Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Blog Policy, Strategic Communication, Civil-Military Relations & Legalities

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    21

    Default 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.

  2. #2
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    It's a very interesting discussion, especially in light of some of the other recent discussions outside the military that have taken place on milbloging (e.g. here).
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default 1847 to the present ....

    In a post by LTC Shawn Stroud in the "Reopening" link of the OP, LTC Stroud notes that (bold emphasis is mine):

    The following is a quote from the General Regulations for the Army, 1847

    “It should be the study of officers to cultivate intimate relations with society, and to attach the community to the interests of the Army, by mingling with circumspection and prudence in those social channels wherein the sympathies of individuals naturally flow. The objects of military service are of national concern, and it is but rational that there should be an intimacy between the nation and the agents to whom its eternal defense is entrusted. The affections of the nation contribute the only certain and permanent basis upon which the military establishment can build its reputation.”
    From this civilian's perceptions, this little gem makes sense. If my history is correct, the Army of 1847 was a small professional corps - although the advice may well have been informed by the experience of the Mexican War.

    The perceptions from active and former military here at SWC may be quite different from mine - "mingling" and "intimacy" being only two interesting concepts.

  4. #4
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default 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:
    "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.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default 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:

    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.
    Last edited by jmm99; 03-06-2009 at 06:05 AM.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Talking Let me say this about that...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    ...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:
    "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.

Similar Threads

  1. Strategic Communication: A Tool for Asymmetric Warfare
    By SWJED in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 12-03-2008, 05:33 PM
  2. MCOs and SSOs in the 2008 edition of FM 3-0 Operations
    By Norfolk in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 12:15 AM
  3. CNAS-Foreign Policy Magazine U.S. Military Index
    By SWJED in forum Military - Other
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 02:41 AM
  4. What is a Civil War?
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-01-2006, 01:31 AM
  5. New DoD Policy Office Studies 'Strategic Shocks'
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-07-2006, 12:25 PM

Tags for this Thread

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
  •