US Military -v- Internal blogging & Access to WWW

[Rob Thornton]

Here is a more vivid description

[Maximus]

This new policy reminds me much of Soviet attempts to keep the truth from the people. It's such a shame with all the good that our Marines/Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen are doing on the ground that we're resorting to something like this. If this policy rules the day, "strategic" corporal will forever be a defensive term only. Instead of going in this direction, I'd like the policy to encourage our warriors to photograph, videotape and transmit their actions to the world on the internet. Train them, teach them about war among the people, why the people are the center of gravity, why the will of the American people is so important, why the American people need to see more than IEDs and firefights and then let them run. We can win the IO component of this fight if we train our warriors and then let them speak. As a very wise Middle East and Terrorism expert said the other day, "We'd better tell our story at the tactical, operational and strategic levels because if we don't our enemy will, and we won't like what he has to say."

[Cori]

Your use of the phrase, "let them see" is important -- this may impact blogs, but it would also impact YouTube and LiveLeak (except that it seems to me that more folks post there anonymously.) 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.

[SWJED]

How will this affect us?

http://www.wired.com/politics/online.../army_bloggers

We'll stay as is - should anyone want to 'swap out' their screen name let us know. Our privacy policy is written in stone and we do monitor and moderate to ensure posts do not endanger friendly operations... What in the hell is the Army thinking here?

[SWJED]

Via Google Blog Search...

[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...

[Rob Thornton]

Its why I love Google

[Merv Benson]

I am curious as to what blog post prompted this reaction. If it was not a dozy then this reaction measure is certainly pretty dizzy to us uninformed who want to support the war effort.

On its face this appears to be a unilateral surrender in the media battle space where our enemy has been kicking our butt for some time. What seems inarguable at this point is the authors of this order have not explained themselves and until they do the lack of apparent wisdom of this idea will be all that is seen.

[Cori]

I don't think it was any one post or event. They do have the Internet even in Appalachia, you know, so even the newest Private comes in completely comfortable with the digital world. That isn't always true of those of us who are, er, older. But you can't unring this bell, all you can do is react to the general information environment by lashing out at the particular manifestations -- like blogs -- you feel you can best control (or control at all). Of course, the pictures from abu Ghraib intially leaked b/c, being digital, they could be emailed -- things this new policy wouldn't have stopped. (Well, they might have made the behavior a violation, but would troops doing that have cared about violating this policy?)

Of course it's correct that while abu Ghraib was an IO disaster, the military's (really OSD's) handling of it made it worse, by giving it legs. Had they released every single picture as soon as the first ones came out, it would have gone much better IMHO.

That said, there have been rumours this was coming, or preemptive versions of this policy, several times before. Which suggests it was not a single post that led to this, but a growing discomfort with the rapid growth of the milblog phenomenon.

You can find links to many of them here:

http://mudvillegazette.com/

[zenpundit]

I have to say, even from my civilian perspective, the genius behind this new regulation is one sorry,out of touch, a-hole.

The primary effect of this idiocy will be to corrupt our own feedback loops by suppressing *truthful* information from guys observing conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa. The sorts of CYA things the brass in any war likes to keep from their superiors, the Congress, the media and the folks back home ( I note the American media is on a PPT diagram with drug kingpins, al Qaida and Warlords - that juxtaposition pretty much says it all in terms of the reigning Army IO philosophy). It is my expectation that such an effect was the primary purpose behind these regs as the international Islamist movement is not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.

The proper move would have been OPSEC education - milbloggers aren't stupid. Hermetically sealing the military off from the world ( which won't succeed anyway) is the sign of siege mentality in the officer corps and a harbinger of decline.

My two cents

[marct]

Hi Folks,

I have to say, even from my civilian perspective, the genius behind this new regulation is one sorry,out of touch, a-hole.

I suspect he is fully "in touch" with himself - or, possibly, just touching himself.

The primary effect of this idiocy will be to corrupt our own feedback loops by suppressing *truthful* information from guys observing conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa.

Agreed, as a primary effect. I would add in that this type of CS policy will also decrease retention rates, increase the civilian perception that the military is "hiding" things, and be an absolute gold mine for irhabi IO. I also have a strong suspicion that this will cause irreparable damage, if it is implemented, on non-US audiences.

The sorts of CYA things the brass in any war likes to keep from their superiors, the Congress, the media and the folks back home ( I note the American media is on a PPT diagram with drug kingpins, al Qaida and Warlords - that juxtaposition pretty much says it all in terms of the reigning Army IO philosophy). It is my expectation that such an effect was the primary purpose behind these regs as the international Islamist movement is not going to be inconvenienced in the slightest.

Again, I would agree - I suspect that the irhabi are sitting around with huge grins on their faces right now wondering what new piece of blithering idiocy their unwitting allies in the army will come up with. BTW, I';m sticking with my earlier use of the adjective "Stalinist" - this is reminiscent of Lenin's idea of political police stationed inside the military to adjudicate ideological purity.

The proper move would have been OPSEC education - milbloggers aren't stupid. Hermetically sealing the military off from the world ( which won't succeed anyway) is the sign of siege mentality in the officer corps and a harbinger of decline.

"Siege mentality"? Hmmm, maybe, but it could also be a reaction in the form of "do something, do anything".

There is an interesting little hole in their opsec-blog document that I am certain the ACLU will take up. On slide #15, it states:

As an active-duty service member, you have free speech
rights, but these rights are limited. Here are some basic
guidelines to what you can and can’t say and do as a
member of the military. You have the right to …
• Read anything you want
• Write letters to newspapers
• Publish your own newspaper, as long as you don’t
use military supplies or equipment to do so

Am I right in believing that there are "journalists" who are deemed as such by virtue of their blogs and/or web sites? If so, then wouldn't a blog be considered a "newspaper"?

Marc

[slapout9]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-np4Ke4o94E