TransTracker 's Bookmarks tagged infowar →  View Popular

That is, they seem to have been given a highly

negative sense of the blogosphere, and were discouraging soldiers from

posting anything that might affect anything. Which to me is sass-akwards.

Milbloggers, in my non-humble opinion, have done more for the war effort

and more to correct misleading reports than the entire Army Public Affairs

Branch has (note: this is not a slam on them, but praise for the MilBlog

community). The Army should be encouraging troops to give *more*

information on their first-hand impressions and how things are going, not

less. "Winning the War" begins at home - we're not going to be defeated

here, but may have to pull out because of people's impressions at home,

which in my opinion seem to be shaped by misleading reports of what the

overall picture here is. (Note again - I'm writing less from my own direct

experiences than from the impression I get second-hand, both talking to

people who have direct experiences and reading what I consider to be

reliable sources).

This attitude towards soldier-bloggers, which might be

limited to just the 4th Division, seems to be another example of the Army

shooting itself in the foot - making it's mission harder.

What the Admiral didn’t answer, in my mind, was the bigger strategic question of why the military prioritized a potential threat to the network over a guaranteed benefit to the DoD’s information battle. Beyond this connectivity providing a morale boost for troops, it also has significant benefit in helping to tell the military story.

Yes, PAOs will have access to these sites. And yes, servicemembers can use them (if they can get to a computer where they can access them.) But the value of these blocked sites — and all of Web 2.0 — is for grassroots users to come together organically and share their experience. By restricting access to YouTube and MySpace, the military is also restricting the ability of any servicemember to help engage in the “hearts and minds” war.

In point of fact, there are several people who have been working on a modest proposal for trying to make some substantive changes to the information front.

The white paper being drafted is still quite rough, but some quick thoughts to share this day are the following:

1. Military PAO acitivites are based on an (early) industrial-age model, with some slight modifications that come from experience in WWII.

2. Many in leadership and rear-echelon positions are not comfortable with Web 0.5, much less Web 2.0 -- a condition that applies to industry as well as government.

3. The combination of these two factors, along with several others, means that current information acitivites are neither effective, efficient, or acceptable.

4. Blogs and Milblogs have shown some of what can be accomplished using more modern technology and models, as well as an innovative mindset.

5. Blogs and Milblogs, for all they have accomplished, are not the answer; but, rather an early prototype of one part of larger information effort and new model of information operations.

6. This new model will change information operations on a fundamental level, in much the same way that combat arms has been reshaped over the last two hundred years.

Simply trying to bring PAO and related activities up to date with blogs is not the answer. Simply trying to improve the information technology available to PAO and in-unit activities is not the answer. Technology, and even things like blogging, are but one part of a larger shift in the way information is being processed, accessed, and used. As such, it is not a technology issue but, rather, a fundamental change in the social and psychological framework (dynamics) of society.

In August 2005, a number of the most prominent milbloggers wrote about and expressed their concern over violations of OPSEC in the blogosphere. Dadmanly wrote:

Frankly, much of the most popular ("live action") combat reporting on the web makes me nervous. Many of these young men (and women) are not at all careful or discrete about their identities, unit compositions, and even very minute operational details. All of us understand how popular such accounts are, people back home and even fellow soldiers are really hungry for knowledgeable front line reporting. But this same accuracy and realism may be providing our enemies -- who gain some advantage they wouldn't otherwise have if we ignore their collection or reconnaissance capabilities -- with useful information for planning more effective attacks (and by the way, allowing them at least some useful battle damage assessment (BDA) information).

John from Argghhh! Acknowledged that it could be a problem and admitted to having inadvertently made a clear OPSEC violation on his blog. Blackfive even predicted that "in the future, Military Blogging would be severely restricted."

Two years later the prediction is coming true. That is hardly "out-of-the-blue."

Finally, as Dadmanly wrote almost two years ago:

I would hate to think that good OPSEC might interfere with what is some of the best reporting available on our great efforts in Iraq. But I likewise think that MILBLOGGERS need to carefully (and prayerfully) consider if, in the interest of feeding a hungry audience, we likewise satisfy an avaricious enemy. This is an enemy who knows how and where to get information vital to making his efforts against us more deadly and effective, and knows how and where and to whom to get this information into the hands of those who would harm us.

If we ignore this responsibility, aren’t we doing the same as the big media we so frequently criticize? In the interest of “hits” and traffic (equivalent after all to ratings or circulation), we go for the gritty detail, and disregard real and significant concerns about whether this in some way increases the danger to our soldiers?

Some milbloggers, including myself, have often complained about the flat-footed nature of the DoD when it comes to information dissemination and fighting back against the mainstream media.  Others believe the DoD has a hostility towards, or misunderstanding of milblogs. One very influential milblogger has told me repeatedly, "they just don't get it." But, perhaps they're starting to "get it."

Have you seen the DoD's recent rebuttals of mainstream media reports? Pretty good start, I think.

"We're not only fighting a physical war, we're fighting an information war as well," said "Andi C.," organizer of the first annual MilBlog Conference, which took place last month in Washington.

"The Bush administration and the DoD [Department of Defense] have not been very effective in the information war," explained Andi C., who, like many "milbloggers," prefers not to use her full name. "Milblogs have been doing the heavy lifting. Both entities could learn a thing or two from milbloggers."

Many milbloggers, including some on active duty, expressed frustration with war coverage by "the mainstream media."

"[I] started reading the milbloggers and their accounts of what was going on over in theater, and I was thinking to myself, 'What a contrast to what you read every day,'" explained ThreatsWatch blogger Steve Schippert. "It was such a bad difference that it really started to get me angry."

Several milbloggers said they thought the media doubts there is any prospect of military success in Iraq. As an example, they cited Time Magazine's April 7, 2003, cover, which asked: "What will it take to win?"

One participant pointed out that the famous toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad's Firdos Square took place two days after the magazine's cover date.

Not all participants agreed that good news wasn't getting out.

"People have to understand that there's a difference between having the news 'out there' and making people read it," he continued. "The mainstream media's real issue is one of reporting and analyzing in the context of some sort of bigger picture ... That's where the bloggers come in. It's really more about balance."

Conference panelists said they saw milblogging as a way for ordinary people to provide that balance.

"Technology is allowing ordinary people who are experts to get their message out much more efficiently," according to "Charlie", who along with his colleague, "John," runs a blog called "OPFOR." Both preferred to use only their first names.

Andi agreed with that assessment.

"Milblogs tell the good news, the progress on the ground," she said.

Ward Carroll, news editor of Military.com, said that a good milblog "reads with a sincerity and an import that no mainstream media outlet can capture."

Both John Donovan, whose milblog is at http://www.thedonovan.com, and "Beth," who runs Fuzzilicious Thinking, point out that connectivity is the key.

Not all milblogs get large volumes of traffic, but even the seldom-read are often connected to other blogs that have larger readerships or are in turn read by those with access to a greater audience.

Charlie, whose OPFOR site has just ventured into podcasting, wants the military of the future to embrace bloggers more closely and make its content accessible over a wide variety of platforms.

"I would like to see a unit blogger," he explained, "some sort of central Web site where we get to see the combined blogs of each brigade combat team ... that can go out over podcasts, the Internet, etc."

For now, milblogs seem to be gaining in popularity because, in John from OPFOR's words, "The military art is largely a language, and there is a tremendous appetite in America for people who are fluent in that language."

Rules on what can and can't be publicly posted are absolutely necessary. However, it seems that some segments of the military have shot themselves in the foot by going overboard. As a result, many first-hand accounts of the situation on the ground are stifled, and the public has to rely on often-slanted and sometimes-bogus media coverage.

I fully understand the need to be careful and cautious. The military has a duty to ensure that potentially sensitive information doesn't fall into the hands of the wrong people. On the other hand, I question whether those who shape policy that applies to milbloggers fully understand the value and importance of milblogging, particularly combat blogging.

I understand that it takes a while for a big bureaucracy, such as the Department of Defense, to embrace new mediums, and I have been heartened by their efforts, albeit slow, to use blogs, new media and other forms of technology to engage the public, but stories like this one leave many feeling that we're taking one step forward and two steps back. It's a difficult balance and it's going to take some time to get it right. The problem is, of course, that we're running out of time to get it right.

So, the military bans YouTube.  I have a serious question:

How are General Petraeus' public affairs guys going to upload videos to their very own MNF-I YouTube channel now?

Next, be sure to read Major Elizabeth Robbins award winning paper about military blogs "Muddy Boots" - which General Petraeus praised.  It is pure genius and I'm glad Noah linked to it.  I believe that Major Robbins is or is on the way to somewhere dangerous.

The Bottom-Line to the this bad piece of regulation:  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...

Operational Security is of paramount importance.  But we are losing the Information War on all fronts.  Fanatic-like adherence to OPSEC will do us little good if we lose the few honest voices that tell the truth about The Long War.

Instead, the US Army should adopt Major Robbins recommendations, allow for unit bloggers, and restrict bloggers with the same rules as the military gives embed reporters (with UCMJ exceptions).  Maybe, then, we can start winning some battles on the information front.