Strategic Ambiguity and Missile Strikes: The New Doctrine of the United States of America

Recent news reports indicate that U.S.-led missile strikes in the tribal regions between Pakistan and Afghanistan are on the rise. The purpose of the attacks are to continue the assault on Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants thus thwarting further terrorist attacks in the United States and around the world. In a news article and audio report on NPR, several experts from various military and civilian higher education institutions weigh in on the ambiguity surrounding the increase in missile strikes. Some want Pakistan to openly condone the strikes while others indicate that such an act would open other countries up to similar strikes, U.S.-led or otherwise.

In the report, an expert in international law at John Hopkins University, Ruth Wedgwood asserts that perhaps the United States is deliberately being ambiguous. Perhaps they are even “strategically ambiguous”. Such a characterization of the language surrounding the increase missile attacks begins to connect current leader behavior in the U.S. military to the idea of strategic ambiguity as defined by Eric Eisenberg. In his book, “Strategic Ambiguities: Essays on Communication, Organization, and Identity”, Eisenberg discusses how organizations and individuals in organizations use language that is deliberately unclear to allow for multiple often conflicting interpretations. Although Eisenberg was referring to general ambiguity in language, other scholars chime in on the very issues related to the missile strikes in these tribal regions.

Strategically ambiguous communication, like that surrounding the missile strikes, allows for multiple plausible interpretations and provides for the ability for leaders to deny many of the interpretations. Many interpretations may attribute inaccurate motives to leaders, but the ambiguity of the message allows leaders to deny the most heinous of such interpretations. Again, the goal is not deception, but legal and plausible deniability if something were to go wrong.

In keeping with our current example, using language that is strategically ambiguous allows the troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan to continue to carry-out assaults on areas that are not fully under either countries sovereignty. Often the missile strikes are carried out by drones and later verified by ground troops. In this case, because the U.S. is keeping their rhetoric ambiguous, neither country can claim that they have overstepped their authority and neither country wants to openly condone or condemn the attacks. Bloggers and experts alike say that this sort of limbo puts the U.S.-led coalition in danger of swift action on the part of either country. Although that is possible, it is likely that until one of the countries attempts to clarify the ambiguity the status quo will remain.