Shaping the Narrative: America's Struggle for Strategic Coherence

Throughout history, information has been integral in shaping the outcomes of competition and conflict. From Alexander the Great's calculated propaganda campaigns to the Phoenix Program in the Vietnam War, these examples underscore the timeless power of information as a tool of strategy. Such operations are designed to exploit the “fog", the uncertainty and confusion that clouds decision-making, and " friction", the unpredictable and disruptive elements that impede even the best-laid plans, inherent in competition and conflict. 

These historical examples of using information to shape perceptions highlight an area the United States is severely lacking: strategic communications. This is the deliberate curation (the action of collecting and presenting information in a truthful manner like white propaganda, versus the creation of manipulated or false narratives, like black propaganda) of actions, messages, signals, and engagements to harmonize the disparate efforts of government by utilizing all levers of national power to inform, influence, or persuade target audiences in support of the nation’s strategy. Unlike ad hoc or isolated information campaigns, strategic communications require a unified voice that integrates policy objectives with targeted messaging to ensure consistency and credibility.

The United States government’s messaging and narratives surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the Afghanistan withdrawal underscore significant failures in strategic communication. Inconsistent and often conflicting messages from federal, state, and local agencies during the pandemic created widespread confusion and provided fertile ground for disinformation campaigns. Similarly, the messaging surrounding the Afghanistan withdrawal conveyed that the U.S. was no longer willing to engage in “forever wars,” even as it sought to position itself for long-term strategic competition with the Chinese Communist Party. The issues raised here are not a critique of the policy decisions made by both Republican and Democratic administrations, but rather an examination of the inherent contradictions and lack of coherence in how the United States government frames those decisions.

Much of the recent efforts to remedy these failures manifest in the attempt to create whole-of-government approaches. Proponents of this method argue that aligning messaging across departments, agencies, and official bodies—through coordinated talking points and unified narratives—could address communication challenges. However, organizations within the U.S. government generally collaborate and share unified messages when and where it makes sense. For example, the Departments of Justice, Commerce, and Treasury work together on sanctions and export controls, the Departments of Defense and State work together on Foreign Military Sales, and multiple departments, including Homeland Security, Energy, and Justice, are represented on the National Security Council. Underneath this collaboration exists an often-observed issue: bureaucratic competition; government departments are inherently competitive, frequently jockeying for personnel, resources, and authorities. This bureaucratic competition can lead agencies to prioritize actions that enhance their individual positions rather than advancing the broader U.S. government’s strategic objectives. These challenges, however, represent symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem: a national purpose.

This point was expressed in the October 2007 issue of Joint Forces Quarterly by retired Colonel William Darley: “Therefore, national-level failure to agree on what the United States stands for (that is, what national values strategic communications should reflect) is the principal impediment to developing a synchronized and effective program of strategic communications.  Moreover, of perhaps greater concern, the root cause of the bureaucratic impasse on strategic communications reflects a deeper lack of consensus on what our national values in fact are.” It remains unclear whether the United States has since addressed this underlying issue or fundamentally altered its outlook on national values and strategic communications in the years following Colonel Darley’s statement.

Historically, U.S. strategy has relied upon a clearly defined external threat—an existential challenge to the United States and the American way of life—to shape its strategic purpose and focus. During World War II, the U.S. united around the need to defeat the rise of fascism and respond to the abhorrent violence perpetrated by the Axis powers, framing the conflict as a moral struggle for the future of humanity. As the nation transitioned into the Cold War, the existential threat of communism gave rise to a strategy of containment manifesting in economic competition, extensive foreign influence campaigns, and a series of proxy conflicts spanning multiple continents. Following the Cold War, the United States demonstrated its military dominance and strategic resolve in the Gulf War. The U.S. effectively leveraged its stockpile of materiel and acted under the legitimacy of a U.N. resolution and Kuwaiti permission to repel Iraq’s aggression.

In the post-Gulf War period, the United States continued to rely on a strategy centered around championing democratic values. The newly established hegemon relied on a framework originally devised to counter hostile forces during the 20^th Century. This approach failed to account for the lack of a cohesive adversarial narrative in the immediate post-Cold War era. The United States missed a critical opportunity to reimagine and redefine its strategic purpose, as the absence of a singular existential threat left the nation without a clear, unifying focus. As the new millennium dawned, the United States became mired in the fight against global terrorism. The terrorism threats posed following the attacks of September 11^th were sporadic and episodic. Although a significant threat, the U.S. became hyper-focused in its allocated resources and attention on terrorist activities. This fixation on extremely diffuse threats left rising geopolitical challenges largely unchecked and insufficiently addressed. The United States applied tenets of its Cold War strategy in an attempt to contain terrorism with a specific focus on containing the violent actions of religious extremists. This continuation of 20^th century containment policy is exhibited in the American approach to the Chinese Communist Party. Author David Sanger explores this concept in his book, New Cold Wars, “Then, the ideal of ‘containment’ meant preventing other countries from becoming communist: now it meant starving American competitors of key technologies in order to maintain an edge in AI and nuclear weapons, in space and in cyberspace,”. Failure to adapt its approach to an evolving global landscape has contributed to the fragmented and reactive posture that characterizes the United States strategy and national security efforts. This strategy has since evolved into a defensive framework, a negative-aim approach that centers on preserving the global status quo. The United States has neglected opportunities to enhance its strategic posture. The ramifications of American inaction are amplified by significant events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, the Afghanistan withdrawal, and the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Israel, which exacerbate the underlying tension and strain rooted in a reliance on a strategic approach intended for an adversary that has long since been defeated.

This vacuum of American strategy flows downstream from a broader identity crisis: a nation lacking consensus on what it fundamentally stands for as it continues repackaging and repeating narratives from the 20th century that no longer resonate in the contemporary strategic environment. The answer here is not in the legislative decision to increase defense spending or decrease labor regulations. The policies argued on Capitol Hill and in the White House are the tactics which best address a strategy with tangible ends. A strategy that should be driven by not just national interests, but the nation’s values. A strategy that provides direction and guidance and considers the potential points of fog and friction as it navigates new challenges and opportunities. A strategy that amplifies the strengths of the incredibly unique American ethos of ambition, courage, and innovation.

Should the United States adopt a strategy of restraint, prioritizing economic prosperity and domestic development as the foundation of its strength? Or should it focus on expanding American influence abroad, positioning itself for strategic competition in an increasingly contested international order? These perspectives are not necessarily diametrically opposed nor mutually exclusive; however, these questions illustrate a much more basic observation. For American leaders and strategists to accurately answer these macro-level questions, the United States must first understand itself.

2025 presents a pivotal opportunity for the presidential administration and congressional leaders to redefine the United States' strategic purpose in an increasingly complex and competitive global environment. A new administration brings the chance to set a fresh direction that carefully considers the strategic vision required to navigate today’s challenges and opportunities. This vision must clearly and confidently articulate what the United States stands for in the contemporary strategic environment: a framework rooted in stated American values while acknowledging and understanding the nuances of potential threats in the modern era. From this overarching vision, leaders within the Executive and Legislative branches can establish a cohesive communications framework that bridges policies and messaging. This framework would enable departments and agencies to align their subordinate strategies and corresponding communications efforts, ensuring unity of purpose, clarity of message, and strategic coherence. By harmonizing the tools of national power under a unified strategy, the United States can project its values and resolve while countering adversarial narratives and reclaiming information to achieve its strategic ends. The United States doesn’t need new organizations or more bureaucratic synergy. What it needs is clarity of purpose: to define its values, craft a coherent strategy, and communicate it with conviction.

Ian Whitfield is an Army Reserve officer and a graduate of Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of Georgetown University, the Department of Defense, or any other organization the author is associated with.