Michael Yon has written recently of the increased difficulty he's had when working with the Army brass in Iraq. He's noted repeatedly that they seem to be making things as difficult as possible for those who are trying to get the truth out - those who are bringing attention to all of the good work being done in Iraq, and the character and quality of our Heroes.
What the heck is going on? It didn't make a lick of sense to me...until I saw this:
Army Tightens Rules on GI Blogs, E-Mail"Tightens" is an understatement. While the old rules required a check when posting any information about operations, the new rules amount to a gag order. Soldiers must submit anything placed in a public forum to
"an OPSEC review prior to publishing"- blog posts, emails, message board postings, letters....the possibilities are endless.
Failure to do so could result in actions including court-martial,
"administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."And as if that wasn't enough, the new rules expand the personnel affected to include
"all Soldiers, Department of the Army (DA) Civilians, Department of Defense (DOD) contractors, and family members."
Now seems a pretty good time to state that I am not, nor have I ever been, in any branch of the U.S. military. I am not the family member of any active duty military personnel. Pure civilian here. I can say what I like....for now.
The policy's author, Major Ray Ceralde, is quick to
minimize the intrusiveness of the new policy:
"It is not practical to check all communication, especially private communication..."Maybe so, but that creates a new problem - inconsistency in enforcement. It's a point that the Major emphasizes with the following:
"Some units may require that soldiers register their blog with the unit for identification purposes with occasional spot checks after an initial review. Other units may require a review before every posting."
OK....but how do you decide what to check, how often to check, and what is a concern? With the consequences as serious as they are for violation, how do you, as an officer, manage the new policy while you're supposed to be fighting a war?
Isn't it easier, and more consistent, to just forbid your Soldiers to blog, or post in message boards, altogether?
David, at The Thunder Run,
writes,
This is it friends...the milblogs are dead and along with it, all public support for the good things being done every day by our troops on the ground, and we have only the brass to thank for it. What Al Qaida in Iraq couldn't do with VBIEDs they did with a word processor and a complete lack of understanding of the need to win the information war.Matt of
BlackFive says,
"The soldiers who will attempt to fly under the radar and post negative items about the military, mission, and commanders will continue to do so under the new regs. The soldiers who've been playing ball the last few years, the vast, VAST, majority will be reduced. In my mind, this reg will accomplish the exact opposite of its intent. The good guys are restricted and the bad continue on..." His complete post, with updates and links to what others are saying, is
here.
The ramifications of
Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf file) are far-reaching. Letters home, letters to troop supporters like
Soldiers' Angels, blog postings, electronic messages, comments to others' posts, all of it could be under the scope.
As a Soldier stateside, let alone in a war zone, would you want to deal with this? Sure, there might be a Soldier here or there that might post something that would be of concern, but don't we trust our troops enough to believe that they wouldn't want to put anything out there that would pose a risk to their military brothers and sisters? And how many of them self-edit what is sent to family and friends - not because of fear of reprisal, but simply to keep them from worrying?
Far more likely than a mountain of oversight is the path of least resistance - Soldiers will stop blogging on their own, or officers will forbid anything that requires oversight.
The one big similarity to Vietnam and Iraq has been the loss of ground in the Information War. And now the Army is not only conceding defeat - they're regulating it. Milblogs have been a prime source of positive information - a primary weapon against negative media and moonbat hype.
Take away guns from law-abiding citizens, and only criminals have guns.
Silence those who support the war, and the only voices heard will be those who malign the troops and seek to undermine the war. Regulated defeat in the Information War.
It is the ultimate insult - and a tragic irony - that those who would bleed or die to protect freedom of speech for others appear to have the least right to it themselves.
David notes, "This should be a major topic of discussion at the CENTCOM Discussion at the upcoming Milblog Conference this Saturday."
Indeed. I'll be there, and you can be sure that I'm looking forward to that discussion.
Labels: blogging, milblogging, opinion, US Army
(right click image, then "Save as")
Stumble It!
