Secondo USA Today una direttiva del Pentagono bandirebbe l’uso del termine “Strategic Communication” da parte dei comandi. Resta da capire se ciò riguarda solo la terminologia o anche l’attività in sé.:

The Pentagon is banishing the term “strategic communication,” putting an end to an initiative that had promised to streamline the military’s messaging but instead led to bureaucratic bloat and confusion, according to a memo obtained by USA Today.
Strategic communication had aimed to synchronize the military’s messages with its actions. Instead, it led to creation of offices and staffs that duplicated efforts of traditional public affairs offices, according to the memo.
In the memo, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs George Little wrote that over the past six years, strategic communication “actually added a layer of staffing and planning that blurred roles and functions of traditional staff elements and resulted in confusion and inefficiencies.”[…]

Aggiungo, da Foreign Policy National Security:

The Pentagon’s Office of Public Affairs is axing “strategic communications.” It’s now called “communication synchronization.” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little recently put out a memo, obtained by Situation Report, that describes how the Pentagon’s public affairs apparatus eliminated strategic communications positions, a layer of people who were supposed to make sure any one department was speaking as one, and instead folded those operations into normal public affairs work.

“[Strategic Communications] was viewed as a means to synchronize communication efforts across the department, however, over the last six years we learned that it actually added a layer of staffing and planning that blurred the roles and functions of traditional staff elements and resulted in confusion and inefficiencies. As a result, this year we stood down these staff elements.

“We also realized that these SC plans mostly contained public affairs planning that we once again expect to come through public affairs channels,” Little wrote. “We avoid using the term SC to avoid causing confusion. The more accurate terminology, which will be used in future joint publications, is communication synchronization.” But, he said, commanders have to get on board: “Without commander engagement, communication synchronization cannot work.”