解構美軍戰略溝通機制兼論對國軍政治作戰的影響

Deconstructing the US military Strategic communication mechanism: It’s Impact on the political warfare of the Republic of China’s military.

吳淑如(Shu-Ju Wu)

指導教授 ： 翁明賢

淡江大學/國際事務學院/國際事務與戰略研究所博士班/博士(2020年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2020.00627

摘要

「戰略溝通」（Strategic Communication）概念在各國的運用日益廣泛，無論是美國、英國、日本、德國、俄羅斯、中國等。尤其是美國在發生911事件後發動了「全球反恐戰爭」(Global War on Terror)，開始積極重視「戰略溝通」，重新體認資訊力量及外交上的應用。後又歷經科索沃、阿富汗及兩次波灣戰爭，美國深覺軍事勝利不敵宣傳，佔有資訊優勢並非最後勝出的一方，更加重視「戰略溝通」及「不對稱作戰」的相關研究。
在美國國家安全事務中，資訊作戰扮演相當重要的角色，如同全球反恐戰爭所揭示給世人，資訊作戰將不僅局限於軍事武器坦克、船艦及飛機調動與戰鬥的傳統戰場。戰場的重心轉移到「濕體」(wetware)，即形成公眾輿論與決策的大腦「灰白質」(認知領域)。在這個戰場上，最有效的武器是「資訊」，而這場革命的特徵，諸如戰場的透明度和直播報導涵蓋面，充分突顯了資訊作戰的重要性和影響力。尤其美軍在兩次波灣戰爭中戰略溝通的實踐，展現許多成效，這些成功經驗對於各國也帶來軍事事務革新的重大影響與相繼效仿此概念機制。
我國於103年由國防部(政戰局文宣心戰處)發展此機制，編成「戰略溝通小組」，並規劃戰略溝通相關作為與編修準則，早已納入各項演習驗證，已然建構穩定運作與發展之機制。「戰略溝通」(Strategic Communication)這名詞第一次揭櫫在我國官方文件是在民國106年的《四年期國防總體檢報告書》（QDR）中，接續在106、108年國防報告書中，均將戰略溝通明列為國軍「精神戰力」重要一環。
以實務經驗來檢視「戰略溝通」，發現此機制類同國軍政治作戰制度及相關工作。然而，兩者若是類同，國軍既已存在政治作戰機制，為何引進美軍戰略溝通機制概念?引進後，對於現行政治作戰制度的轉型與影響?其所面臨的限制與能力為何?如何精進相關作為?這是筆者亟欲探究的核心問題，也是研究此議題的重要價值。因此，主要研究目的為: 一、理解「戰略溝通」概念的發展與影響；二、探究戰略溝通有關的學理基礎與論述；三、檢視「戰略溝通」在波灣戰爭的實踐情形；四、比較戰略溝通與政治作戰之差異；五、建議我國發展戰略溝通相關作為。
本研究發現，一、美軍戰略溝通機制與國軍政治作戰機制，兩者在概念意涵上是相同；二、在任務導向上，兩者亦相同；三、兩者均面臨「正名」和「稱號」問題。
最後，本研究提出幾點建議，一是應成立跨部會整合小組，以作為國防部與各部會協調合作的平台。其次，無論美國或中國大陸，因應作戰形式的改變，不斷研發創新戰法，近年來均著重智庫研究，觀察美國在戰略溝通方面的研究已不計可數，而中國也相繼投入對戰略溝通的廣泛研究，亦有豐碩成果。2018年，美軍智庫蘭德公司(RAND)研究報告也指出政治作戰為戰略溝通是否成功有效的關鍵，未來強化政治作戰在媒體溝通、公眾宣傳能力，建立與培育專業人才，實為必然趨勢。國軍引進戰略溝通機制後，政戰制度面臨變革與轉型，而所產生的影響與效果，非本次研究的方向與重點，建議未來研究此議題者能朝此目標方向繼續深究。

關鍵字

戰略溝通 ； 政治作戰 ； 認知作戰 ； 不對稱戰爭

並列摘要

The concept of “strategic communication” is commonly used among the US, the UK, Japan, Germany, Russia, China and many other countries. After the September 11 attacks in the US, the US and its allies launched the Global War on Terror, and the concept started to gain attention from the world in recognition of the power of information and the uses of diplomatic measures. Later on, the US further experienced Kosovo War, the War in Afghanistan and two Gulf Wars. The US realized that even if it triumphed on the military front, it still suffered from opponents’ propaganda efforts. Also, even with information superiority, the US still could not rest assured its victory in a war. As a result, the US started to pay more attention on the research of “strategic communication” as well as “asymmetric warfare.”
Among the US’ national security affairs, information operation plays a very important role. Judged from the lesson of the Global War on Terror, we can see that the battlefield of information warfare is not only limited to traditional battlefields with tanks, warships, aircraft and other weapons in it. In information warfare, people’s emphasis is now shifted to “wetware”, namely the recognition domain that forms the public opinion and the decision-making process. The most effective weapon in this battlefield is information, and the transparency of the battlefield and coverage of live reports underline the importance and influence of information warfare. Given that the US has achieved a huge progress in “strategic communication” through its military practices in the two Gulf Wars, militaries around the world also successively conducted reforms in their military affairs learning from the lesson of the US’ practices during the two wars.
The Republic of China (ROC) developed this mechanism in 2014 by Psychological Warfare Division of Political Warfare Bureau, Ministry of National Defense. The division integrate a "strategic communication group" into its annual military drills to validate its functions, and developed relevant activities and guidelines. The term "Strategic Communication" first appeared in the official documents, the "Quadrennial Defense Report (QDR) of the Republic of China in 2017", and later it was also appeared in the National Defense Report of 2017 and 2019. The official documents had all listed strategic communication as an important part of the ROC military’s "spiritual combat power."
Judged from the practices of “strategic communication,” we can see that the concept shares a lot of similarities with ROC military’s political warfare system and relevant practices. In that case, why do we bother introducing the new concept if something similar already exists in the system? Also, how will the introduction of the new concept transform existing political warfare system of the ROC military and possible impacts? What are the effects and restrictions of the concept? What can we do to improve relevant measures? These are key questions to be discussed in this paper, which would bring significant values to the research of the concept. Therefore, major research goals are listed as follows: First, understanding the development and impacts of the concept; Second, exploring underlying theories and narratives of strategic communication; Third, reviewing US practices of the concept in Gulf Wars; Forth, comparing the differences between the concept and ROC military’s political warfare system; Fifth, recommending relevant measures of strategic communication to the ROC government.
This research discovered the following two facts. First, the strategic communication mechanism of US military and the mechanism of ROC military’s political warfare system share the same concept in nature. Second, the two also share the same approaches while performing missions. Third, the two face challenges in choosing the right names for their concepts.
Last but not least, the paper proposes the following recommendations for the ROC government. First, a cross-department task force should be established as a platform to facilitate communications between the ministry and different governmental departments. Second, the US or mainland China are innovating new operational tactics in response to the change of operations patterns. In recent years, US organizations, mostly think tanks, have conducted numerous studies on the concepts of strategic communication. Meanwhile, China has also stepped up its efforts to conduct broad research on the same concept with abundant success. In 2018, RAND Corporation, a known US think bank, also released a report pointing out the fact that the ability to conduct political warfare is the key to effective strategic communication. It can be seen that the front of the political warfare, media communications, public publicity capabilities and the cultivation of professionals are inevitable. After the introduction of the concept of strategic communication, the political warfare system of the ROC military is facing pressure of transformation and renovation. However, relevant impacts and effects will be discussed in a separate paper, rather than this one. It is also a recommended research topic for future researchers.

並列關鍵字

strategic communication ； political warfare ； cognitive warfare ； asymmetric warfare

參考文獻

Nye Joseph, The Paradox of American Power, New York: Oxford, 2002.

壹、中文書目

Alexander Wendt 著。秦亞青譯。《國際政治的社會理論》(Social Theory of International Politics)。上海：上海人民出版社。2000年。

Alicia C. Shepard著。劉德銓譯。《縮短鴻溝-軍媒關係與伊拉克戰爭》(Narrowing the Gap: Military, Media and the Iraq War) 。台北:國防部總政治作戰局發言人室。民國94年12月。

Angeles Codevilla 著。Carnes Lord & Frank R. Barnett 編。黃德春譯。《政治作戰與心理戰》（Political Warfare and Psychological Operations, National Defense University & National Strategy Information Center）。台北：國防部史政編譯局。1993年。