Public Affairs strategy: to hell with communicating

Hint to those controlling the DND Public Affairs strategy right now: try answering the odd question. It works one hell of a lot better than pissing off everyone who wants to talk about you in the public forum. Remember, just because you don't answer legitimate, honest inquiries doesn't mean those of us who comment on military matters won't continue to comment. On the contrary, we'll say whatever the hell we like - it's just your voice that won't be heard. Idiots.

What prompted this rant? Glad you asked.

Remember this CP piece that Mark highlighted last week?

The note, passed to Berlin through a Canadian defence attache, has been quoted in the German media, but Canada’s Defence Department was loath to acknowledge its existence.

Interview requests with both army and defence officials in Ottawa were denied and in what has become a troubling pattern for the department, it released only a series of written answers to questions about the incident posed by The Canadian Press.

The 13-line note failed to explain the unprecedented secrecy surrounding the incident.

Defence analyst Alain Pellerin said Canadian officials’ silence mystifies him when they have an opportunity to trumpet such a success, particularly since the tanks’ formidable presence has helped contribute to a decline in civilian casualties in their areas of operation.

I'm not one to put too much credence in complaints about restricted access by press brats who think they should have access to anything and everything under the sun. But not everyone in the press corps is a spoiled whiner, and shutting out a good-news story like this is completely moronic.

The CP writer isn't the only one noticing the trend, either. I've had correspondence with some in that small group of knowledgeable and fair members of the Canadian journalistic establishment in recent weeks, and their concerns are also falling on deaf ears:

DND is either not responding to inquiries (by not returning phone calls, no matter how many times you call, and despite any promises to the contrary), or by providing limited information (and I do mean limited) 12-24 hours after deadline.
...
For Canadians to get an accurate picture of military issues and challenges, the military needs to speak up. Not in carefully scripted letters approved by 5 levels of bureaucracy, but in open dialogue. Refusing to answer questions about the status of various programs or various challenges, just looks like they have something to hide. Plus it results in speculation and inaccuracy, and while in the short term the public will be the loser, over the long term, I believe the military will be the biggest loser.

And now I'm running into the same thing.

A week ago, I noted this story in Le Devoir that noted an increase in munitions purchases this year:

La violence dans le sud de l'Afghanistan force d'ailleurs des achats importants de munitions et d'armes, ce qui contribue à faire gonfler la facture de la guerre. Seulement pour les six premiers mois de l'année financière 2007-08, l'achat de munitions de tous les calibres a bondi de 650 % comparativement à toute l'année 2006-07, selon les calculs effectués par Le Devoir.

I was struck by the obvious logical gap in those two sentences: that increased violence in Kandahar is responsible for a 650% increase in the cost of munitions this year over last year. Because unless there has been a 650% increase in violence, it's pretty hard to make a direct and proportional causal connection between the two.

My understanding is that DND works from existing stockpiles until those are depleted to a certain level, then makes purchases based upon rate of use patterns. And just because the purchase happened in July, for example, doesn't mean the use was in Afghanistan in July or August.

I mean, if you track my gasoline purchases for my car, some days I buy gas and some days I don't. If you graphed it, the days I do fill up would look like pretty big spikes. What needs to be understood are stocking and purchasing patterns, and the rate of use. Undoubtedly, the Afghan mission is having an effect, but I seriously doubt it's having a 650% effect as the article implies.

So I asked DND whether anyone would like to comment on the piece for a reply I was composing. The very pleasant officer I spoke with on the phone at the Media Liason Office took note of my questions, and asked the usual question about my deadline. I've given up trying to explain that I don't have an editor looking over my shoulder, so I told her noon the next day would be fine, since I figured twenty-four hours to put me in touch with someone in procurement who could provide me with some context wouldn't be onerous.

She quickly disabused me of that notion: "It will probably be at least a week." A week? For someone to talk with me for five minutes about a story that will be dust-covered and stale by then? What if I actually did have an editor hovering behind me, beating me with a rolled-up newspaper to meet a deadline?

It's now been six days since I made my inquiry. I've received no response. Not a challenging response, where their line of argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Not a weak response, where they don't really address my questions. Not even a flaccid response where they tell me that "DND is continually assessing its munitions needs and purchasing accordingly" or some such bafflegab.

No, the only response I've received from DND is a deafening silence.

The public needs good information in order to make good decisions about our military. The CF needs an informed public in order to pursue its mandate with sufficient support and resources. And the public in turn needs a competent military to further its domestic and international goals. By removing the first link in that chain, the bureaucrats responsible for this shift in Public Affairs are putting the whole fragile construct at risk. What could possibly justify that?

This isn't a communications strategy, it's an abandonment of the idea of communications in the first place.