Liveblogging from Vegas

Blog World and New Media Expo


Milblogging Panel 1: What is a Milblog?
Steve Schippert from ThreatsWatch.org
Bill Roggio from The Long War Journal
Uncle Jimbo from Blackfive
Eric Egland, running for Congress in California

Milblogging Panel 2: To Blog or Not to Blog: Milbloggers, the DoD, and the Media
Moderator: Ward Carroll from Military.com
Matt Burden from Blackfive
Michael Totten from Middle East Journal
Jack Holt, the DoD blogger outreach coordinator
Claude Chafin, from the White House

Milblogging was born out of the failure of the media and many PAOs.

Are you targeting any foreign audiences or is it just for US consumption?

Jack: Well, I am not really targeting anyone. I am just going with the people who agreed to be on the list. This is not traditional public affairs, which is "here is the message we're putting out." This is a conversation, putting subject matter experts together to make the info accessible to anyone. You know the telephone game? The first thing you learn is you are never in control of your message. But if every other person clarified their message, you wouldn't have that problem. The enemy has had an impact on the media, but those guys can't stay engaged in the dialogue. They have one-way messaging. Osama bin Ladin doesn't hold roundtables. Once this info goes out, it's public domain, worldwide.

On the internet, people who aren't subject to Smith-Mundt CAN reach the domestic target audience.

The internet has nothing to do with Smith-Mundt... and DoD has nothing to do with Smith-Mundt either.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Smith-Mundt kinda sorta stone age :confused:
Does this Act actually still (literally) function in CONUS ?

Regards, Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MountainRunner

The internet has nothing to do with Smith-Mundt... and DoD has nothing to do with Smith-Mundt either.

---

Not stone-age, misunderstood and wrongly extended.

The Smith-Mundt Act has been distorted over the years to become something it was never intended to be. Because of this, as SM points out, Smith-Mundt needs to be drastically revised, or better, yet, ditched.

Forgotten is the purpose and focus of the Act. The Act focused on raising the quality of American propaganda that was so dysfunctional as to actually aid the enemy (sound familiar?). Discussions about broadcasting domestic were focused on Free Speech and guaranteeing the government wouldn't compete with rich domestic broadcasters. Contemporary debates as well as books and magazine articles in the decades following didn't consider the Act in the way we see it exclusively today.

The Act's sponsors were a conservative republican from South Dakota who, before Pearl Harbor, was an ardent isolationist (Karl Mundt, who later went onto sit on HUAC and worked with Nixon on preventing commies from getting jobs) and Senator H. Alexander Smith (R-NJ). They were responded not just to the propaganda efforts of the enemy that was all around in the psychological struggle, but responding to what was then a major revolution in communications were borders were increasingly permeated by outside thought and news (sound familiar?).

During the massive restructuring of the United States to counter the emerging ideological and physical threat coming from all angles (remember the National Security Act of 1947 was passed during the two years of debate on Smith-Mundt), Smith-Mundt was to protect democracy, not from itself but from the outside. Protection inside was mainly for the broadcasters, which Benton vigorously and successfully courted the broadcasters and continued to do so afterward its passage in a period of increasingly rapid (relatively) news cycles and accessibility.

In part, Smith-Mundt is a response to the Committee for Public Information thirty-five years earlier that was seen as more as a propaganda campaign for Wilson than a propaganda campaign for the war (check out posters of the time that equate Wilson with Lincoln and Washington... also check out CPI's Four-Minute men who did a helluva a job putting out pro-Wilson messages across the country in the four minutes it took to change a movie reel).

A quote from HR 3342, which became PL 402, or the Smith-Mundt Act:

Quote:

---

Today…peace is endangered by the weapons of false propaganda and misinformation and the inability on the part of the United States to deal adequately with those weapons. Truth can be a powerful weapon on behalf of peace. It is the firm belief of the Committee that HR 3342, with all the safeguards included in the bill, will constitute an important step in the right direction toward the adequate dissemination of the truth about America, our ideals, and our people.

---

The point being, S-M was less about protecting tender American ears and more about getting the message out to counter what was seen as highly effective Communist propaganda and to fix what was seen (not without substantial merit) crappy U.S. propaganda (when it existed).

One of the more interesting aspects of Smith-Mundt was its opposition to a USG-owned news service in light of the then-recent memory of not only Nazi Germany's propaganda machine, but also of the Creel Commission, or CPI mentioned above. The prohibitions against internal propagandizing in Smith-Mundt focused on the point of dominating information channels to the public. Argued as First Amendment violations and as a potential infringement on the free press, Smith-Mundt prevented the USIA from becoming a domestic news service.

And today, we have DoD PAOs and others in DoD believing they are under Smith-Mundt when they are specifically not. If they were, and the whole of USG was, then White House Press Secretary would have to become a neutered spokesperson office like the U.K. spokesperson is (who doesn't have his own voice to the point if you read transcripts you do not know if the "Prime Minister's Official Spokesperson", or PMOS, is a man or a woman).

So, yes, S-M focuses on CONUS audiences and as interpreted today, concerns itself with DoD and DoS communications to CONUS audiences that might be interpreted as propaganda. In DoS, this means any foreign broadcast literature or even images under specific programs cannot be shared inside the U.S. without bureaucratic vetting. Yes, even a jpg used in an overseas brochure can't be included in a ppt in the states without approval.

Sorry for the long response. I'm working two projects on the topic now...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MountainRunner

The internet has nothing to do with Smith-Mundt... and DoD has nothing to do with Smith-Mundt either.

---

DOD believes itself to be covered under Smith-Mundt

Self-Imposed Limits: The Smith/Mundt Act

Another artificial barrier that hinders the fight
The twin devil of our inability to fight the enemy as it should be fought is the defeatist interpretation of an obsolete law aimed against the legacy of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. That law is now invoked to prevent warfighters, diplomats and other government officials from running effective information campaigns against the enemy. A tiny clause of the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, known as the Smith-Mundt Act, forbids certain government officials and agencies from disseminating information in the U.S. that is intended for recipients abroad.
In fact, many legal and ethical ways exist to prevent Smith-Mundt disciples from shutting down effective messaging operations, even if Congress is unwilling to change the law. When the widespread use of the Internet showed policymakers that technology had made the old laws obsolete, the Clinton Administration found an easy way around the obstacle. Legally, and with no objection or challenge, the administration circumvented Smith-Mundt by hosting Voice of America websites on servers physically located in foreign countries. That precedent remains in force, but is not used as widely as it might be. Public affairs officers (PAOs) often veto military information operations (IO) designed to exploit terrorist websites, on the grounds that Arabic-speaking American citizens might see the U.S.-sponsored content and thus cause the military to be in violation of Smith-Mundt.
FIGHTING THE WAR OF IDEAS LIKE A REAL WAR by J. Michael Waller

"US authorities handicap themselves. US military lawyers fear 'blowback' to US domestic audiences, which they interpret as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which prohibited domestic distribution of propaganda meant for foreign audiences. As a result, US commanders forbid coalition authorities to openly engage on the Internet. The decision has ceded this key tool to the Iraqi insurgents," -- Andrew Garfield

Smith-Mundt and DOD implementation policies of Executive Order S-12333, United States Intelligence Activities; DOD Instructions S-3321.1, (S) Overt Psychological Operations Conducted by the Military Services in Peacetime and in Contingencies Short of Declared War (U); and National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 130, U.S. International Information Policy, direct that U.S. PSYOP forces will not target U.S. citizens at any time, in any location globally, or under any circumstances.

This interpretation kills any counterpropaganda effort, at least from regularly constituted
.mil / .gov sources. Thus the need for PSYOP Surrogates.

Thanks, MountainRunner !
No problems with a long and well detailed response. It began to sound like the State Dept. each and every day at the Embassy Fish Bowl :wry:

Lately, however, DoD and DoS PAOs have developed into a well oiled machine overseas. Less propaganda and more 'hands-on' if you will.

I used to think of these folks as 'hungry as hell for a story' and later saw them as humans (the job they were tasked with and the endless parameters they work with).

Not so stone-age, but abused and misunderstood.

Regards, Stan

When you get into Smith-Mundt and the contemporary debates, you'll find the information premise of 4GW is even more faulty. Attempts to attack the psychology of civilians and elites is old and not something new to today.

On DoD PAOs, note Gen Myers in 2004 reinforced the firewall between PAO and IO, mimicking DoS PA/PD firewall under the apparent assumption IO was potentially misleading and more like the highly tactical PSYOP. I would prefer he looked at Galula instead of creating this firewall, but hey, who am I (see money quote from Galula here)?

On the UK PMOS vs Press Sec, see Credibility: a requirement for a Spokeman but not a country ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Lately, however, DoD and DoS PAOs have developed into a well oiled machine overseas. Less propaganda and more 'hands-on' if you will.

---

If you say so, not sure I'd agree w/ well-oiled machine. :rolleyes:

It's for the most part all relative. I've been around them now for 29 years (23 were active duty). I personally dislike the methods, but I almost understand the reasons and appreciate the regulations. So long as we don't confuse and otherwise get around the mission at hand.

That is, don't BS me, I'm on your side. At the very least, tell me what's what. In that sense, well-oiled fits (much better than 1984).

Sad is what I conclude. We should be working together, and there would be little need for tight parameters for military and PAOs.

Our intel and PAOs were restricted to camp or the 'local watering hole'. All that accomplished was assumed novel material with BS bible studies..what's fit to air, "the general said so".

Thanks again, Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MountainRunner

If you say so, not sure I'd agree w/ well-oiled machine. :rolleyes:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

This interpretation kills any counterpropaganda effort, at least from regularly constituted
.mil / .gov sources. Thus the need for PSYOP Surrogates.

---

Leaving aside the meta-issue of whether, in a democracy, national military PSYOP ought to target citizens--and I do not think it should (this is the task of civilian political leadership)--I'm dubious whether most unofficial "PSYOP Surrogates" have the effect they intend to.

My own sense is that they often appeal to themselves, and entirely misjudge the concerns, preoccupations, and discourse of "floating voters" on COIN and CT issues. As a result, they turn off at least as many of their supposed "target audience" as they appeal to.

I certainly know that students with no firmly fixed views, exposed to the typical array of milblogs (and, much more so, milblog supporters) come away much more alienated than sympathetic.

Far more effective nongovernmental public engagement, in my view, is represented by the SWJ approach, in which there is no overt political message to sell, and in which the airing of an array of views is tolerated and even promoted. The net result is a far more thoughtful (and ultimately credible and productive) airing of the issues around Iraq, Afghanistan, the GWoT, etc. than one finds anywhere else.

Here's the link to his blog:

Blogworld Expo

IMHO, Blogworld Expo will have more influence on the future of milblogs than MBC II did.

I intend to post links to various milblogs reporting from Blogworld Expo on this thread. Seems to me SWC Blog Watch is a more appropriate repository for such than my own blog. More likely to be seen here, anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex Brynen

I certainly know that students with no firmly fixed views, exposed to the typical array of milblogs (and, much more so, milblog supporters) come away much more alienated than sympathetic.

---

I am not surprised that people with no firmly fixed views are put off by people who know exactly what they think and who they support and are not shy in expressing it. Certainty is considered unseemly in some circles.

Who are the intended audiences for milblogs? Each milblogger has an idea who he/she is attempting to reach. I think their primary audience is generally people who are already pre-disposed to have some interest and respect for the milblogger's experiences and points of view. That ideological filter weeds out quite a few who are pre-disposed to be alienated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

... I intend to post links to various milblogs reporting from Blogworld Expo on this thread.

---

... and thanks much.

Community Live Blogging from Las Vegas Blogworld Convention

Best line from above:

"if the PAO's were doing their job, blogs might not be needed."

Much that should be done in counterpropaganda/strategic communications is not being done, for a variety of reasons. Who should be doing it is less important than getting it done.

Blogworld Wrap-up

I came to realize that there is a lack of soldiers sharing quality writing about their experiences overseas. The fact that professional writers are traveling to Iraq and Afghanistan to cover the sorts of things that I as a soldier take for granted is a shame.

Professional writers aren't the only writers. Irregular pamphleteers are producing products, too.

Milblogging Panel 3: From the Front

Gordon: My mission was to tell the story. I wanted to talk about what was happening in my area. I was in Anbar and watched the entire area transform before my eyes. One instance, a PAO was escorting a journalist and was killed by an IED. She had done a lot of work to represent Ramadi. The journalist getting killed got mentioned but the PAO's work didn't get mentioned. I regret that I didn't write about her and her good work.

SOME MORE PHOTOS FROM BLOGWORLD EXPO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

That ideological filter weeds out quite a few who are pre-disposed to be alienated.

---

My comment, of course, was in the context of whether bloggers make effective civilian volunteers in support of national IO and PSYOP campaigns--in which case you precisely don't want to filter out those who are undecided or slightly tilted against the views you are trying to sell.

Don't get me wrong: I'm an avid reader, and user, of milblogs, for both research and teaching purposes--as I am of aidblogs, and the truly fascinating SRSGblog of former UN Sudan envoy Jan Pronk (which got him in more than a little trouble). All power to those who spend the time to blog, yourself included.

However, I am very doubtful regarding the viability, effectiveness, or even desirability of independent blogs serving as "distributed information operations by domestic PSYOP auxiliaries."

I often share those doubts myself.

Not nearly as viable or effective as I would like, but better than what we would have without them.

Desirability is in the eyes of the beholder. One who benefits from the uncountered propaganda will not desire push-back. One whose job might reasonably be expected to include counterpropaganda will not desire the assistance of amateur interlopers.

I see the pro-victory milbloggers as analogous to the Minute Men on the Mexican Border. If the Border Patrol were properly resourced and not hamstrung by Political Correctness, nobody would feel any need to do what the Minute Men do. The American people would be confident that the regularly constituted government agencies have everything under control.

There is not much confidence in the regularly constituted government agencies' ability to prevail in the infowar, so some American Concerned Citizens are self-mobilizing to fill a perceived unmet need.

BLOGWORLD WRAPUP

Hugh concludes his two days from Blog World Expo with milbloggers Bill Roggio, the three BlackFive contributors, Eric Egland, and then final Godblog comments from Mark D. Roberts.

35 minute interview click here to listen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cannoneer No. 4

Hugh concludes his two days from Blog World Expo with milbloggers Bill Roggio, the three BlackFive contributors, Eric Egland, and then final Godblog comments from Mark D. Roberts.

---

I used to work with Eric Egland at IED TF (pre-JIEDDO) and that is one of the sharpest cats I have ever met. Incredibly perceptive about a number of subjects, able to integrate those subjects into wider theoretical and practical solutions, and just a damn fine gentleman to be around. Losing him to the legislative branch is bad juju for us, but if he makes it, you could be seeing the birth of a political career that could radically alter government in the next 10-20 years. Keep your eyes peeled on this one.

Incidentally, Cannonneer, I adore your blog. You and MountainRunner are at the top of my Google Reader everyday. Every time I get angry emails from my family and friends about our tired state of governmental affairs, I send 'em a link to your site and tell 'em to get busy livin', or get busy dyin'.

I'll be very clear here: if it hadn't been for milblogs, I mean the hundreds out there, not just the popular, I would have been as surprised by the "sudden" decrease in violence as the media, the politicians and the rest of the public.

I would add that, while some "undecided" may have been put off by the obvious intent, but, how I see it, it's just a small part of the whole, pushing back against the wave. Milblogs are not meant to supplant any other information system or be the influencer for any and all.

For me, some milblogs rounded out the information gap, explained some military things that I, as a civilian, didn't understand (like ranks, formations, interaction of different units and what they did specifically). So, I believe that someone was correct to say that these blogs were an enhancer for understanding and basically a morale booster when I was down.

Reading the small, individual blogs about what soldiers were experiencing personally also supplemented by knowledge of the Iraqi and Afghan people, their culture, language, etc as well as the first inklings that winning wasn't just shooting, but "mud huts and chai tea".

So, milblogs have their place. They aren't the saviors of the info war, but they are definitely a tool. think about how many fake stories, photos and claims have been outed and pushed back by milblogs. I haven't kept a tally, but it's over 10. I mean, we're talking about alleged missiles fired into a Pashtun village house full of people that turned out to be a paki 155mm arty shell that had never been fired.

The only issue is that it takes awhile to get the media outlets who post them to respond, though that may get faster as certain individuals or groups get a reputation for accuracy. Right now, by time the media responds to outing of these stories, millions already see them and the media does do very good retractions when they've been exposed to fake pictures and stories. They are usually defensive.

Another problem with the "information war" question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by St. Christopher

I used to work with Eric Egland at IED TF (pre-JIEDDO) and that is one of the sharpest cats I have ever met.

---

Have you seen Step to Victory No. 6? I blogged that last year from the TQ Mainside MWR.

I do appreciate the positive feedback. Right up there next to MountainRunner, huh?

In Vegas, Baby!

Good video.

Eric Egland interviewed at 04:14