Principles Chapter 2. Policy, strategy, and tactics

Chapter 2: Policy, Strategy, and Tactics

What is policy?

How states decide to use their power is a matter of policy.  Will the state expend its financial, personnel, and natural resources on securing a contested border with a neighboring country? Will it build a military with primarily defensive or offensive capabilities?  Will it use its wealth to provide a social safety net?  Will it restrict journalists’ or citizens’ speech or expression?  These are all policy decisions.  Because public diplomacy’s primary goal is to advance U.S. foreign policy goals and priorities, it is critical to understand the definition of policy and its relationship to public diplomacy.*  This section uses the complex topic of immigration to explore the nuances of the many uses of the word policy as it relates to public diplomacy.

Policy may be issued formally (e.g., in an Executive Order, the FAM/FAH, ALDACs cables, or a speech by the President or Secretary) or informally (e.g., in verbal guidance, in a press conference).  Policy may operate on a grand scale (e.g., U.S. trade policy) or quite narrowly (e.g., electronic device policies at an American Center).  PD practitioners must be aware of policy at all times as they work.  

Ultimately, policy is an authoritative direction or course of action adopted to change behavior or achieve a desired outcome or end state.  A policymaker is someone who can issue authoritative guidance or direct action.  Functionally, policies set guardrails or limits.  At the highest level, policy guidance guides thinking and directs energy and action toward a certain outcome.  A policymaker is someone who can issue authoritative guidance or direct action.  Policy can affect many different aspects of a given topic or issue, and may be more or less directive depending on the scope, level, and authority of the policy and the policymaker.  High level Policy (sometimes called “big P” policy), such as that issued by the President or high ranking government officials, may be quite broad.  For example, this is the kind of Policy that is meant by “the Administration’s Climate Policy” or “Trade Policy.”  Policy at this level offers broad principles for implementation and action.

The following statements are possible high-level (big P) Policies on immigration:

• The United States is a country of immigrants; the United States welcomes immigrants. 
• The United States seeks to restrict immigration because of security concerns.
• The United States seeks to regulate immigration to enable the state to open or restrict the number of immigrants depending on domestic circumstances.

Policy can also be issued on a smaller scale (sometimes called “little p” policy), and these policies offer more concrete limits to action.  Within a broad policy framework, smaller policies operate to affect day-to-day actions.  Laws, rules, regulations, and traditions all operate as policy, but these are generally not what is meant by achieving policy outcomes or advancing policy priorities.  The interaction works in two ways.  In some cases, little p policies can constrain big P Policy implementation.  For instance, an existing law may have to be repealed to fully achieve the goals of a big P policy pronouncement.  The issuance of big P policy guidance also affects what kinds of little p policies can be implemented; for example, with the cover of a big P policy pronouncement, a municipality may put in place a little p policy that goes against another existing regulation.  

While “big P” Policy statements set guidance or direction, “little p” policies set out rules and specific guidelines.  Little p policies are set through a variety of processes and change accordingly, but they constrain action in different ways than “big P” policy.  PD practitioners may be called on to implement or promote little p policy requirements and work within their constraints to advance big P policy priorities.  On the topic of immigration, “little p” policy requirements might take the following shape:

• Rules regarding family separation and detention at the border
• Numbers of specific visa types available
• The rules for participation in the diversity visa lottery

Policies can (and do) change.  Policy may shift when a new administration takes office, when the global economic outlook changes, as alliances shift, or in response to specific events.  These may be gradual and evolutionary, or rapid and reactive. Smaller policies may change in response to a shift in Big P Policy, to pressure from those who are affected by the Policy, to external influence, or to other factors.  Understanding the policy-making environment and processes in the United States is important for PD. It allows them to understand how both Policy and policies are made, shaped, and implemented.  It is equally important for PD practitioners to understand the policy-making environment and processes of the country they are working in, so they can determine how best to employ the tools of public diplomacy to shape this environment and affect policy decisions. 

As an example of how PD practitioners might use this understanding of high level (big P) policy and small (little p) policy in the United States and their host country as they work within their section or mission, we continue with the complex topic of immigration.  

In this example, PD sections may be directly involved in communicating the broad policy aim (which may change depending on the administration).  In a specific context, the PD section may be particularly interested in how broad U.S. immigration policy affects the number of foreign students who apply, are accepted, and come to study in the United States.  If one policy goal is to increase the number of foreign students in the United States studying Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) subjects, then a PD section in a country that sends many students abroad may have an important role to play.  In a different region of the world, the PD section may want to partner with interagency colleagues on programs and messages aimed at reducing irregular migration to the United States and encouraging people to use legal pathways to migrate to the United States.  In these cases, PD practitioners are not necessarily policymakers, but they may influence policy discussions, and they are responsible for critical initiatives, activities, programs, and campaigns that influence the achievement of a policy objective. 

Each country will have a broad policy goal it is trying to achieve.  If those goals are aligned with U.S. goals, and the foreign public is also aligned with those goals, then achieving a desired policy outcome may be relatively simple or require little attention from the PD section.  For example, in a country where visas are not required to visit the United States, the number of people desiring to emigrate matches the current pathways, and processes are perceived as fair and transparent, the public diplomacy section may not spend its scarce resources on the topic of immigration at all, even though it is a stated national policy priority.  However, if less alignment exists between the positions of the United States, the foreign state, and the foreign public’s goals, and irregular migration is a topic of concern to many groups with competing interests and priorities, the public diplomacy section may prioritize the issue, working with other parts of the mission, to achieve better alignment. 

PD practitioners must regularly participate in conversations about policy and policymaking.  To go back to the immigration example and students studying STEM subjects in U.S. universities, restrictive visa policies make it difficult for students and recent graduates to stay or work in the United States.  A PD professional might point out that these policies could be a deterrent for students deciding where to study.  Thus, in the policymaking discussion, PD professionals can help policymakers understand the linkages between public attitudes and behaviors, and the formulation and implementation of U.S. policy.

To formulate and execute more effective policy, foreign affairs agencies need to understand international, regional, and local context.  One way public diplomacy informs policy is by helping decision makers understand how foreign publics shape particular policy-making and information environments.  Public diplomacy, in its role on the country team, is most effective when it presents these insights early in the policy-making process.  When decision makers lack crucial understanding of the context in which they are seeking policy solutions, they risk not only ineffectiveness but also unintended consequences that undermine the intended policy.  

Public diplomacy professionals are instrumental in helping identify the potential consequences — intended and unintended, direct and indirect, and including second- and third-order effects — of policy decisions.  For example, PD practitioners with extensive contextual knowledge and in-country networks may provide a more nuanced perspective on foreign publics’ responses to military action, a new trade agreement, or a new immigration policy.  Regular reporting and data on attitudes, trends, and developments among key foreign audiences are essential in formulating desired policy outcomes and planning to achieve them.

When PD practitioners are called on to implement policy, their role is different.  As high level policy changes, strategies and plans must also change, but how much a strategy or plan changes will depend on the level of the policy change.  That is, a change in the resources available may have a smaller effect on an existing strategy or plans than would a large-scale reorientation in goals and objectives.  PD practitioners who are planning and implementing policy are responsible for making these adjustments accordingly.  When a policy change calls for strategic adjustment, the team should work with others in the mission to adjust mission-wide goals, perhaps even the ICS itself.  When policy priorities shift PD priorities, perhaps the PD section must reassess its PDIP and look at its budget and staff time allocation.  And at the lowest levels, practitioners may have to make immediate changes in programs or messages to respond to immediate policy changes. 

What is strategy? 

The English word strategy derives from the ancient Greek word strategos, meaning “the art of the general.” Historically, the strategist had to think in time and space in an effort to connect resources with capabilities and objectives, issue guidance to subordinates, and develop an idea about how best to achieve a political objective.  We have now come to a more expansive view of “strategy.”  It is no longer solely the domain of a military commander or war; strategic thinking is required by all who work in a resource-constrained environment to solve complex problems.  

Defining strategy has become a cottage industry in and of itself, and the word’s definitions have broadened, so uses of the word “strategy” are often vague and nebulous.  But definitions mark boundaries and delineate roles and responsibilities for strategy and related concepts.  Several definitions from various sources and sectors are listed here.  Although there are distinctions among them, they coalesce around some key ideas, which are explored in the next section.  

• “How do we get from where we are to where we want to be, without being struck by disaster along the way?” ²⁷
• “In short, strategy is choice.  More specifically, strategy is an integrated set of choices that uniquely positions the firm in its industry so as to create sustainable advantage and superior value relative to the competition.” ²⁸
• Strategy is the “alignment of ends (aims, objectives), ways (concepts or methods), and means (resources)—informed by [an assessment of] risk.” ²⁹
• “Strategy is the continuous process of matching ends, ways, and means to accomplish desired goals within acceptable levels of risk.” ³⁰
• “Strategy is a profoundly pragmatic business:  it is about doing things, about applying means to ends.” ³¹
• “Essentially strategy is a dialectical relationship, or the dialogue, between desire and possibility.  At the core of strategy is inevitably the problem of whether desire or possibility comes first.… Desire must be grounded in possibility; possibility clearly requires an idea in the first place which informs any analysis of possibility.”³²

Making choices: Priorities, competition, and friction

In the broadest possible sense, strategy is about making choices, solving problems, establishing priorities, and managing risks and consequences.  Three key ideas emerge from analysis of the definitions above.  

First, strategy requires prioritization.  When resources are (or seem) unlimited, strategy and planning seem to be simple:  few choices must be made and few programs must be cut, so the answer can always be more.  In the real world, though, resources—including staff expertise, staff time, calendar time, money, and materials—are always finite.  The answer to every PD challenge or problem cannot be simply to do “more”—more programming, more speakers, more exchanges, more social media posts, more events.  A full event calendar or agenda provides an illusion of productivity when, in fact, it is more often an impediment to (or failure of) effective decision-making. Strategy must, from the beginning, include serious consideration of limited resources.  

Second, strategy is competitive.  The need for strategy arises in response to external forces, often adversarial, or at least competitive.  For public diplomacy, the competition is not only from other states or governments, but from a host of voices and ideas that are vying for people’s attention.  Sometimes these ideas run counter to U.S. foreign policy objectives, and at other times, they merely distract.  Developing a strategy for public engagement requires responding to other actors in an adaptive way, rather than just charting a course and sticking to it.  The response does not have to be direct, but a strategy that does not anticipate, account for, and respond to competition or opposition is bound to fail. 

Third, strategy must manage friction internally.  Strategy is difficult, in part, because the world (especially when it involves humans) is unpredictable and things do not always go according to plan.  Just as strategy must be adaptive to remain competitive, it must also adapt in the face of friction—those things that simply make the work more difficult.†  For public diplomacy practitioners, internal friction may be caused by weak infrastructure and spotty internet access, hiring freezes and limits on overtime pay, flatlined or shrinking budgets, events in the United States that are difficult to explain or talk about, or policies that change from administration to administration.  

If there is no friction, obstacle, or challenge blocking an actor from meeting their goal, there is no requirement for strategy.  Strategy must account for external factors as well as risk inherent in any resource-constrained, competitive, or adversarial environment. 

Achieving alignment: Ends-ways-means 

All of the definitions above explicitly or implicitly identify strategy as involving some relationship between ends (goals), ways (methods and actions), and means (resources).  The simplicity of an ends-ways-means (EWM) formulation makes it a reasonable starting point for discussions about strategy, although it is rarely a sufficient end point.  At a minimum, a strategy must articulate how taking specific actions (ways) will work to accomplish stated goals, aims, or objectives (ends) by using available tools and resources (means).  Sophisticated strategic thinking also integrates assessments of risk, the adversary, and the environment, that go beyond a simple EWM framework.  

In an EWM formulation, none of the three categories is static.  The desired ends may change as circumstances on the ground or in the political sphere change; when ends are identified and articulated, they provide a beacon for strategists.  Means, likewise, are never permanently set.  Once resources are expended, they cannot be used again.  Furthermore, the level or type of resources allocated to a particular strategic problem may change as priorities change.  As noted in the last definition above, changing ends and means are indicative of the inter-related nature of strategy—as one part of the EWM formula changes, other parts must follow suit, or the strategy will quickly be out of alignment. 

Strategy proposes a causal story or theory about change; it makes a claim about how using resources and taking specific actions will achieve a desired outcome.  Ends and means are usually intuitive enough—what is it you want to do (goals and objectives) and what are the resources (material and nonmaterial) that you have to accomplish the goal?  But strategic ways can be murkier, both in concept and practice.  Here it is helpful to break the concept down further into two component parts. 

1. The first part asks us to think of ways as things that can be done, or actions that can be taken.  Articulating ways explains how resources will be used. 
2. The second part then asks this question:  why will employing these resources in this manner lead to the fulfillment of this objective?  What is the logic that underpins the strategy? 

Examining various approaches to strategy formulation enables us to see many ways that ends, ways, and means can be considered together to achieve strategic alignment.  You can find examples to walk through this logical connection in Appendix A.

What are tactics? 

Tactics are individual actions taken to achieve strategic objectives.  In public diplomacy, tactics are specific engagements with foreign public audiences that include listening, direct engagement, engagement through intermediaries, people-to-people connections, institutional partnerships, broadcasting, social media, and information access.  Each of these tools is a means to understand, inform, and influence the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of foreign public audiences.  These tools vary by the type and term of the intended impact and by the breadth of the priority audience.  The tactical approach best suited to one context may not work in a different environment or to reach a different audience.  For instance, the preferred communication channels used to promote LGBTQI+ rights for high school students will be different than the methods used for their parents. Nevertheless, all these interventions work to advance the mission of public diplomacy in efforts to advance U.S. foreign policy and national interests.  

PD professionals must be expert tacticians, while strategically linking their individual engagements and activities to achieve defined objectives.  Tactical and technical proficiencies are best harnessed in a logically sound, intellectually coherent, and clearly articulated strategic framework.  Excellent strategic planning can still fail to achieve goals if tactical interventions are poorly planned and executed.  Planning and implementing successful and strategically meaningful tactical engagements requires local knowledge and technical expertise.  Developing this expertise takes many years, significant practice, and willingness to learn from engagements that had different outcomes than originally expected.  For an in-depth discussion of the application of this concept, refer to PD Foundations, “PD in Practice”, Section IV. Detailed Planning—The Logic Model. 

How are policy, strategy, and tactics related? 

By selecting and using the most appropriate tools for engaging specific audiences and advancing U.S. foreign policy objectives, PD practitioners work with other sections in a mission to build coherent plans to achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the Integrated Country Strategy (ICS).  Public Affairs Officers (PAOs) then lead PD sections to build initiatives and activities to generate both immediate returns and longer-term effects toward specific objectives.  All PD practitioners are involved in the difficult and important work of translating U.S. foreign policy and strategic aims from ambition to action; this means they must think and work strategically.  

For the most part, the design, planning, and implementation of specific PD initiatives and activities are tactical, but the diligent PAO and PD section will constantly be thinking in strategic terms.  In fact, one of the greatest challenges for organizations is translating tactical success into lasting strategic momentum, let alone something that we might call strategic success or achievement.  Leaders and practitioners assure politicians and the American people—sometimes for decades—that “we” are making “progress” in a place where significant U.S. diplomatic, development, and defense resources are being employed. But often there is no end in sight, no clear metric for withdrawing or changing the use of these resources, so interventions linger and languish.  Successfully linking tactical programs to strategic aims—and figuring out how to say no to popular or historically beloved programs that do not clearly contribute to strategic aims—is among the most difficult undertakings for a PAO and their PD section.  If our strategic thinking and planning are to be sound, we must honestly evaluate and assess whether any progress toward a desired goal or outcome is being made.  The popularity of a program may not be related to whether it yields policy results, so its value should be scrutinized.  Although the combined effects of tactical successes can combine to contribute to achieving strategic outcomes, it does not follow that multiple tactical successes alone will necessarily yield positive strategic outcomes.

With a clearly communicated and regularly updated strategy, the campaign becomes more resilient, even to small failures.  To be effective, tactical successes must be tied together in support of larger strategic goals.  A series of interventions (activities, programs, projects, messages, etc.) tied together in support of strategic aims allows for greater risk-taking and variation in outcomes.  One tactical failure will not necessarily derail the strategic aims; but, with reflection and purposeful refinement, may allow for adaptation and iterative progress toward long-term goals and objectives. 

Public diplomacy in the U.S. strategic context

Strategic direction comes from multiple authorities, with varying scopes and levels of detail. When everything is working as it should, strategy at one level aligns with the next, and sound strategic thinking and planning at lower levels can help decision makers clarify strategy at higher levels.  The relationship should be mutually supportive.  When strategy becomes disjointed, people operating at implementation levels lack clarity and guidance, which in turn negatively affects their ability to develop, implement, and evaluate plans and programs and to feel ownership over the work they are doing. 

The documents that outline formal policy and strategy enable PD practitioners to work from a common operating picture, and communicate goals, priorities, and values internally and to the public.  All of these documents inform public diplomacy planning, implementation, and evaluation, and public diplomacy practitioners should be involved in strategy development, particularly at the Joint Regional Strategy/Functional Bureau Strategy (JRS/FBS) and Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) levels.  Strategic guidance provides the framework in which public diplomacy professionals in the field conceptualize, plan, and implement their work. 

PD practitioners can generally interpret higher-level strategic documents as outlining an established set of foreign policy priorities, originating from a centralized source or set of sources as described above.  Policy priorities drive PD interventions, not the other way around.  Public diplomacy (PD) practitioners understand that top-level strategy papers lay out a clear list of foreign policy goals.  Strategic guidance filters down from the executive branch, through agency secretaries, directors, mission chiefs, and so on. In this way, the narrowly-focused initiatives that PD practitioners create for country-specific contexts always flow from and strive to advance executive-level foreign policies.

Because strategies direct action and give guidance at different levels, strategic documents can proliferate.  At the State Department alone, more than 200 documents outline and articulate strategy, which could make it difficult to understand how day-to-day work contributes to the broader mission of the Department.  Yet these strategic documents work together in particular ways, and they offer PD practitioners a strategic ecosystem in which to make decisions about PD priorities, resources, and approaches.  This section highlights the relationship between strategic documents and how public diplomacy plays a role in both shaping the documents and in their implementation.

National-level documents such as the National Security Strategy and the Joint Strategic Plan express political and policy direction from the elected and appointed leaders of the Executive branch.  The highest-level documents tend to focus on a statement of aspirational goals or conditions; they rarely engage in detailed discussion about resources or risk, and they often leave the causal logic implied rather than explicit.  As lower-level strategic documents, such as an Integrated Country Strategy or a Functional Bureau Strategy, flow from these documents, they grow more specific, include increasing discussions of resources, and begin to articulate the logical connections between present actions and desired future conditions.  For a historical example of this application, refer to Appendix A, Comparing Strategic Approaches—National Security Strategies and Public Diplomacy.

The following sections work systematically through this cascade describing the history, purpose, and major components of each strategic document, as well as its intended audience.  Most attention is given to the National Security Strategy (NSS), as it is usually understood as the highest governing strategic document in the United States, and it receives the most scrutiny and commentary from analysts, journalists, practitioners, and others around the world who are looking for clear articulations of U.S. intent and approaches to the global system.  From there, the explanations are more generic, not because the documents are less interesting, but because they are more widely varied in how they are formulated, used, and perceived from administration to administration.

The National Security Strategy (NSS)

The National Security Strategy has changed in organization and content, but broad themes have remained largely consistent since its inception. The National Security Strategy is mandated by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986.³³  It requires the president to submit a report that outlines the security strategy of the United States.  The first National Security Strategy was submitted in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan.  While the specific organization and content of the National Security Strategy documents have changed over time, there broad continuities often persist. 

Broadly speaking, the National Security Strategy often outlines priorities that correspond to the ideals of protecting and promoting American security, prosperity, and values.  Some have even suggested these three broad categories go back to the requirements of the State related to national security outlined in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: to “provide for the common defence” (security); “promote the general Welfare” (prosperity); and “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (values).³⁴  A fourth category, sometimes implied and sometimes made explicit, is an articulation of the role the United States should play in the world.  These themes remain constant regardless of political party and administration.

A brief review of the content of National Security Strategy documents helps contextualize the political and strategic environments that different administrations use to frame their policy goals and objectives.  Every PD practitioner should be familiar with the broad strategic guidance on foreign policy issued by the executive branch, so they can ensure their planning is aligned to these strategic priorities.  While emerging issues or crises or the domestic political landscape can re-prioritize specific efforts and resource decisions and shape the rhetoric of these documents, the broad goals generally remain fairly stable over time. 

In this regard, a brief analysis of past National Security Strategies is instructive.  In 1990, during the George H.W. Bush administration, the key goals in the NSS were to “Protect the safety of the nation, its citizens, and its way of life;” to “Advance the welfare of our people;” and to “Contribute to an international environment of peace, freedom, and progress where democracy (and other free nations) can flourish.”³⁵  In 1998, under Bill Clinton’s administration, the strategic aims were articulated as “enhancing security at home and abroad,” “promoting prosperity,” and “promoting democracy.”³⁶  Both the 2002 and 2006 National Security Strategies, written under George W. Bush, articulate that the United States seeks to “defend the peace against the threats from terrorists and tyrants,” to “ preserve the peace by building good relations among the great powers,” and to “extend the peace by encouraging free and open societies on every continent.”³⁷  The 2010 and 2015 strategies, published under Barack Obama’s presidency, identified four primary interests: “the security of the United states, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners”; “a strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity”;³⁸ “respect for universal values at home and around the world”; and “a rules-based international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.” ³⁹ The 2017 National Security Strategy signed by Donald Trump includes four pillars: (a) “Protect the American people, the homeland, and the American way of life”; (b) “Promote American prosperity”; (c) “Preserve peace through strength,” and (d) “Advance American influence.”  In October 2022, Joseph Biden released the 2022 National Security Strategy, emphasizing a free, open, prosperous, and secure international order. 

State-USAID Joint Strategic Plan (JSP)

The Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) have adopted a joint strategic plan, mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRA-MA).⁴⁰  The JSP flows from the National Security Strategy to present how the Department and USAID will implement U.S. foreign policy and development assistance for the specified period, which is usually four years.  The JSP goals each contain objectives, which in turn contain performance goals, in accordance with the document’s legislative mandate.

Bureau-level Strategy (Joint Regional Strategy / Functional Bureau Strategy)

The JSP informs the development of strategic plans at the bureau level.  Each regional bureau has a Joint Regional Strategy (JRS) and each functional bureau has a Functional Bureau Strategy (FBS) that establishes U.S. foreign policy goals throughout the geographic region or functional subject-matter area.  Two bureaus and two offices reporting to the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs maintain strategic plans at this level: the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), the Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA), the Global Engagement Center (GEC), and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Resources (R/PPR).  Each regional and functional bureau with a PD office should have a role in drafting and implementing their respective bureau’s JRS or FBS.

Integrated Country Strategy (ICS)

The Integrated Country Strategy (ICS) is a four-year strategy that articulates U.S. priorities in a given country.  Its development is led by the chief of mission.  The ICS develops a common set of mission goals and objectives through a coordinated and collaborative planning effort among the Department of State and other U.S. Government agencies that operate in that country.  The goals and objectives of each mission ICS derive from the higher-level planning documents and strategies listed above.  The ICS covers the full breadth of U.S. government interests and goals in that country, and therefore is informed by the strategic documents of other agencies represented at the mission as well.  Because it aims to take a whole-of-government approach, it may not always nest perfectly with the Joint Regional Strategy, but there is usually general alignment.

An ICS is composed of three major nested components: goals, objectives, and sub-objectives.  ICS Goals are ambitious topical statements that communicate the long-term (5+ years) future vision or direction regarding policy priorities that the mission intends to pursue.  Objectives are change-oriented statements of a specific and measurable end-state or result that the mission seeks to accomplish, or make significant progress toward, in the medium-term future of three to five years.⁴¹  Sub-objectives are more specific outcome-oriented results that contribute to or support the accomplishment of their associated goals and objectives.  Sub-objectives have a near-term (12 to 18 month) perspective and much more specific and measurable results.

Public Diplomacy Strategic Plan (PDSP)

In 2021, the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs published the first formal Public Diplomacy Strategic Plan in many years.  The plan “provides a shared strategic vision…for coordinating public diplomacy efforts to advance American influence and defend its interests in the global competition.” ⁴²  The purpose of the Public Diplomacy Plan is to lay out a vision for public diplomacy within the policy environment outlined in the Joint Strategic Plan It does not prescribe how bureaus or posts address policy priorities and deploy resources.  Those issues are addressed by the respective Bureau Strategies and Integrated Country Strategies (ICSs). The PDSP will be updated quadrennially. 

Connecting Strategy to Tactics: The Public Diplomacy Implementation Plan 

All over the Department, offices, divisions, sections, and teams are then charged with implementing strategy—putting ideas into action.  For a PD section overseas or a PD office in a functional bureau, this connection is articulated through the Public Diplomacy Implementation Plan (PDIP) process, which describes the approach of PD practitioners to advancing strategic objectives.  Public diplomacy interventions at the tactical level implement guidance that is aligned with higher-order strategy and also suited to a specific local context.  Strategic documents and explicitly-stated priorities, especially if properly connected and nested, help practitioners act coherently within a system of strategic guidance documents.  Therefore, the design and implementation of PD practice resides mostly at the field level but operates within well-defined strategic parameters.  More information about the PDIP process and recommendations for developing a PDIP are covered in the companion volume, PD Foundations “PD in Practice.” 

---

* In this document, and elsewhere, we use “achieve” with finite, measurable terms such as “objective” and “outcome,” and we use “advance” with more amorphous concepts such as “goals” and “priorities.”  Thus, “PD advances U.S. foreign policy priorities by achieving measurable objectives.”

† The concept of “friction” is introduced and most thoroughly explored in Carl von Clausewitz’s treatise on war and strategy, On War.  For Clausewitz, friction (not unlike our understanding of the physical force in physics) are the things that happen in war that make “even the simplest things difficult”. Clausewitz, Carl von, Michael Howard, Peter Paret, Bernard Brodie, Rosalie West, and Carl von Clausewitz. On War.  First paperback printing. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1989 p. 138.