The complex and evolving relationship between the military and the media has spanned various periods in U.S. history. In a discussion with War Room editor-in-chief JP Clark, Thomas Crosbie, author of The Political Army: How the U.S. Military Learned to Manage the Media and Public Opinion, explores how the military has grappled with integrating media considerations into its operations. Crosbie examines how figures like George C. Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, and Matthew Ridgway navigated media relations, highlighting the challenges of balancing transparency and control. Their conversation delves into the impact of the Vietnam War on military-media relations, when attempts to manage the media often backfired.
The media really, really matters. You can’t escape it.
Podcast: Download
Thomas Crosbie is an Associate Professor of Military Operations at the Royal Danish Defence College. He is the series editor of Military Politics (Berghahn Books) and has published widely on topics including the military profession, military politics, Professional Military Education. He is the author of The Political Army: How the U.S. Military Learned to Manage the Media and Public Opinion. He is currently the director of the Educating Future Warfighters Project.
JP Clark is an associate professor of military strategy teaching in the Basic Strategic Art Program. He served in the army for twenty-six years as an armor officer and strategist. He holds a Ph.D. and M.A. in history from Duke University, an M.S.S. from the Army War College, and a B.S. in Russian and German from West Point. He is the author of Preparing for War: The Emergence of the Modern U.S. Army, 1815-1917 (Harvard, 2017). He is currently working on a history of U.S. military strategy in the Pacific from 1898 to 1941 that is under contract with the University Press of Kansas. He is the 3rd Editor-in-Chief of War Room. Follow him on Twitter @JPClark97.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Description: Ernie Pyle (center left) with a U.S. Marine patrol during the Pacific campaign in World War II.
Photo Credit: U.S. Department of Defense
The generally positive relationship between the institutions of the U.S./the West — and governments and peoples both here at home and there abroad — this was developed during the Old Cold War, when the mission of U.S./Western institutions was to (a) contain and roll back the revolutionary changes demanded by the communists and communism and, thus, to (b) maintain the status quo, and the power, influence, control, etc., of those who depended on the status quo for same. Whereas:
The general decline in the relationship between the institutions of the U.S./the West — and governments and peoples both here at home and there abroad — this has occurred in the post-Cold War, where the mission of U.S./Western institutions has been to (a) advance the revolutionary changes demanded by the capitalist and capitalism and, thus, to (b) undermine and alter the status quo, and the power, influence, control, etc., of those who depend on the status quo for same.
It is from this such perspective/it as to this such problem, I suggest, that the institutions of the U.S./the West must find a way to work with/use the Fourth Estate (etc., etc., etc.); this, so to restore their reputation, and restore the trust of governments and peoples both at home and abroad.
As examples of how, post-the Cold War, the mission of U.S./Western institutions came to be to advance the (status-quo threatening) revolutionary changes demanded by the capitalists and capitalism; as examples of this such phenomenon, consider the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. Military examples provided below:
“Proponents of this vision of a globalized economy characterize the United States as ‘a giant corporation locked in a fierce competitive struggle with other nations for economic survival,’ so that ‘the central task of the federal government’ is ‘to increase the international competitiveness of the American economy.” (See in the only full paragraph on Page 643 of the 2005 Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law paper entitled “Moral Communities or a Market State: The Supreme Court’s Vision of the Police Power in the Age of Globalization.”)
” … Relying extensively on amicus briefs submitted by elite corporate, military, and educational authorities, Justice (Sandra Day) O’Connor, writing for the majority, asserted the following: ‘Major American businesses have made clear that the skills needed in today’s increasingly global marketplace can only be developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints. What is more, high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the United States military assert that, based on their decades of experience, a highly qualified, racially diverse officer corps is essential to the military’s ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security … ‘ ” (Item in parenthesis above is mine. See the final paragraph on Page 698, and the first paragraph of Page 699, of the 2005 Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law paper entitled “Moral Communities or a Market State: The Supreme Court’s Vision of the Police Power in the Age of Globalization.”)
“Since the 1990s the focus of American international security policy has been focused on creating conditions for extending zones of security and prosperity to other states under the theory that ‘political as well as economic globalization would make the world safer — and more profitable — for the United States.’ Consequently, the United States saw expansion, rather than retraction, of American military presence around the world.” (See the 2016 Second Edition [not the 2010 First Edition] of the book “Exporting Security: International Engagement, Security Cooperation, and the Changing Face of the US Military” by U.S. Naval War College Professor Derek S. Reveron; therein, see the bottom of Page 2 of the Introduction chapter — directly under the heading “Militaries Do More Than Fight Wars.”)
Conclusion:
Thus, today, U.S./Western institutions, both here at home and there abroad, would seem to be dealing with the negative consequences of having participated in/having been engaged in these such post-Cold War capitalism, markets, trade, globalization, etc., missions. (All of which, both here at home and there abroad, threatened the status quo, and threatened those who depended on the status quo for their degree of power, influence, control, status, privilege, prestige, safety, security, etc.)
Question:
So, in circumstances such as these, how can U.S./Western institutions, today, somehow find a way to work with and use the Fourth Estate (etc.); this, to deal with the post-Cold War U.S./Western institutions problem that I present above?
If, as I suggest above, the general decline in the relationship between the institutions of the U.S./the West (to include U.S./Western militaries) — and governments and peoples both here at home and there abroad — if this such general decline occurs in the post-Cold War, when these such institutions did a “180” and, thus, went (a) from doing “containment” and “roll back” (of unwanted and threatening communist-based political, economic, social and/or value changes in the Old Cold War) to (b) doing “advancement” (of unwanted and threatening capitalist-based political, economic, social and/or value changes in the post-Cold War);
If this such “cause and effect” depiction is correct, then, with the election of President Trump for the second time, might these same U.S./Western institutions, now, be able to regain their lost positive relationships with governments and peoples both here at home and there abroad; this by, once again, doing a “180,” and, thus, once again begin to do (much more popular?) “containment” and “roll back” operations — in this case, however, as directed against the capitalist-based political, economic, social and/or value changes which these self-same U.S./Western institutions undertook, and supported, in the earlier post-Cold War?
If this might work, then might these such U.S./Western institutions be able to work with and use the Fourth Estate; this, to emphasize, to publicize, etc., this/these such “corrective actions?”
I enjoyed this interview and look forward to reading the book; however, I believe the (U.S.) Defense Information School should be a part of this discussion. DINFOS does an outstanding job in preparing our enlisted, officer and civilian personnel for the demands of effective public affairs work.