PDA

View Full Version : Blog Policy, Strategic Communication, Civil-Military Relations & Legalities



BobKing
03-05-2009, 05:03 PM
The Combined Arms Center (CAC) blogs (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/) are heating up with a couple discussions on the validity and legality of the current Strategic Communication policies and emphasis on blogging.

Specifically, in “Reopening the CGSC Strategic Communications Debate: Framed by the "Courtney Massingale" and "Sam Damon" Personas (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/dlro/archive/2009/02/10/strategic-communications-strutting-rooster-or-quiet-professional.aspx)” Chris Paparone (DLRO Associate Professor, Fort Lee) writes:


“While I would agree that telling the “Army story” is important in terms of public relations and recruitment, I am concerned that this top-down “forcing” of communicating to the "outside" may backfire, producing the opposite effect that well-intended senior leaders meant.”

Also, in “Blog Policy Flawed? (http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/cgsc_student_blog/archive/2009/02/27/blog-policy-flawed.aspx)” a Fort Lee ILE student writes:


“In addition to possibly violating DoD and Army guidance on public release of official information, mandating that private individuals make public blog postings also threatens ILE students’ privacy interests.”

These discussions include a response from BG Cardon (Deputy Commandant, U.S. Army Command and General Staff College):


“Many OSD and Army policies have not yet caught up with these changes, but the intent of these same senior leaders is clear [….] Gone are the days of centralized communication – both the environment and recent experience has taught us that waiting for high level centralized approval undermines the potency of the information and often delays critical information engagements beyond the point of any utility.”

Also, LTC Shawn Stroud (Director of Strategic Communication, CAC) weighed in with:


“Perhaps we should stop considering this as a requirement and instead embrace it as our duty as members of this time honored profession... a duty to continue to share the stories of our Soldiers and their families. Once we see it in that light, the rationale and reasoning behind the program becomes obvious.”

Thus far a significant majority of the comments are from within the Army community. The blogs are publicly accessible and open to a wider audience if anyone wants to join the discussion.

marct
03-05-2009, 10:37 PM
It's a very interesting discussion, especially in light of some of the other recent discussions outside the military that have taken place on milbloging (e.g. here (http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/the-deafening-silence-of-the-milbloggers-inconvenient-truths/)).

jmm99
03-06-2009, 03:58 AM
In a post by LTC Shawn Stroud in the "Reopening" link of the OP, LTC Stroud notes that (bold emphasis is mine):


The following is a quote from the General Regulations for the Army, 1847

“It should be the study of officers to cultivate intimate relations with society, and to attach the community to the interests of the Army, by mingling with circumspection and prudence in those social channels wherein the sympathies of individuals naturally flow. The objects of military service are of national concern, and it is but rational that there should be an intimacy between the nation and the agents to whom its eternal defense is entrusted. The affections of the nation contribute the only certain and permanent basis upon which the military establishment can build its reputation.”

From this civilian's perceptions, this little gem makes sense. If my history is correct, the Army of 1847 was a small professional corps - although the advice may well have been informed by the experience of the Mexican War.

The perceptions from active and former military here at SWC may be quite different from mine - "mingling" and "intimacy" being only two interesting concepts.

Ken White
03-06-2009, 04:37 AM
Fred Weyand was not the best Chief of Staff the Army ever had but no one gets that job without being pretty sharp. His counterpoint to LTC Stroud and based on the reality that the Army faced during his term:
"Well, anti-militarism is a train that makes us what we are. We ought to be proud of it. We ought to understand it, instead of being agitated by it. We're not going to be loved; at least we can be respected."Been my observation that the affections of the great American public are somewhat fickle. Affections come and go -- respect lasts.

jmm99
03-06-2009, 05:49 AM
although it can be - as in some of the comments in the link cited by Marc T.

Militarism (in the sense of using of the military as the primary solution to international issues) seems less the province of soldiers and more the province of ambitious politicians who do not have to fight the resultant wars - my perception of events during my life.

Militarism (in its older sense of being dominated by military concepts) is the natural result of soldiers being military professionals - so, legalism tends to be the natural state of lawyers.

I don't know what the words "affections" meant in 1847. I confess I thought (when I pasted the quote) that "respect" would have been a better word in current usage.

The point of the quote was that the military has to associate with the civilian population so that civilians will develop a positive disposition (an older meaning of "affection" from my OED) toward the military.

What GEN Weyand thought about that, I dunno - what you think about that ?

------------------------

Some polls indicate that civilians trust (hence, respect ?) the military more than other governmental organs. Because the military is something of an isolate from many civilians, they do not understand the military - and do not like to discuss military subjects - again my perception.

This discussion is related to the discussion in this thread (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=6785). Wana88 may be a bit pessimistic as to the depth of the chasm, but his post #26 on page 2 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=67768#post67768), sums the problem:


The comments have been lively here, with some diatribes thrown in for good measure (free therapy some would call it), but I fear the essence of what this honorable Colonel is trying to inform us on has been somewhat neglected in this discourse. A divided citizenry cannot successfully defend our way of life against enemies both foreign and domestic. As the comments here have duly noted, there is a chasm between those in uniform and the rest. It is this very chasm that our enemies seek to exploit through varied means.

Ken White
03-06-2009, 05:35 PM
...The point of the quote was that the military has to associate with the civilian population so that civilians will develop a positive disposition (an older meaning of "affection" from my OED) toward the military.

What GEN Weyand thought about that, I dunno - what you think about that ?Makes sense but it's been my observation that there are some civilians that will aggressively avoid association with the armed forces; fewer military types that will reverse that. On balance I've never seen the acknowledged but varying over time divide as the big issue that some see.

As for Wana88's comment you quote:
"As the comments here have duly noted, there is a chasm between those in uniform and the rest. It is this very chasm that our enemies seek to exploit through varied means."I certainly see a minor rift -- but no chasm. While some enemies have in the past attempted to exploit it with varying degrees of success and others no doubt will in future, I do not see that as an unmanageable problem. :cool:

jmm99
03-06-2009, 06:22 PM
from Ken
... it's been my observation that there are some civilians that will aggressively avoid association with the armed forces ....

Viewed from the standpoint of domestic political action (knowing that is not your favorite arena), standard campaign practice is to breakdown the demographics into three basic catagories: (1) never to be converted; (2) neutrals; and (3) already converted.

It does not pay to waste much time on the first catagory - other than repelling their assaults. The third catagory has to be worked - in the sense of making sure they get out their vote. The second catagory also has to be worked - if not to the point of conversion, at least to the point of understanding and acceptance of your candidates and positions.

Not too surprisingly, the same concept seems to be modern COIN doctrine (where political action is regarded as more important than military action in many situations).

Been thinking about GEN Weyand's statement in the context of 20th century militarists during my lifetime (1942-). As compared to the "great ones" (Hitler, Japanese militarists of the 30s, Stalin, Mao, Ho), American leadership and its people have tended to be relatively non-militaristic, rather than anti-militaristic. My perception, of course.

Steve Blair
03-06-2009, 06:38 PM
For the most part, the American populace could really be considered militarist-neutral. We've been through periods of exaggerated suspicion, exaggerated hero-worship, and the more common phase of benign (or malign, depending on the period) neglect. I would say we're currently in a hero worship phase, which tends to create all sorts of perception problems. This is, of course relatively independent of political leadership, which will exploit or ignore the military and civil-military relations depending on their particular agenda.

By the way, the norm for American civil/military relations has been a small force operating on the edges of American awareness (either remote Frontier postings or overseas stations like we see today). It's the hero worship phase that creates things like military discounts and the high poll ratings for respecting service members (IMO, anyhow). The rift is no larger than it's ever been...and may even be smaller than it has been at some points in our history. But as mentioned in the thread JMM links to, it's a two-way street.

Ken White
03-06-2009, 06:43 PM
...The second catagory also has to be worked - if not to the point of conversion, at least to the point of understanding and acceptance of your candidates and positions.I think one has to be very careful with exactly what constitutes that 'working.' Americans can spot BS from a mile away.
...American leadership and its people have tended to be relatively non-militaristic, rather than anti-militaristic. My perception, of course.Mine also -- which is why I continue to not see it as a concern. Were that to change, then it would be a concern.

Still seems to me that the armed forces' professional capability and performance are the keys to (a) keeping the non or anti military levels among the populace at an sensibly low level; (b) keeping the anti civilian inclinations of the military at the same low level and (c) maintaining a realistic and pragmatic relationship with the media who will always be skeptical and never be terribly friendly -- much less fans.

jmm99
03-06-2009, 07:42 PM
I returned just now to the link (http://openanthropology.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/the-deafening-silence-of-the-milbloggers-inconvenient-truths/) cited by Marc T - to see where it ended up - not quite total degeneration. But, it has a great little video, "Cowboys herding cats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8)".

It seemed to have materiality to this forum (SWC) - generally all heading toward Dodge, but on many different bearings and departures.

marct
03-06-2009, 07:47 PM
It seemed to have materiality to this forum (SWC) - generally all heading toward Dodge, but on many different bearings and departures.

I had been looking for that video for several years, and was really glad to finally get a link to it. Wonderful metaphor for so much in life :wry:.