a helicopter pilot, an intelligence analyst, a public affairs specialist, and – incidentally? – black. 

Putting non-career political appointees into senior military PA jobs will remind State Department PD officers of the parallel situation we face when non-career “outsiders” are appointed to ambassadorial positions. Sometimes, these appointments go well, and sometimes not so well. Either way, ambitious career officers see senior job opportunities taken away.

For those of us, active or retired, in the State Department’s Public Diplomacy community, what happens to our colleagues in uniform should be of concern. We all serve the nation, working within important national institutions to make them accountable to the public.    

Our government public affairs function matters, and we need leaders, military and civilians, who understand that.
 
-30-
Jim Bullock, a former Navy PAO, joined USIA in 1979 and spent most of his active foreign service career in NEA Bureau PAO assignments, with non-NEA assignments as IO Moscow and PAO Paris. In Washington, he was an NEA desk officer, an office director in the IO Bureau, and a Deputy Coordinator in IIP. After retiring, he worked for the American University in Cairo as Vice-President for Institutional Advancement. Later, back in Washington, he joined both the former PD Council and the USIA Alumni Association/Public Diplomacy Association of America, serving the latter for several years as treasurer. He is also a member of the US Navy's Public Affairs Alumni Association. Most recently he has been working as a rehired annuitant in the A Bureau's FOIA Litigation office.