US Military -v- Internal blogging & Access to WWW

[Rob Thornton]

Hi Cori

The difference is I haven't entirely decided that everything posted to those sites (at least unofficially) will, in the long run, help us in the IO battle. Clips of firefights set to pounding rock n' roll may be creative, but they aren't exactly going to win hearts and minds.

I think there are at least 3 audiences we have to influence. Enemies, Neutrals and Allies. The effects we want to have on each probably vary depending how we are trying to influence them - ex. "are we trying to deter, repudiate, convince etc?

Since sustaining your own public will is so important, an IO theme (and products) that resonate with them may be an important component of an IO campaign - particualrly when enemies or opponents may be trying to convince the public otherwise. I think as in marketing, you have to know your audience, and what you are trying to convince them to buy.

This is where our bloggers could be highlighted and profiled so they get
location, location, location. Instead we grow sea monkeys - which come off as fake and contrived. This was a problem with CF IO aimed at Iraqis - Products produced by Americans and translated into Arabic don't look, sound or resonate like a product produced by an Iraqi for an Iraqi - what you wind up with the former is a Mentos Advertisement aimed at Americans vs. the Latter which could be compared with a Budweiser ad aired during the game. You could also compare the very successful USMC recruiting ads to the Army's - the former targetded their audience, the latter wound up confused with an Army of One.

In the end it won't matter if all we do say is "Katie bar the door!"

[marct]

Check out the Army's own 1st Information Operations Command posted a briefing on "OPSEC in the Blogosphere," marked For Official Use Only:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/army/opsec-blog.pdf


I certainly had no problems accessing it.


Marc

[selil]

From Secrecy News

"All Department of the Army personnel and DoD contractors
will... consider handling attempts by unauthorized personnel
to solicit critical information or sensitive information as a
Subversion and Espionage Directed Against the U.S. Army
(SAEDA) incident," the regulation states (at section 2-1).

"Sensitive" information is defined here (at section
1-5(c)(3)(e)) to include not just vital details of military
operations and technologies but also documents marked "For
Official Use Only" (FOUO) that may be exempt from disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act.

It follows that inquisitive members of the press or the public
who actively pursue such FOUO records may be deemed enemies
of the United States.

Anybody in the army want to tell me what's in their mess kit so I can get named a subversive enemy of America? I can't think of anything more sensitive as a subject than dinner. ROTFLMAO

[marct]

This is nuts! I *hope* that it is a knee-jerk reaction from some careerist dinosaur with delusions of living in a Stalinist state rather than something that has been "studied". Has anyone considered the effects that this will have on recruitment and on younger personelle in addition to its effects on the overall war?

You know, this is sounding a lot like a military version of the Democrat line - "The IO war is lost, so we will just tell everyone to shut up". Oh yes, at the same time, why don't we call everyone who is trying to find out what is going on a "traitor". Does this include members of Congress going on fact finding trips? Does this include journalists? Does this include researchers?

Sorry, I'm fuming over the idiocy entailed in this little piece of Sierra!

Marc

[slapout9]

As bubba would say that new policy "Is lower than a snakes belly in a wagon rut"

[Jimbo]

Well,

I will counter the let them blog line of IO with one incident:

ABU GHRAIB

Those pictures hitting the internet were probably the biggest IO defeat we have suffered in Iraq. I am fan of letting soldiers blog, but I will caution that these rules are to mitigate the lowest common denominator. We have all seen service members who are total jackasses, and the will publicly be those jackasses to the widest possible audience. Does anybody remember the goirls of OIF/OEF on "Nowthats####edup.com"?

[selil]

The policy ignores the realities of information and the communication models of people. Maybe the Army is only going to recruit in Appalachia or the Okanogon from now on?

[RTK]

Anyone read it enough to let me know if we're violating any policy? Perhaps this is the juncture where "once-promising-career" turns into "Wal-Mart-Greeter."

"And here's your sticker."

[DrSergeant]

Speaking as one who was there when the Abu Ghraib events came to light, I can say that the pictures themselves were not the IO failure. The Iraqis on the streets already knew there were some horrible things going on. In fact, they knew about them, and had seen the pictures well before the soldiers on the street knew. The IO failure was that the Army was NOT open about it, but tried to cover it up. When the Army finally told us we could admit that the events had occurred in the first place, it was received somewhat well, but it would have been received better had we been informed in the first place rather than receiving the Army official line at the time, which was basically "nothing is happening." As every politician knows, it's not the deed that gets you in trouble, it's the cover-up. And this new policy smacks of even more cover-up, not only to the outside world, but to the American people.

I hope this doesn't violate the new policy...