Strategic communication is developing into an identified function of a successful information-age military operation. However, it is a concept which is still often misunderstood in the military. Leaders from strategic to tactical level must operate in an information environment to deliver the same message to the intended audiences. To address this challenge through unified action, a whole-of-government approach and concept known as strategic communication has emerged. Strategic communication is a concept which unites efforts of governmental organisations to influence intended key audiences in support of national interests. The concept tries to answer challenges posed by changes in the information environment; the increased flow of information; the increased number of networks and reach of media; the increased value assigned to information, and the greater impact of e-media. Governments have influenced key audiences in support of national interests throughout history. This influencing has had different names like propaganda, psychological warfare or operations and perception management. The question is, do we keep inventing the same things again and again or is there really a major difference? Have previous terms, such as perception management, gained negative status and need to be replaced as a result? Do we need a new term for describing how we affect the minds of others? According to Clausewitz, war is an act of policy. A strategic communication concept tries to get tactical level operators to work towards strategic level ends. Previously all different levels; strategic, operational and tactical, has had their own objectives which were not necessarily related. Tactical level actions have even worked against political objectives. So, have we got back to Clausewitz's theory of warfare as a continuation of politics? This theoretical paper clarifies the strategic communication concept and its relation to other similar terms and connection to the international politics.