The U.S. Government continues to seek a comprehensive, effective communication strategy through which it may project and promote American interests, policies, and objectives abroad. Many believe that the government and military have been outcommunicated since 9/11. A primary cause of this alleged deficiency is failure to recognize that strategic communication through traditional media and through the new media are not the same thing. There are fundamental differences between traditional and new media spheres. Hence, using conventional methods for new media strategic communication is decidedly less productive than developing a communication strategy appropriate for the new media universe.

The newly invigorated U.S. strategy to secure a stable Afghanistan faces hazards of its own creation. With a surge of troops and political capital, the United States hopes to achieve long-term stability with a shortterm mandate for action. In light of Sun Tzu's admonition to attack an opponent's strategy, this article invokes the mindset of a hypothetical strategist in the Quetta Shura Taliban (QST). Its polemic opinions are apocryphal but represent a plausible line of action for the Taliban to attack U.S. strategy. By proposing this counterstrategy, the article attempts to discourage our belief in a potentially hollow success.

There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer's customary obligation to obey and his moral obligation to dissent. This topic defies black-and-white specificity but is nevertheless fundamental to an understanding of the military professional's role in the execution of policy.