PDA

View Full Version : Changing the Organizational Culture


SWJED
01-30-2008, 12:00 AM
Changing the Organizational Culture (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/01/changing-the-organizational-cu-1/) by Frontier 6 at SWJ Blog.

The technology of the Twenty-first Century – the “new media” – has made it possible for virtually anyone to have immediate access to an audience of millions around the world and to be somewhat anonymous. This technology has enabled and empowered the rise of a new enemy. This enemy is not constrained by the borders of a nation or the International Laws of War. The new media allows them to decentralize their command and control and disperse their elements around the globe. They stay loosely connected by an ideology, send cryptic messages across websites and via e-mail and recruit new members using the same new media technologies.

Responding to this challenge requires changes in our approach to warfare. The one thing we can change now does not require resources – just a change in attitudes and the organizational culture in our Army. Recent experiences in Iraq illustrate how important it is to address cultural change and also how very difficult it is to change culture: After MNF-I broke through the bureaucratic red-tape and was able to start posting on YouTube, MNF-I videos from Iraq were among the top ten videos viewed on YouTube for weeks after their posting. These videos included gun tape videos showing the awesome power the US military can bring to bear. Using YouTube – part of the new media – proved to be an extremely effective tool in countering an adaptive enemy. Here are some areas that our Army will need to address if we are going to change our culture with respect to this critical area...

Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/commander.asp), Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/index.asp) at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned.

Tom Odom
01-30-2008, 02:08 PM
Changing the Organizational Culture (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/01/changing-the-organizational-cu-1/) by Frontier 6 at SWJ Blog.



Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/commander.asp), Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center (http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/index.asp) at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned.

Hmmm next time I take flak on SWJ from certain quarters, this will certainly come in handy.

My comment:

Great message for all in the Long War. We have been pushing the idea that the media is much like terrain; it is part of the battlefield and you have to adapt to it. No one I know likes humping a ruck through mountains. But most of us don't waste our time disliking the mountains. Instead we change loads or find another way to go. The same line of reasoning applies to the media. We need to quit wasting time complaining about what will not change and adapt ourselves to better use what is very much part of the battlefield. That adaptation can work to your advantage; not adapting will definitely work against you.

bismark17
01-30-2008, 02:36 PM
I have to agree with all of that. These ideas should also be implemented at our Police Academies. It would make a difference fairly quickly.

marct
01-30-2008, 04:35 PM
Hmmm next time I take flak on SWJ from certain quarters, this will certainly come in handy.

For some reason, I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu. I'm tempted to send him a copy of that draft paper, Tom....

Marc

SWJED
01-31-2008, 12:30 AM
Let Soldiers Blog, Post YouTube Videos, General Says (http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=39166&dcn=todaysnews) - Greg Grant, Government Executive

To compete in the global information war played out on Web sites and e-mail, soldiers in Iraq should upload videos of their experiences in the combat zone to YouTube and post their personal stories online, a top Army general said recently...

Cavguy
01-31-2008, 02:12 AM
I truly applaud where LTG Caldwell is going with this. Unfortunately he presents me a quandry - following his guidance as written above violates the DoD written directive linked in the article above.

An example:

PERSONAL BLOGS (I.E., THOSE NOT HAVING DOD SPONSORSHIP AND PURPOSE) MAY NOT BE CREATED/MAINTAINED DURING NORMAL DUTY HOURS AND MAY NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION ON MILITARY ACTIVITIES THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. SUCH INFORMATION INCLUDES COMMENTS ON DAILY MILITARY ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS, UNIT MORALE, RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, STATUS OF EQUIPMENT, AND OTHER INFORMATION THAT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO ADVERSARIES.



I sent mass updates to friends and family in OIF 1, sharing the good and bad. In OIF 05-07, I didn't, because of the crackdown in the Army which pretty much put the fear of God in most people about saying something that violated someone's definition of OPSEC.

Interestingly, the best coverage of the war was when we were the most open in 2003, and the embeds had full access. When we began to "manage" the information after the fall, and restricted soldiers voices, support declined. While causation can be argued, restricting "harmful" soldier speech also restricted "good news" from coming out due to fear of ruining a career. The Army even set up a unit to patrol soldiers' posting on the internet for violations. Talk about cultures of fear.

He's right, one reprisal from higher from saying the wrong thing will cease any initative in the future.

It starts with DoD changing it's guidance, so I can't be charged under UCMJ for disobeying an order and doing what the general suggests.

marct
01-31-2008, 02:25 AM
Agree on that CG, but notice that the directive states "during normal duty hours". If I was playing guardhouse lawyer, I would argue that let's me do it outside of that time period.

Cavguy
01-31-2008, 02:27 AM
Agree on that CG, but notice that the directive states "during normal duty hours". If I was playing guardhouse lawyer, I would argue that let's me do it outside of that time period.

That part only applies to the updating, but the content rules apply full time.

But yeah, there are loopholes for the s*ithouse lawyers. I wouldn't rely on them, the UCMJ is not weighed for the accused.

marct
01-31-2008, 02:30 AM
That part only applies to the updating, but the content rules apply full time.

But yeah, there are loopholes for the s*ithouse lawyers. I wouldn't rely on them, the UCMJ is not weighed for the accused.

Yeah <sigh>. Well, it would be interesting to see exactly how many actual directives would have to be changed in order to get a more open situation. It also strikes me that many of the words are highly subjective as "might lead to", etc.

Cavguy
01-31-2008, 02:44 AM
Yeah <sigh>. Well, it would be interesting to see exactly how many actual directives would have to be changed in order to get a more open situation. It also strikes me that many of the words are highly subjective as "might lead to", etc.

I believe there's an Army regulation on the subject published after the DoD guidance, but I'm too lazy to find it right now.

Ron Humphrey
01-31-2008, 02:50 AM
I truly applaud where LTG Caldwell is going with this. Unfortunately he presents me a quandry - following his guidance as written above violates the DoD written directive linked in the article above.



Ken just needs to call up some of his old time buddies and SWJ gets recognized as having Purpose for DOD. Problem solved :rolleyes:

Ken White
01-31-2008, 03:12 AM
I think the curtailment of blogging was really dumb -- and while I agree with 'don't do it on duty,' my bet is the OPSEC rationale is cover for 'don't put anything in there that may embarrass DoD or the services.'

(Yes, I understand there are real OPSEC concerns -- I also understand they are vastly overstated)

Which, to my mind is a shame because neither DoD or the armed forces will change much unless they're embarrassed into doing so...

I shall continue to do my part. :D

Rob Thornton
01-31-2008, 03:44 AM
I think a big part of leadership has always been lead by example. In this case having a GO post a blog is in itself something military members can point to. It also gets to engagement - we've known for awhile that blogs were helping leadership get some ground floor assessment on a number of issues, but I think many of them were a bit hesitant to engage openly because they did not want to create an artificial filter by doing so. However by doing so, they can show what is on their mind and get some great feedback from places they might not otherwise have access to - by adding their name - it provides the context around which the content might be framed.

We've proven here on SWJ that we can engage in a reasonably articulate manner, and respect each other in doing so to further some important discussions - even where we agree to disagree, I'd remarked on one of the private forums I was glad to see a couple of others (well known leaders) openly post recently, their comments and thoughts add a great deal to the discourse.

I hope we see more senior leaders engage openly on both this forum and others - be it an interactive one, or a one time post that others can weigh in on. Both permit broader public input and feedback then say a T.V. interview or remarks captured from a speech. There is a sense of conversation in a blog or a threaded discussion - a sense of engagement. The discourse creates additional thoughts that would not come to light otherwise - which is kind of the point I think we need to capture in regards to the media. Without our participation, we become background to a reporter's interpretation - and subject to a third person narrative. I think we stand a much better chance of presenting things correctly if we're either telling our story from the first person - me to you, or inter-acting in a two way (or group) discussion.

So - who else would we like to see on SWJ? Well - anyone with an interest or stake in small wars.

Best, Rob

Old Eagle
01-31-2008, 03:59 AM
First we need to get DOIM to stop blocking Youtube.

The G6 Nazis in Doha were absolute control freaks. I could access CNN, but when I clicked CNN business news (which also impacts on the way the world works) I got the screen of death saying that Doha had determined I didn't need that info.

As long as I got Al Jezzera I figured I had access to all the fair and balanced reporting I needed.

Ron Humphrey
01-31-2008, 04:05 AM
First we need to get DOIM to stop blocking Youtube.

The G6 Nazis in Doha were absolute control freaks. I could access CNN, but when I clicked CNN business news (which also impacts on the way the world works) I got the screen of death saying that Doha had determined I didn't need that info.

As long as I got Al Jezzera I figured I had access to all the fair and balanced reporting I needed.

I remember someone getting apoplexic when I mentioned wanting to watch streaming training videos from AKO

jonSlack
01-31-2008, 11:22 AM
First we need to get DOIM to stop blocking Youtube.

The G6 Nazis in Doha were absolute control freaks. I could access CNN, but when I clicked CNN business news (which also impacts on the way the world works) I got the screen of death saying that Doha had determined I didn't need that info.

As long as I got Al Jezzera I figured I had access to all the fair and balanced reporting I needed.

The Defense Department is considering a policy that would banish all traffic not proven to be purely official DOD business from its networks, said Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, last week at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement’s Network Centric Warfare 2008 conference in Washington.

...

Unofficial early estimates, however, are that 70 percent of the traffic on DOD networks today is unofficial and would be banned, said sources close to the department.

Federal Computer Week - DOD considers prohibiting personal use of networks (http://www.fcw.com/online/news/151440-1.html)

Rob Thornton
01-31-2008, 11:46 AM
The Defense Department is considering a policy that would banish all traffic not proven to be purely official DOD business from its networks, said Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, last week at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement’s Network Centric Warfare 2008 conference in Washington.
..
Unofficial early estimates, however, are that 70 percent of the traffic on DOD networks today is unofficial and would be banned, said sources close to the department.

I can't help but have that image of the insular cocoon show up in my head -

Are we so worried about our networks being compromised that we are willing to give up significant capability to inter-act with the rest of the world in the environment we're going to operate in? Are we going to limit our research and collection to officially approved sources? Are we going to quietly talk amongst ourselves behind the curtain - where no one can hear us disagree or tell us that anything we don't want to hear? How about the opportunity to draw on a broader segment of knowledge then available inside a room (however large we claim the room to be)? Are we going to create an insular culture that is afraid of engagement?

I know the pressure to protect our information (particularly our soldier's personal information) must be immense, but the idea of shutting the door and barring it is one I hope gets cut off at the ankles. The sad thing about it is you could show up for work one day, and bam! - you get the "cannot connect" or "unauthorized" diagnosis, with nothing else. My advice - there are some risks worth taking - this in no time (if there ever was one) to wrap ourselves in layers to avoid a risk, particularly when we have so much to gain, and so much to lose by doing so - ignoring the world will not change it, or make it go away.

We have good policies, and we have mature folks capable of making good decisions. We don't need a cyber Maginot Line.

Best, Rob

Rob Thornton
01-31-2008, 12:14 PM
Quote:
The Defense Department is considering a policy that would banish all traffic not proven to be purely official DOD business from its networks, said Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, last week at the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement’s Network Centric Warfare 2008 conference in Washington.
..
Unofficial early estimates, however, are that 70 percent of the traffic on DOD networks today is unofficial and would be banned, said sources close to the department.
I can't help but have that image of the insular cocoon show up in my head -

Are we so worried about our networks being compromised that we are willing to give up significant capability to inter-act with the rest of the world in the environment we're going to operate in? Are we going to limit our research and collection to officially approved sources? Are we going to quietly talk amongst ourselves behind the curtain - where no one can hear us disagree or tell us that anything we don't want to hear? How about the opportunity to draw on a broader segment of knowledge then available inside a room (however large we claim the room to be)? Are we going to create an insular culture that is afraid of engagement?

I know the pressure to protect our information (particularly our soldier's personal information) must be immense, but the idea of shutting the door and barring it is one I hope gets cut off at the ankles. The sad thing about it is you could show up for work one day, and bam! - you get the "cannot connect" or "unauthorized" diagnosis, with nothing else. My advice - there are some risks worth taking - this in no time (if there ever was one) to wrap ourselves in layers to avoid a risk, particularly when we have so much to gain, and so much to lose by doing so - ignoring the world will not change it, or make it go away.

We have good policies, and we have mature folks capable of making good decisions. We don't need a cyber Maginot Line.

Best, Rob

I wanted to add that this is one of those things where consequences of pursuing what appears to be the "low hanging" solution of insulating ourselves has a host of adverse consequences. One of the real indicators of the quality of our military that has emerged has been the superior discourse that has emerged on the questions and issues we face - by those who face them, and those who want to understand them. What's more is it has been able to involve non-military types - this creates involvment by the broader public and brings to light the issues surrounding the military and the use military force to achieve political objectives- its healthy for our democratic republic. I'd also add that is very healthy for our military (the republic's sword and shield) - we now have discussions which foster culture change and make us stronger and more capable of meeting our enemies. Who'd have thought we'd create conditions where the lowest soldier can interact with the most senior leaders in a tactful way, while at the same time including a broad segment of the civilian population. We've created real strength here - in ways I don't think we fully appreciate. To take that away in my opinion is the equivalent of a self inflicted gun shot wound.

Best, Rob

Old Eagle
01-31-2008, 01:14 PM
The Info Assurance team here has concluded that in order to prevent inadvertent compromise of information, we should disconnect all our computers from the web (NIPR) and work as stand-alones. Then, in the unlikely event we needed to communicate with anyone outside the office, cleared couriers would be the appropriate transmission medium LOL.:D

Team Infidel
01-31-2008, 01:31 PM
I don't thing blogging is a bad thing. I think that it is the commands responsibility to educate members of the military on what and what not to post.

There was a lot of news around the recent MAJ that died in Iraq who was noted for posting his blogs.

We can't stop blogging from happening, but we can educate.

Tom Odom
01-31-2008, 01:34 PM
The Info Assurance team here has concluded that in order to prevent inadvertent compromise of information, we should disconnect all our computers from the web (NIPR) and work as stand-alones. Then, in the unlikely event we needed to communicate with anyone outside the office, cleared couriers would be the appropriate transmission medium LOL.:D

Nooooo not couriers. They might talk to someone along the way...

Carrier pigeons are the answer!

Semaphore flags and mirrors as back up.

Maybe we could just set bonfires as in Lord of the Rings

marct
01-31-2008, 03:22 PM
Hi Rob,

Are we so worried about our networks being compromised that we are willing to give up significant capability to inter-act with the rest of the world in the environment we're going to operate in? Are we going to limit are research and collection to officially approved sources? Are we going to quietly talk amongst ourselves behind the curtain - where no one can hear us disagree or tell us that anything we don't want to hear? How about the opportunity to draw on a broader segment of knowledge then available inside a room (however large we claim the room to be)? Are we going to create an insular culture that is afraid of engagement?

Well, let's just take a bird's eye view of the new policies...

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/ostrich.jpg

Rob Thornton
01-31-2008, 09:13 PM
This is one of those things that show the complex operational environment we operate in. One aspect of the environment - the security of electronic information gets focused on to the point where its importance becomes exclusive to the rest of the operating environment. Actions taken to address that one aspect of the environment then ripple across others with disrupting, albeit unintended consequences.

This is where we get into the stove pipe thinking - and wind up constraining ourselves. Its kind of like focusing all efforts on maintaining the MSRs while allowing the enemy uncontested access to the population. Not only do we have to worry about the enemy's IO and communication capability, we enable him by our castrating actions taken against ourselves. As that really smart guy said - "we've got to do a better job of considering those things which can't be counted, but often count the most."

Best, Rob

Tom Odom
01-31-2008, 09:53 PM
Its kind of like focusing all efforts on maintaining the MSRs while allowing the enemy uncontested access to the population.

You are a smart guy, Rob. That is exactly right.

Tom

Ron Humphrey
02-01-2008, 01:08 AM
You are a smart guy, Rob. That is exactly right.

Tom

One thing I was talking to someone about a while back keeps coming to me in this regard. Information is like light in that too much or too little will often result in the same thing. Blindness.

By limiting the access points in any given information point we may accomplish some security but when you look at it how much?
Criminals or bad guys tend to look for the valuables behind locked doors because thats usually where they are kept. This means that Mr or Mrs evil person are going to have an easier time finding what they are looking for because we have done them the favor of marking it do not enter.

If there are few or no locked doors then whoever is searching for the " good stuff " will have to open each and every door in order to find what they are looking for. This in turn heightens the likelihood that they are confronted by that helpful greeter who asks, May I Help You, hence being more likely that they are identified before accomplishing their evil deed.

I realize that there are counters to this which are very important and must be considered but it just seem that the more that is in the open the greater the chance that we see what we need to and they have a harder time finding it without getting caught.

Hacksaw
02-01-2008, 03:37 PM
I have watched this thread evolve with great interest. I work at Mother Leavenworth and have had several occassions to engage/brief/listen with/to Frontier 6. His actions and words reinforce this perspective each time he meets with students, Soldiers and subordinate leaders. For the most part, the discussion on this topic moved towards the nazi DOIM thugs who think we can actually control info, a perspective that has been unanimously debunked by all. It is ironic that we build this entire framework of commo/C2 capabilities so as to enable network enabled command, and then we hobble that same system with overly restrictive precautions. That said, as important a thought in the original piece is the need to engage in the public forum/debate. We have to tell our own narrative, once upon a time we might have thought that the PAO Corps would handle this "distasteful" task, but they have evolved into little more than agents for the media. This is purely anecdotal, but in every instance I have found that COL-level PAO sees their mission as facilitating access as opposed to having (in my case) the Army story told effectively/accurately. We can be open and yet still "shape" media coverage by exposing those writers to a well-balanced collection of Soldiers. This might take persuassion, but it seems PAO as an organizational culture have removed themselves from the "fight". How sad, especially if you buy into the idea that this is long war of ideas. I hate depressing myself with reality on a Friday.:( Live well and row

Abu Suleyman
02-04-2008, 04:20 PM
Having had some experience in the blogosphere maintaining an elicit blog and working with IO in theatre (all of this in the past, BTW) I would like to share some observations that may be a little impolitic.

1) I have long said that the problem in Iraq, and other theatres, is not that there are too many journalists (as I have heard some soldiers complain), but that there are not enough. Many journalists have the ‘pigeon’ style and it is a two edged sword. If you fly in and you see no attacks and no problems you believe that everything is hunk dory, and your reporting will reflect that, if you are an honest reporter. If you are attacked even once, you are likely to believe that things are not well, and report in accordance with that perspective. There is no real perspective with short visits and a few interviews.

Having soldiers ‘blog’ circumvents that problem. Written well, and with proper perspective a web log will tell a true and representative story. It will take into account most if not all of the complex factors involved in war. That will paint a more accurate picture of what is going on.

2) As unpopular as it may be to admit this but the majority of the Iraq War, and many preceding wars, is being fought not on the battle field but in the living rooms across America. Essentially, America’s military might is incontestable for now, and the only hope of winning is by fighting an IO campaign within our own borders. By releasing and encouraging our soldiers to web log we are encouraging them to wage an IO campaign back home.

3) There are several problems with a soldier-run IO campaign, not the least of which is literacy. As much as we may not like it, a significant portion of soldiers are functionally illiterate. I remember reading sworn statements by officers and enlisted soldiers that seemed to be written by a mentally handicapped child. In one instance the S-3 SGM who was investigating an incident called me into his office so that we could try and figure out what one particular sworn statement meant, and we both broke down laughing. In retrospect there was nothing funny about the ignorance that was manifest on the page, especially since the soldiers in question were both good men, but it was a representation of a major issue that exists in the military.

4) The blogosphere is the wild, wild west. People will listen to who they want to and take only the examples of what they already believe seriously. That isn’t to say that it doesn’t help to have more ideas out there, but people will treat information like a buffet, and they will give no credence to what they don’t agree with. Moreover, once you say something, it is out there for anyone to do whatever they want to it. I had several things that I said in good faith taken an construed into horrific mean spirited things. I have since tried to be much more guarded in what I say, but it may take soldiers a while to learn that lesson.

5) Along those same lines, OPSEC is a nightmare in our military. Even with all of the regulations, I know that you can track movements of troops with nothing more than a MySpace account and some time. We already leak like a sieve, and plenty of blogging wouldn’t help that. A concerted OSINT effort by the enemy, or even a dupe who merely wants to put up a website tracking the strategies of American soldiers, would be a huge intelligence coup against us.

6) Finally, the enemies blogosphere efforts work largely because they are all motivated by the same cause and are naturally on the same page. Just like you don’t have to monitor the Pro-World of Warcraft sites, (or any other site devoted to a cause, idea, or movement) they too know that the Jihadis will always be portrayed as martyrs on the jihadist websites, because that is how the jihadis all see themselves. However, not every soldier sees himself as a soldier ‘in a righteous cause.’ Some see themselves as victims of an unjust system. Others feel they are just cogs. Some think they were tricked. Some think they are wasting their time. Displeasure with the chain of command is nearly universal at some point. There are probably a thousand different viewpoints out there. All of this will inform the posts that each soldier makes, and will not help the cause one bit.

I am not saying that we should not allow soldiers to blog. I believe it is an infringement upon their rights to prevent that. However, I do believe that we need a concerted effort to improve their preparedness in that area. Much like we give safety briefs on everything under the sun, blogging can be just as dangerous to the character.

This has been a disjointed post, but that is consistent with the character of the web. The IO campaign in our own borders and with our own soldiers is a vital part of the long war. We need to employ every tool we have, but merely turning soldiers loose and telling them to have at it will be as successful as dropping soldiers off on the beaches of France and telling them to make their way to Germany. We need to have a plan, and everyone needs to get training.

wm
02-04-2008, 06:57 PM
Most people would agree that the media’s mission is to present “the news.” That is an interesting phrase, “the news,” one which bears further scrutiny. The news is not the status quo; it is not the way things normally are. If it were just that, then it would be the oxymoronic “old news.” The news is out of the ordinary; it is what is different. We should always expect to be surprised by what is in the news. If we are not, then what the media report really is not news. In days past, the outlets through which information flowed tended to be much more limited than at present. This meant that the media had a much easier time of finding things to report as “the news” since most of their consumers did not have many other ways (short of listening to the town gossip, eavesdropping on the party line telephone, or receiving a letter from that gadabout Aunt Hildegard in Oshkosh) to learn about significant variations in the world around them.

Nowadays, an impact of the technology explosion is to present people with a host of alternatives to find out what has changed around them. As a result, the media finds it harder and harder to find “new news,” in terms of things that are truly different or not generally known. As a result, much of what the main stream, traditional media reports these days really is not news. It is instead the same old thing, just presented from a new or different perspective. When one is able to provide the same information with a different spin to it, then one is able to pass it off as news.

What is the cash value of all of this? If one wants “fair” media coverage, then one would be well served by feeding “new” news to the media so that media staff need not find inventive ways to make “old news” look new. Sources of information not readily available to most people have the ability to feed the media’s need to provide something new and different to the public. If they fail to do so, they should not be too surprised when the media (whether that be the Wall Street Journal , Time, Tim Russert or some no-name blogger) publicizes something else that may embarrass their organizations or catch them off guard. After all, it is the "news," isn't it? ;)

Germ
03-22-2008, 07:16 PM
Where does one go for a good discussion on blogging, millenials, and military culture?
Thanks!