A dose of realism is in order here. As in any business-communications dynamic, there are problems—then there are pr problems. An engaged public diplomacy won't make America's challenges in the Islamic world disappear any more than an effective "rapid response" system will make a company's crisis go away. But without that rapid response, a company's crisis is sure to escalate. And without an engaged public diplomacy, the prospects of winning the war against terror become considerably more difficult.

The U.S. needs to return to traditional public diplomacy campaigns that seek to influence attitudes individual-by-individual, ultimately changing views and behaviors. Our global grassroots diplomacy needs campaigns that recognize that every audience is unique. For each, we need to find the right channel, the right vehicle, and the right messenger. Our campaigns must employ powerful third-party champions whose views will be respected in cities and villages throughout the Middle East and Central Asia.

No public diplomacy campaign, regardless of its effectiveness, will turn the tide of global public opinion quickly. Nonetheless, we need a commitment from policymakers that public diplomacy is an absolute priority.

Money is important, but leadership is more so. Let's fill the undersecretary position now. And let's fill it with someone who reaches out to the best and brightest minds in the communications business—professionals expert in tapping the full arsenal of modern communications tools.

To win the war on terror, we've got to win the battle for public diplomacy. That means both hands actively engaged.