Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death

[J Wolfsberger]

How will this affect us?

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

[Jedburgh]

Wow. The new reg is linked in the article: AR 530-1 OPSEC, dated 19 April 2007

2–1. All Army personnel
Operations security is everyone’s responsibility. Failure to properly implement OPSEC measures can result in serious injury or death to our personnel, damage to weapons systems, equipment and facilities, loss of sensitive technologies and mission failure. OPSEC is a continuous process and an inherent part of military culture and as such, must be fully integrated into the execution of all Army operations and supporting activities. All Department of the Army (DA) personnel (active component, reserve component to include U.S. Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and DA civilians), and DOD contractors will—

(skip to applicable item...)

g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.

(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation.

(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and critical information....

and then there's:

(15) Because the Internet is a public forum, commanders will ensure that in addition to the OPSEC officer, a public affairs officer (PAO), webmaster/Web site maintainer, and other appropriate designee(s) (for example, command counsel, freedom of information act (FOIA) officer, force protection, intelligence, and so forth.) have properly cleared information posted to the World Wide Web, unclassified intranet, or Army Knowledge Online (AKO) in areas accessible to all account types. (Possible risks must be judged and weighed against potential benefits prior to posting any Army information on the World Wide Web. (See AR 25–1, para 5–10.)

(a) The designated reviewer(s) will conduct routine reviews of Web sites on a quarterly basis to ensure that each Web site is in compliance with the policies of AR 25–1 and that the content remains relevant and appropriate.

(b) The minimum review will include all of the web site management control checklist items in AR 25–1, paragraph C–4e(30) and appendix C. Information contained on publicly accessible Web sites is subject to the policies and clearance procedures prescribed in AR 360–1, chapter 5, for the release of information to the public.

This has the potential to kill everything but official forums (i.e. BCKS, MCCLL) - after a select few have been identified and made an example of to others. Hell, even posting on AKO is now under review.

[J Wolfsberger]

What's really disturbing is that they are shutting down the most effective source of supportive information. Whoever put this out isn't thinking clearly.

[SWCAdmin]

Wow indeed.

This certainly is a new monolith in the e-landscape, and a valiant attempt at getting some toothpaste back in the tube.

I would advise all Army personnel to read and heed as they see fit, within the bounds of sanity and careerism vs. standing for something. I'm not sure if the Army will see its FOUO document posted to the world as further fuel for its righteous fire, clamping down even more aggressively on those pesky information-leaking units known as soldiers and humans. Or, perhaps, it is an indicator of the juggernaut they are trying to spin on a dime, as if by throwing some sacrificial canoes in the path of the supertanker.

I have not had the chance to wade through all 79 pages of the document I'm not supposed to know about, but I hope there is more to the plan than wiping the sticky booger of enforcement and "responsibility" on the shirt of commanders who, having more important things to spend their excruciatingly limited time on but still hoping to pick up MAJ before they retire, will have to just lock up all the key boards and unceremoniously crucify a few "examples." Or perhaps that is the plan.

Here's to the digital Yingling, just waiting to step forward.

And an excerpt from our Privacy Policy:

Small Wars Journal and our discussion board, Small Wars Council, are operated by Small Wars Journal, LLC, a private company. We are not a government site. This page outlines our privacy policy and our commitment to you.
We respect your privacy. We will not willingly and knowingly release your personal information to any entity, private or governmental. We do not and will never sell or rent your personal information to third parties.

We are pseudonymous for a reason.

We also remind all that ROE #1 here is no discussion that may disadvantage lawful combatants. We will unceremoniously delete/caution/ban, don't go there. Just be smart.

We trust you. It is better than the alternative.

[Rob Thornton]

I smell apathy brewing whre there was innovation. It would be worth while to put forward a better explanation - else all we'll grow are mushrooms.

[Rob Thornton]

Now that I've had a chance to think about it - I think it brings about a good opportunity to discuss what was at the heart of LTC Yingling's argument - do we understand the fight we are in and are we adapting/innovating/organizing/promoting/assigning/equipping/educating to be successful? When you look at this it sounds allot like the 2 up 1 back, platoon in reserve, pre-planned targets MTC at the NTC / Defense from the BP of the 1990s and while that and information security of sensitive information which may cost success and lives are very important, they are not a sole substitute for developing skills and capabilities needed to prosecute this war and gain and maintain the initiative?

This sounds allot more like a Super FOB IO strategy. We'll build these walls around us and communicate only on approved internal lines of communication with internal approval of approved internal discussions so that we can ensure we are discussing approved questions with approved solutions which we will then dissiminate at approved CTC and publications. The latency will be huge! The timeliness of useful information which can be placed in the correct context so that it can be applied will be largely neutralized. But we will be safe.

OK - this may not have been the intent - but that may not matter if someone does not clarify the directive - remember perceptions are reality.

I'd argue that while the enemy is prosecuting a very effective IO campaign and use of the Internet, we are tightening the chastity belt for fear of misuse. There probably has been some screw ups - but how do you measure the subjective value vs. risk? We are a quantitative bunch at heart facing a foe who is wlling to be subjective. Are we fighting the fight we have or wishing for the one we'd like? Is developinga real information warfare capability vs a better bank vault beyond us? I know people who sit on information for total fear they will be held accountable for its release - they are largely inneffective, but they are safe. They are not concerned about the mission any where near as much as they are self preservation andwill often use it as an excuse for lethargic behavior.

While the risks must be known and mitigated / minimized, don't assume the enemy will operate under any restrictions. How much terrain does a defensive position control - only what it can see and reach - and these days that is very limitied given that the key terrain is Human.

\
Oh - did I mention AKO has retooled its email - again like so many things- form over function.

[Cori]

I've had this conversation with friends who are military before: there are security implications and security violators, I get it. Well, way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In this war, for the first time, service members have been able to offer virtually real time critique of the press coverage of the war from the combat zone. It is impossible to measure what impact or influence that has had, but the military keeps saying it believes this is an information war, and keeps acting as if information is completely irrelevant to the conduct of the war or to the ability to sustain support for the war.

Here's the reaction from one of the best known and best supported milbloggers: (no, I still haven't figured out how to embed links successfully, you'll need to cut and paste.) http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/0...sec_regul.html

For those of you near decent university libraries, at the risk of sounding as if I'm self-promoting, there's this cite:

“Life in Wartime: Realtime War, Realtime Critique; Fighting in the New Media Environment,” in Military Culture, vol. 4 of Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat eds. Thomas Britt, Carl Castro, and Amy Adler (Westport, Ct: Praeger Security International, 2006):180-210

I don't know that it's that insightful, it's just the only piece I know of that's out there that traces the importance of the dern things.

I am absolutely gobsmacked that the Army would take this step. And now of all times.

[SWJED]

On the Left - We Need to Start Winning this IO 'Stuff' -- On the Right - Shut Up and Toe the Line

[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]

Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger

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 "Nowthatsfuckedup.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?