Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 141 to 157 of 157

Thread: US Military -v- Internal blogging & Access to WWW

  1. #141
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
    Of course this doesn't just apply to weapons, personal ID is another great one. If we want to protect the identities of our soldiers for OPSEC reasons why do we all wear name tags, unit identifiers and rank on our uniforms when deployed? And then we complain when PA guys use that detail?
    I've wondered what the Army did about this... pretty much SOP in the AF to "sanitize" and remove all identifying information/patches/nametages prior to flying in combat... most folks have a nametag with just their nickname/callsign on it and that's it... Seems a little silly but I guess we learned the hard way back in Vietnam.

    -Cliff

  2. #142
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default Ah, The Great Eagle Eats Its Young

    The high priests of the Church of the Air Force find anything that requires free thinking and stomps it into the ground. The high priests of the Church of the Air Force take anything they find as a threat to themselves and the future of the Church that they have tasked themselves to protect and create a regulation for it. Going by the regulation is not thinking. It is complying. For some, sadly, if there is not a rule or regulation that has been shoved down their throats for a certain situation than....[fill in the blank].

    Example: The Air Force is stilling feeling its way around SOF ever since Reagan's Rapid Deployment Force. Most have not realized that allowing an airman to break certain rules and substitute them with something else in certain situations is actually a good thing and not a threat to the organization but instead a means to an end. This story about blocking blogs is just the tip of the ice berg.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  3. #143
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    There is a blog by a Navy-type who shows how the military is "alarmed" by relatively minor OPSEC violations, while PAO officers and O-6 and above types publicly "sell out the farm" in their idiotic press releases and public statements.
    In OIF V, we had an incident where a PAO issued a press release, giving a very accurate battle damage assessment of a mortar attack. He more or less stated, "on d day at h hour, x mortars were fired from y location and hit such and such location, resulting in xyz damage." Coincidentally, two days later, we saw a video of the attack on an insurgent website and saw a video of the insurgents reciting the battle damage put out by the PAO. That part of that particular FOB got hammered with mortars at that same location numerous times for several weeks. Many wounded, lots of damage, thank you very much, may I have another?

    However, I would add that the average rank-and-file servicemember (and possibly civilian) commits plenty of OPSEC SNAFUs that often go unnoticed by many of us. I have seen some of the stuff intercepted by the CI folks and it is amazing to behold what information people think is okay to email to everyone on their personal distro ("check out these photos of the latest rocket attack - good thing they didn't fire this 2 hours later or 200 meters to the east"), or post on their blogs ("here are detailed photos of our patrol base and its vulnerabilities"), or on Google Earth ("this map is outdated - here is where we're really at!")

  4. #144
    Council Member Spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    In OIF V, we had an incident where a PAO issued a press release, giving a very accurate battle damage assessment of a mortar attack. He more or less stated, "on d day at h hour, x mortars were fired from y location and hit such and such location, resulting in xyz damage." Coincidentally, two days later, we saw a video of the attack on an insurgent website and saw a video of the insurgents reciting the battle damage put out by the PAO. That part of that particular FOB got hammered with mortars at that same location numerous times for several weeks. Many wounded, lots of damage, thank you very much, may I have another?

    A perfect example of why the artificial firewall that the US places between its uniformed PA staff and the people that actually conduct operations in the global information environment can only result in information fratricide. The sooner PA moves away from being a command support function and becomes and ops function the better. In simple terms the US military's PA capability performs the same function during ops as it does during peacetime ... that is look at us we're good neighbours. You can't criticise the PA guys when your own doctrine and leadership keeps them off to one side, completely silo'd and tells them all day every day that they're losing the information war ... do something to get on the front foot. in 04 when MNF-I STRATCOM was formed and the PA, IO and PD guys all worked in the same room it was completely undercut by cap badge rivalry and politics ... the information lessons learned in Al FAJR continue to to be ignored.

  5. #145
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,366

    Default Leaks and security

    Following the theme and from a different viewpoint. There has been much concern, including public comments by the Director-General of the (UK) Security Service (MI5), on the apparent leaking of information to the media in relation to counter-terrorism operations.

    Within the "Whitehall village", akin to within the Beltway, RUSI had a session at a CT conference on the subject of the press and CT (will have to check if now published in their journal).

    To illustrate a TV camera crew were in situ for a live CT arrest operation, in which a police SWAT team was involved. Under UK convention, the D Notice system, SF activity is covered, but not the police.

    Some suspect "leaks" come from within the "Whitehall village" and have more to do with "spin".

    davidbfpo

  6. #146
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    This is the Air Force. This has less to do with OPSEC and more to do with deniability. The latter would be just fine if it pertains strictly to small war doctrine but it doesn't. Shameful opportunists don't want anything with an exchange of ideas on solving problems that are outside of the Air Force box. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss". Read "Flying though Midnight". That is the Air Force. Nothing has changed. The Air Force is not like other branches. The Marines train and fight with ability to improvise as necessary right down to a private knowing he may find himself squad leader. The Air Force has no such doctrine. Each position is compartmentalized due to its mission and structure. There are those that do the work and those whose only motivation is self preservation and protection of the Church as an entity. Personally, the Air Force should have remained the Army Air Corps. Ever since then the adage is to get out as soon as you can or you might find yourself doing all the work or even worse become one of the high priests that get the workers killed. You can't apply typical small wars doctrine to what the Air Force makes up as it goes along.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  7. #147
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spud View Post
    A perfect example of why the artificial firewall that the US places between its uniformed PA staff and the people that actually conduct operations in the global information environment can only result in information fratricide. The sooner PA moves away from being a command support function and becomes and ops function the better. In simple terms the US military's PA capability performs the same function during ops as it does during peacetime ... that is look at us we're good neighbours. You can't criticise the PA guys when your own doctrine and leadership keeps them off to one side, completely silo'd and tells them all day every day that they're losing the information war ... do something to get on the front foot. in 04 when MNF-I STRATCOM was formed and the PA, IO and PD guys all worked in the same room it was completely undercut by cap badge rivalry and politics ... the information lessons learned in Al FAJR continue to to be ignored.
    I have to agree, wholeheartedly, with you on this one. PA functions share a lot of similarity with the G6 functions as well....

    Too much being done "in a vacuum" or in a parallel system, which leads to the "fratricide" I mention.

  8. #148
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    This is the Air Force. This has less to do with OPSEC and more to do with deniability.
    What does a Comm Squadron guy blocking certain addresses have to do with deniability? Pretty sure that was not an Air Staff level decision...

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    The latter would be just fine if it pertains strictly to small war doctrine but it doesn't. Shameful opportunists don't want anything with an exchange of ideas on solving problems that are outside of the Air Force box. "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss". Read "Flying though Midnight". That is the Air Force. Nothing has changed.
    Haven't read that, who is it by?

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    The Air Force is not like other branches. The Marines train and fight with ability to improvise as necessary right down to a private knowing he may find himself squad leader.
    I would strongly disagree with this. Our doctrine and tactics emphasize the fact that at any moment the wingman may have the tac lead or the flight lead, and it can (and does) often change rapidly. Improvisation occurs all the time. Even with the technology becoming closer to the CAOC being able to fly your jet, you are still typically out there on your own with you and three other guys, trying to not get you/them/the grunts killed... Not a very good environment for ironclad "do as I say" doctrine. As a famous man once said, "Flexibility is the key to airpower".

    I have been on very few flights where in the debrief we came up with only one right way to skin the cat - it's an art form, not a science. Has been this way since the late 70s when we canned the "welded wingman" tactics... Are you referring to USAF doctrine as a whole, or USAF Small Wars doctrine?

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    The Air Force has no such doctrine. Each position is compartmentalized due to its mission and structure. There are those that do the work and those whose only motivation is self preservation and protection of the Church as an entity.
    I think you can make an arguement that the AF has/is stovepiped/tribalized, but the current Chief is doing a lot to fix that - part of why anyone who isn't deployable is getting cut, and small unit tactics are being added into Basic. Most folks in the Air Force know more about working with the other services and other aircraft than say, a typical Army aviator. My point is that so much of our job is working with the other services, we have no choice but to think outside the "AF Box" as you refer to it. Every major event I have flown in I have worked with USN and USMC folks, and several of them with Army, USCG, and even "other" government agencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Personally, the Air Force should have remained the Army Air Corps. Ever since then the adage is to get out as soon as you can or you might find yourself doing all the work or even worse become one of the high priests that get the workers killed. You can't apply typical small wars doctrine to what the Air Force makes up as it goes along.
    Sounds like you have had some bad experiences. I don't agree that that is the adage though. While not everyone wants to be a general (thank goodness!), that doesn't mean that folks don't want to serve.

    And just what is "small wars doctrine" in the context of airpower?

    I have to ask, why is there such rampant Air Force bashing every time it comes up? The AF has changed a lot since Vietnam... informed criticism is helpful and what makes us good, name calling doesn't help you build a better joint team.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  9. #149
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    I can appreciate your response but I didn't have any bad experience with the Air Force other than Desktops getting in the way of learning how to survive. I just know how the organization operates using its own brand of company language. I can tell you one thing. I was glad my job required being out in the field with the Army and away from desktop officers that make stupid decisions like trying to figure out why web logs are a bad thing. And I did take the advice of the more experienced and got out as soon as I could. My friends that stayed in and retired were like deer in headlights when they came into the world. So much for the 9 to 5 recruitment poster.

    Listen, there has always been a lot of criticism about other branches in this current conflict; i.e. mistakes et al. But very little about the Air Force in general. Why should [they] be any different? Like I intimated earlier, this story about blogs is just a symptom of the overall ineffective decision making on the part of the Air Force. The Air Force has made its share of mistakes since 911 and gets a bye because of what? The Air Force even gets a bye for their culpability on losing the Vietnam Conflict. Desktop officers in the Air Force make sure of that by keeping all their dirty little secrets in the box. Thinking or communicating outside the box under any circumstance is heresy. Trust me, no small part of the USAF decided that blogs were bad for airmen. That is is a fairy tale and just an example of the compartmentalization of the organization as a whole. It has been structured since its inception to protect itself and a select few, which it does an excellent job. Thus, it is probably the most dysfunctional branch of the military. Why do you think so many Air Force people that do the work believe the Air Force eats its young?

    Next time you are replying to someone that is criticizing the Army or the Marines for mistakes or policy try to avoid assuming that a "bad experience" or resentment is the motivator. That is not part of the company language of the forums.

    EDIT:

    I forgot the book. I used to think I was the only one that thought something just wasn't right about he USAF until I read this book. This guy is super cool and responds to messages.

    http://flyingthroughmidnight.com/

    ...
    Last edited by Culpeper; 06-01-2008 at 07:21 PM.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  10. #150
    Council Member Spud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canberra, ACT, Australia
    Posts
    122

    Default

    Interesting though ... the guy that oversaw the STRATCOM revolution in MNF-I wore blue. Even more intersting was the bloke who wore white who preceded him and the one in green who came after him were active in the downfall of the whole experiment.

  11. #151
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    I can appreciate your response but I didn't have any bad experience with the Air Force other than Desktops getting in the way of learning how to survive. I just know how the organization operates using its own brand of company language.
    It's hard for me to understand what you are saying here... who are Desktops (is it like a REMF?), and how did they get in the way of learning how to survive? What did you do in the Air Force (sounds like TACP or JTAC but I don't want to assume...)

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Listen, there has always been a lot of criticism about other branches in this current conflict; i.e. mistakes et al. But very little about the Air Force in general. Why should [they] be any different?
    I think there's been plenty on the AFs mistakes... which is good. I'd note that the AF has pretty much been in a supporting role since the end of OIF I, so it stands to reason that they're not the focus of this particular forum, which focuses on the supported Small Wars fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Like I intimated earlier, this story about blogs is just a symptom of the overall ineffective decision making on the part of the Air Force. The Air Force has made its share of mistakes since 911 and gets a bye because of what? The Air Force even gets a bye for their culpability on losing the Vietnam Conflict. Desktop officers in the Air Force make sure of that by keeping all their dirty little secrets in the box. Thinking or communicating outside the box under any circumstance is heresy.
    What examples do you have? I don't think the AF has a bye at all since 9-11, or for Vietnam... in fact, the PME course I'm in right now just had an entire lesson about how we screwed up Vietnam by drifting away from our doctrine... doesn't seem like hiding it to me if you put it in the class that everyone has to take.

    Do you have examples other than this blocking of the blogs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Trust me, no small part of the USAF decided that blogs were bad for airmen. That is is a fairy tale and just an example of the compartmentalization of the organization as a whole. It has been structured since its inception to protect itself and a select few, which it does an excellent job. Thus, it is probably the most dysfunctional branch of the military. Why do you think so many Air Force people that do the work believe the Air Force eats its young?
    I personally haven't heard of/seen/talked to many people who think the AF eats its young... if anything, the opposite - the AF is too soft is a common complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by Culpeper View Post
    Next time you are replying to someone that is criticizing the Army or the Marines for mistakes or policy try to avoid assuming that a "bad experience" or resentment is the motivator. That is not part of the company language of the forums.
    Your tone was what made me ask about bad experiences... please provide examples of what you're referring to so I can understand your arguement. Otherwise I'm simply left with the emotion you're conveying, which make it hard for me to learn much! I don't think the AF is perfect at all, but I am curious as to what specific mistakes/problems need fixing.

    Again, my point is simply that a Comm Squadron or even the AF NOSC deciding to block "blogs" doesn't neccessarily indicate that the AF is trying to hide mistakes or supress dissent...

    I know plenty of folks who have come up with bright new ideas and had them turned into TTPs, doctrine, or actual hardware... happens more than you would think. A buddy of mine was an ALO that came up with a lot of cool stuff, and he has more generals asking him what he thinks than you would believe.

    Looking forward to your reply.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  12. #152
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cliff View Post
    What examples do you have? I don't think the AF has a bye at all since 9-11, or for Vietnam... in fact, the PME course I'm in right now just had an entire lesson about how we screwed up Vietnam by drifting away from our doctrine... doesn't seem like hiding it to me if you put it in the class that everyone has to take.

    Cliff
    I'd be interested in seeing their spin here. Given the structure of the NVN effort, AF doctrine as it existed in the 1960s couldn't have worked. But then again if the Marines have Stalin's PR team (to paraphrase Truman), I've always felt that the AF has his command historians....

    Which of course is semi-hijacking this thread. Apologies to all.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  13. #153
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Getting off topic... a little!

    Although I guess I am talking about Info War - the AF's info war on it's own folks thru PME? Just kidding.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    I'd be interested in seeing their spin here. Given the structure of the NVN effort, AF doctrine as it existed in the 1960s couldn't have worked. But then again if the Marines have Stalin's PR team (to paraphrase Truman), I've always felt that the AF has his command historians....

    Which of course is semi-hijacking this thread. Apologies to all.
    Quick summary: The gist of it was that the doctrine in Vietnam was so far skewed towards strategic bombing - which had morphed into meaning solely a general nuclear war. It ignored the more balanced traditional air doctrine in conventional war in favor of SAC and the SIOP. That got us away from interdiction, CAS, etc. They also talked a lot about the focus on nukes meaning we spent too little money on the tech for conventional war - true when you consider that the first guided bombs were used in WWII, but then it took us till the 70's to make them useable...

    Anyway, my point in bringing it up is that the AF does indeed acknowledge and air its mistakes... blocking blogs, agree with it or not, is for security reasons and not for managing dissent.

    The art/culture of the debrief has been taken to a high level by the USAF Weapons School, and it is routine for a young LT to openly point out and critique a superior's mistakes in the debrief... even if the superior is the General or Colonel. Not something that could happen a lot if the culture was to repress dissent or critique... and it is definitely why in spite of not having the edge in machines we used to have we still have the best Air Force in the world (not that I am biased!).

    V/R,

    Cliff

  14. #154
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    But all that does is indicate that they were following their doctrine at the time. And as I pointed out, the general consensus is that their 1960s doctrine could not really work in that setting. Granted, is a big step for the AF to look back and admit that something didn't work, but it is a touch disingenuous to look at it through current doctrine.

    USAF Weapons School debriefs are one thing...moving forward with doctrine is another. And I would tend to put blocking blogs down to some sort of routine cluster**** on the part of some sysadmin. We see more than a few of those out here.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  15. #155
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    But all that does is indicate that they were following their doctrine at the time. And as I pointed out, the general consensus is that their 1960s doctrine could not really work in that setting. Granted, is a big step for the AF to look back and admit that something didn't work, but it is a touch disingenuous to look at it through current doctrine.

    USAF Weapons School debriefs are one thing...moving forward with doctrine is another. And I would tend to put blocking blogs down to some sort of routine cluster**** on the part of some sysadmin. We see more than a few of those out here.
    They were comparing it to the ACTS, doctrine during WWII, etc. The point was that between the end of WWII and 1986 or so (GW-N) the AF drifted away from its founding doctrine to become a "strategic-nuclear" focused force... the lesson talked about how the Army did a better job articulating AF doctrine in AirLand battle than the AF did.

    As for the USAFWS debriefs, they set the culture of the combat air forces, and are starting to do so for the mobility folks as well. Culture begets doctrine, IMHO - if your culture is one of a no-holds-barred, no-rank debrief, then that's what your doctrine will come to support in time. In spite of what the folks at CADRE and Maxwell would have you believe, the operators do get a say, not just the folks at Air University!

    V/R,

    Cliff

  16. #156
    Council Member Culpeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Roswell, USA
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Cliff

    We can go back and forth. But the debate ended when I thought we would continue to disagree. I've learned the hard way to avoid that. I do appreciate you responses and will leave you with the last word.
    "But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
    "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"


  17. #157

    Default

    I never know about wars related council.thanks for sharing anyway


Similar Threads

  1. China's Emergence as a Superpower (till 2014)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 806
    Last Post: 01-11-2015, 10:00 PM
  2. Early online access to 2013 Jan-Feb edition of Military Review
    By Military Review Editors in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-21-2012, 01:23 PM
  3. Impacts on Finland/EU/NATO of renewed IW/COIN focus of US military
    By charlyjsp in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-03-2009, 05:43 PM
  4. Iraqis Adapt British Military Academy as Model
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2006, 09:16 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •