Spread the love

By Santosh Kumar Dhakal, Major General (Retd.) Nepal Army

Introduction

In 2016–17, I was nominated to attend the War Course at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. My arrival coincided with one of the most polarized presidential election cycles in modern U.S. history. While the War College environment is designed to cultivate strategic thinking, critical reasoning, and analytical discipline, the political atmosphere beyond the academic setting provided a parallel and equally instructive case study. It showed how narrative competition, perception management, and information dynamics function within a democratic society.

This article reflects on how direct exposure to the 2016 U.S. election, combined with structured strategic education, enhanced my understanding of political strategy, media influence, and the cognitive aspects of modern competition. Instead of viewing the election as solely a domestic political event, I saw it as a real-time example of strategic interaction within the information landscape.

Carlisle and a Nation in Political Flux

I arrived in Carlisle in April 2016 to attend the Academic Preparation Course. The nearby countryside and farmland were visibly dotted with Trump–Pence campaign signs, reflecting strong grassroots political involvement. At that time, my understanding of U.S. domestic politics was limited. However, being close to the campaign as it progressed gradually increased my interest in voter behavior, public conversations, and media coverage.

This experiential observation developed alongside formal military education. The War College emphasizes strategic thinking not only in warfare but also in leadership, statecraft, and decision-making under uncertainty. The combination of academic study and real-world political observation demonstrated how political, social, and cognitive factors influence outcomes. It also reinforced that strategy is not limited to the battlefield but functions continuously across societal institutions.

Analyzing the election using this framework helps the audience recognize strategic thinking as vital, building confidence in their ability to view political contests as continuous, intentional interactions.

During this period, I started reading Armageddon: How Trump Can Defeat Hillary by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, published in 2016. As a slow and deliberate reader, I moved carefully through the book, taking time to compare its strategic recommendations with actual developments in the campaign.

Morris and McGann portray the election as a pivotal moment for the United States. Their analysis highlights resistance to ideological conformity, corruption, and executive overreach, as well as reform of welfare systems that impact economic and social structures. They identify border security, national sovereignty, counterterrorism, and the protection of constitutional rights—especially the Second Amendment—as key themes. Importantly, they contend that traditional Republican campaign strategies would fall short against Hillary Clinton, and an unconventional, confrontational approach was necessary to challenge established political norms.

Their proposed strategy focused on prioritizing terrorism and healthcare as initial issues, highlighting jobs, immigration, and accountability in the financial sector, and challenging class-based narratives by directly engaging women, minorities, and younger voters. As the campaign developed, I noticed a strong alignment between these strategic plans and Donald Trump’s actual campaign actions. This consistency indicated a disciplined, if unconventional, strategic approach rather than improvisation.

Based on this alignment and the noticeable gap between media narratives and voter sentiment, I determined well before Election Day that Trump had a clear strategic edge.

Strategic Education and Seminar Discourse

By June 2016, the preparatory phase had concluded, and we officially moved into the War College academic year, including starting classes in Root Hall, named after Elihu Root, whose reforms were essential to the school’s foundation. In August, I was assigned to Seminar 16, one of twenty-five seminars designed to encourage intense debate, innovative thinking, and analytical reasoning.

During the Theory of War and Strategy phase, discussions often went beyond military history to include current geopolitical and political issues. Even though English was not my first language, I made a conscious effort to prepare well and participate actively. This discipline became especially important when the conversations shifted to the U.S. election and the changing information landscape.

Predicting the Outcome and Strategic Debate

During a seminar discussion about the upcoming election, instructors and classmates asked for my opinion. The request was partly driven by curiosity about whether an international officer, especially someone from Nepal, could provide meaningful insights into U.S. domestic politics. There was a subtle mix of skepticism and genuine interest, along with curiosity about Nepal itself, including its unique national flag.

Drawing on the Morris and McGann framework, observed campaign behavior, and media dynamics, I confidently stated that Donald Trump would win the election. The response was one of visible astonishment. When asked to justify this assessment, I cited the strategic coherence of Trump’s campaign, the divergence between media framing and voter perceptions, and the functional role of controversy in agenda setting and attention capture.

This exchange naturally sparked a broader discussion about media independence and influence.

When asked directly about my view of the media, I stated that no press institution is entirely independent, emphasizing its crucial role in shaping perceptions and making the audience realize the importance of media influence in democratic processes.

When asked directly about my view of the media, I said that no press institution is completely independent. This statement sparked lively debate among seminar participants, reflecting different cultural and national views on press freedom. Some argued that a free press is the foundation of democracy, while others recognized the structural, economic, and institutional limits that influence editorial decisions.

My perspective was shaped by early exposure to Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman’s *Manufacturing Consent*, which explores how mass media function within systems of ownership, advertising, sourcing, disciplinary pressure, and prevailing ideological narratives. This view was further strengthened during my academic year at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., where I studied at the College of International Security Affairs through the International Counterterrorism Fellowship Program. Discussions on how conceptual framing, narrative construction, and grievance exploitation operate across physical, cognitive, and informational domains were always used to be at the forefront.   Modern conflict increasingly unfolds in the cognitive space. Perception, belief, and narrative coherence often matter as much as physical force. Competition occurs in the mental realm, where perception and narrative coherence are as powerful as physical force, prompting the audience to stay alert about the information they take in.

These lessons proved directly relevant when analyzing the 2016 U.S. election, where media framing and counter-framing competed continuously for public attention and legitimacy.

Historical Perspective and Media Critique

A very influential reference during this discussion was nineteenth-century journalist John Swinton. Born in Scotland in 1830, Swinton emigrated first to Canada and later to the United States. Originally trained in medicine, he later switched to journalism and became head of the editorial staff at The New York Times in 1860.

Swinton supported President Abraham Lincoln and wrote extensively about the American Civil War. After leaving The New York Times, he became an orator and advocate for the poor and working classes. In 1874, he ran for Mayor of New York City under the banner of the Industrial Political Party, later admitting that his candidacy was primarily a form of propaganda rather than a genuine effort to win the election.

In 1880, Swinton was invited to address a gathering of journalists in New York City on the subject of press freedom. His remarks challenged common beliefs about media independence and remain some of the most frequently cited critiques of the profession. The following quote is presented exactly as spoken for its historical and analytical significance. It illustrates the rhetorical style and critical perspective of that era rather than the author’s personal opinions.

“There is no such thing, at this stage of the world’s history in America, as an independent press. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dare write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be foolish enough to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”

Conclusion

From a strategic point of view, the 2016 U.S. election highlights how political competition increasingly occurs within the realms of information and cognition. Narrative consistency, perception management, and strategic disruption were key factors alongside traditional political strategies. Experiencing this process while participating in professional military education offered a rare opportunity to connect theory, history, and current practices.

Rather than viewing elections as isolated democratic rituals, this experience highlighted the importance of understanding them as strategic battles shaped by institutional structures, media landscapes, and human cognition. These lessons extend beyond the United States and remain relevant to any society navigating the complex relationship between democracy, information, and power.