Blog Policy, Strategic Communication, Civil-Military Relations & Legalities
The Combined Arms Center (CAC) blogs 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” 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?” 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.
I'll see that and raise you one...
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:
Quote:
"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.
Anti-militarism ain't necessarily anti-military ...
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. Wana88 may be a bit pessimistic as to the depth of the chasm, but his post #26 on page 2, sums the problem:
Quote:
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.
Let me say this about that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
...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:
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:
Violent agreement on this ....
Quote:
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.
