Ambiguous strategy or strategic ambiguity?

David Tinsley

CMGT 500

Week 05 Assignment 01: Application Assignment

Ambiguous strategy or strategic ambiguity?  from the HuffingtonPost.com

This week’s class readings focused on models and concepts regarding the elements of strategic communication.  One of the concepts of personal interest was the idea of strategic ambiguity.  This concept, simple to understand on one level, presented some complexities as well. 

The basic idea behind using strategic ambiguity in communication is the use of a message that is ambiguous enough to not elicit a single, narrow interpretation, but to let an individual’s own “language, perception and knowledge” (Eisenberg, 1984) create interpretations that are individually based, or within “the context in which a message is presented”  (1984).  Therefore a strategically ambiguous message could have many meanings to many people (1984).

An article from the HuffingtonPost.com website, entitled Ambiguous strategy or strategic ambiguity? dated February 19, 2009,  attempts to make an assessment of communications and messages coming from Pres. Barack Obama and  the White House regarding the war in Afghanistan.  It was 2009, and Pres. Obama was sending more troops into the Afghanistan theatre of operations, an action that was contrary to his stated campaign promises to “refocus America’s fight on terrorism” (HuffingtonPost.com, 2009).  At the same time, the article discusses the fact that little had been said by the Obama administration regarding its war strategy.  Outspoken members of the anti-war movement were calling on the President to provide more “clarity on the United States’ future mission in the Afghan war”(2009).  The argument from the opponents of the war was that the President was committing more troops to a mission without explicitly stating the purpose of that mission.

The author of the HuffingtonPost.com article,  Frankie Sturm, presented the question “if the lack of strategy was part of the actual strategy by the President?” (2009).  Strum noted that Obama had not stated a specific strategy, like his predecessor, George W. Bush (2009).  He also pointed out that the lack of concrete and visible progress in Afghanistan as compared to the explicitly stated strategy by Bush resulted in the perceived failure of the former President’s strategy.  Perhaps Obama was attempting to avoid this pitfall by being ambiguous, or by saying nothing at all publicly.

Strum brings up the idea that this strategic ambiguity could be allowing Obama to shift the actual strategy of the U.S. in a way that diplomatic measures could be affected at the local level as opposed to the national level in Afghanistan (2009). Based on past history in the region, the author stated that “local solutions were critical to solving national problems” (2009).  By being vague, or ambiguous, Obama would take the pressure off of having to define success in a concrete way.  Success could be measured within “the context of those who live in the reality of the situation” (Eisenberg, 1984).  As Eisenberg states, this would be considered a “relativist view of meaning.”  By taking advantage of a message that would be strategically ambiguous, the Obama administration would be able to “foster agreement on abstractions without limiting specific interpretations”(1984).  Each group that received the strategically ambiguous message could process and define the meaning within their own contextual environment, leading to a decrease in conflict or tension that could be caused by communication that left no room for interpretation (1984).

In conclusion, Strum gives an example of  real world, contemporary usage of strategic ambiguity within our very own federal government.  This “wiggle-room” provided by Obama and his administration in relation to the war would prove to be vital in the future success and direction of the of foreign policy in Afghanistan.

References

Strum, F., (2009, February 19).  Ambiguous strategy or strategic ambiguity? HuffingtonPost.com. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frankie-sturm/ambiguous-strategy-or-str_b_168244.html

Eisenberg, E.M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizations communication. Communication Monographs, 51, pp. 227-242.