The END of Military Blogging

Posted By Blackfive

The most excellent Noah Shachtman of Wired's Danger Room has a great article with lots of milblogger reaction to the new OPSEC regulations that will end military blogging as we know it.  Yes, that's right - the end of soldier blogging from the war zones.

Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death
Noah Shachtman Email 05.02.07 | 2:00 AM

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer, Wired News has learned. The directive, issued April 19, is the sharpest restriction on troops' online activities since the start of the Iraq war. And it could mean the end of military blogs, observers say.

Military officials have been wrestling for years with how to handle troops who publish blogs. Officers have weighed the need for wartime discretion against the opportunities for the public to personally connect with some of the most effective advocates for the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq -- the troops themselves. The secret-keepers have generally won the argument, and the once-permissive atmosphere has slowly grown more tightly regulated. Soldier-bloggers have dropped offline as a result...

Read the whole piece.

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.

Update:  Steve Schippert sends this link to a video by Brad Levinson of the first panel of the 2006 MilBlog Conference.  At the very end, I make a prediction that I've been praying would never happen.

"If the Army restricts bloggers, all you will have are pissed-off dissident bloggers who are willing to take a risk...every Article-15  schlep will be blogging and all of the guys in this room who are trying to get the stories out, will not.  That'll be the end."

Update 2:  Wired also has an interview posted with the creator of the new regulation.  And treating reporters as Al Qaeda moles.

Update 3:  Reader Paul asks if I'll continue to post messages and emails from my friends in the war zone.  For my answer, see below.

Update 4:  John, a US Army Reserve Officer in Iraq, writes:

If the mil thinks they can keep this reservist from blogs, KMFA

Update 5:  General Casey is not the most Public Affairs minded General ever.  Can't say much else on a PG13 blog.

Update 6:  Just did an interview with Wavelength (Tech Radio) about this issue.  The link is to the raw interview (mp3 file).  The edited version will hopefully include Noah Shachtman and will be on Public Radio across the country.

Update 7 05-03-07: Army releases announcement (I'll post when there's an official link) which essentially is stepping back from the stricter language of the regulation.  This is a smart and welcome change, although it will not change, nor republish, the regulation.

Here is my response from the comments:

The Army is stepping back on this. This wasn't an overblown reaction to the reg. The reg was poorly written. The Wired article accurately reflected the changes in the regulation. And now, General Officers are on the move to prevent it from doing damage. The Army is doing the right thing here. This announcement is a welcome change...however, the "announcement" does not reside within the reg, and therefore, commanders, when consulting the regulations, won't know about it unless it's disseminated widely (like, say, at a milblog conference).

<...>

Outside of Special Ops, I highly doubt that many commanders would ever take a liberal interpretation of any regulation, let alone a regulation pertaining to OPERATIONAL SECURITY?!

Taking a different tact than what the reg dictates is a substantial opportunity for demotion or a stay with all expenses paid at ol' Ft. Leavenworth.

Comments

[The Bald Monk]

It looks like General Casey and the acting Sectary of the Army signed the order. This beyond stupid.

Casey should have been fired for his poor leadership in Iraq, instead the Army promotes him out of Iraq to Army Chief of Staff and this the kind of stupidity the Army gets.

[Ymarsakar]

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...

Let's get more gun laws then, that'll fix the problem, right Matt?

Oh wait, we're talking about guns right?

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.

Reminds me of that adage about not giving orders that you know won't be obeyed. Which means not pretending that such orders will be obeyed by everyone it is issued to. Which figures into the self-deception clause that just because some of your troops obey the order, it doesn't mean the general staff should fool themselves that everyone will obey the order.

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).

I suppose the brass or the lawyers or whatevers behind the "let's keep it all hush hush secret" thinks that if they can control military bloggers, this means the media will take it easy on the military and the war... ha

What's the point of having a law if you only apply it selectively, when entire populations and groups like the media (and terrorists) are exempted? Some kind of one hand clapping deal here?

Maybe, then, we can start winning some battles on the information front.

Some people want to bunker down and go into siege mode, instead of mobile assault and maneuver to attack. Turtle effect. Head in sand awaiting the nuke shockwave.

Not wise.

Casey should have been fired for his poor leadership in Iraq, instead the Army promotes him out of Iraq to Army Chief of Staff and this the kind of stupidity the Army gets.

Promoting someone up the chain of command was a time tested subtle way to softly cushion the attempt to get rid of a commander in a sensitive leadership slot.

Course, in the long term, there may be problems. Don't know enough about Casey to know whether he was promoted for this reason or not.

[Old Tanker]

I just caught this at OPFOR. This is perfectly in keeping with military thinking. Regulate the best tools you have into extinction.....way to go Casey

[Laughing Wolf]

Idiotic, incompetent, ignorant, ill-conceived, and just plain f**king stupid. Anyone who conceived this and/or signed it knows nothing of informational warfare, asymetrical warfare, or has the faintest clue about or desire to win any form of battle or war of any type. This completely and totally cedes the field to the enemy; and, it ensures that the negative coverage (about which the top people complain) is the ONLY coverage that the world and the citizens get. It is at best a Maginot Line mentality and the rough equivalent of the WWI generals who ordered troops to slow march in line abreast against machine guns.

[Michael Barger]

This is an appalling mistake. It is disgraceful for General Casey to capitulate to the forces that are aiding and abetting the al-Qaeda fellow travelers in the US by silencing the milbloggers.

I hope someone gets a petition going to the President as Commander in Chief to rescind this dangerous bit of stupidity.

[Michael Barger]

All the reports say these are U.S. Army regulations. Can anyone confirm that the Air Force, Navy, and Marines are not (yet ?) controlling milblogs out of existence?

[LittleRed1]

Perhaps covering the operationally dangerous information on Milblogs with black bars (like the censors did with my great-uncle's letters home from the CBI) would work instead.
Seriously, this has got to be one of the most counterproductive ideas I've heard in quite a while. We shut down one of our best sources about what's going on, while letting the enemy have a free pass all over the Web and other media? Grrrrrrrr.

[Teresa]

So let me get this straight... if my son is stationed in Iraq, he won't be able to send me an email without getting it cleared by a senior officer?

I realize that's not exactly what you're talking about, but honestly, it's already hard enough to get him to send me email when he doesn't have to get it approved. This will kill all communication because when will he have time to get it approved?

Does Casey have a clue what he's asking these soldiers to do? It's not like back in WW2 when they hired special people to censor letters home... he's adding extra work - in a war zone to people who are already stretched to the limit. There is no possible way that this will work.

Oh they'll catch a few people and they will be "examples" but they won't catch everyone and it's going to be yet one more thing to piss off the fighting soldier. Is he TRYING to make these excellent soldiers quit? It sure looks like it.

[jordan]

Milblogs are the major critics of MSM coverage of the war, and speak with greater credibility and authority on the subject. Most milblogs are supportive of the war effort, and have been a strong counter to media naysaying. If rigid OPSEC starts receiving focus and being enforced, I'd worry about MSM types scouring and monitoring milblogs for "OPSEC violations" and then bringing it to the attention of unit commanders or the Pentagon, resulting in the shutting down of that blog.

This is pretty black helicopter, but could happen. The MSM has stirred up trouble this way in the past. That said, OPSEC should always come first.

[Sammy D]

How in the hell does the Army want us civilians to fight the lies here at home if we can't access the type of info blogs provide? Will M'Blog conference become Ground Zero for attacking this boneheaded reg?

[Caleb]

Major Garrett of FOX News was on the Laura Ingraham radio show a while back. He was talking about an informal "background" meeting that several members of the press had with Pres. Bush. They would ask questions relating to the strategies being employed in this or that situation in Iraq by Gen. Casey. Major Garrett said that Bush answered every question with the same comment, "Gen. Casey is a good man."

Say what? There are a hell of a lot of "good men" (and women) that get put is positions where their incompetence is evident and damaging. Gen. Casey in Iraq is an example of that so called "Peter Principle" IMHO. Appearently, Pres. Bush does not recognize the concept.

This is another major FUBAR on the part of the Army. This is one of the reasons that Rummy was trying to reorganize and reorient the Army. But he is now gone and Gen. Casey is promoted to a position to eff up the whole Army instead of just that part in Iraq.

[Per Angusta]

This is typical bureaucracy at it's worst. It'll kill the Army bloggers until they find a way to get a friend, a spouse, or some other enterprising blogger to serve as a clearinghouse for their writings. The emails will go back to being posted anonymously and the truth will still get out, just not as fast, or with as much credibility as an attributable source would.

[AFSister]

jesus.... what in the HELL are they THINKING?!?!??!?!

I'm hoping Donovan brings his Cluebat to bop the Pentagon with. I just can't wrap my head around this right now. Just.Can't.Understand.

[Patrick (gryph)]

This snippit from the WIRED article caught my eye.

"A person doesn’t have to be in the military or government to support OPSEC. OPSEC is a program designed for maximum participation of all people with the purpose of protecting our critical and sensitive information. As a Nation, we are in this fight together, and all Americans are encouraged to practice OPSEC. "

I'm reminded of the famous road to Hell that is paved with good intentions. Loose lips do sink ships, so yes, there should be a program to raise public awareness about these issues. However its entirely different to suggest that the American civilian public subject itself as a whole to military OPSEC regulations.

One thing I haven't seen in this discussion is whether there are any examples of where blogging and e-mails have comprimised a mission. I'd like to know how many times that has happened and what were the consequences. What is the cost-benefit ratio of the policy. It also seems a bit silly to worry about personal e-mails when military laptops, USB data drives/keys keep showing up in the local markets right outside military bases in Afganistan and Iraq. While I'm sure that graft and theft have always been a part of military life, I'd like to know if the problem is less or worse now that so many jobs have been delegated to outside contractors, who then sub-contract with the result that often many of the support personnel people working on an American base in a combat zone are not even American citizens. Or subject to military punishment for lifting laptops. Whats funny is that if you work in the defense industry back here in the United States, you know that at places like Boeing, etc. there are whole sections of factories that non-citizens are simply not permitted to access. I'm not saying we should be automatically suspicious of non-citizens working on military bases, that has always happened in war zones. However you would think/hope that American citizens working on bases would have more of an emotional stake in this issue.

[Wolf]

All you guys in the field:

the.mr.wolf@gmail.com

Will publish and screen anything you want. Just send it here. It WILL get out. Don't need to attribute it to anyone.

The IO leadership >I< know wouldn't do this in this way. Does anyone need any more proof about the General selection process being broken?????

W

[AFSister]

Same here, Wolf.
You send it, I'll post it.
just click my nick; hit "send".

[T. Shaw]

"We have met the enemy and they is us."

Pogo

[TBinSTL]

I suggest a fresh deep background security check up for Casey. I'm not at all convinced he's on our side.

[509thBob]

Why did this story appear at this time? Commissioned officers are prevented, pursuant to Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice from making "contempuous" statement about (and to) our elected leaders. I don't suppose that Senator Chesse-Eating-Surrender-Monkey Harry Reid really appreciated all those truthful comments from the unwashed enlisted people over his Immediate-Surrender Funding Bill vote. THAT is why, I think, this regulation suddenly appeared after 4 years of combat in Iraq.
Bob

[Synova]

Gryph, OPSEC has less to do with regulations (usually) and more to do with understanding that information about operations can be and is gleaned from seemingly innocent things.

It is good for the media and civilians to understand that and at least consider if the unclassified stuff can be used as pieces of a puzzle and put together by the enemy, and chose to not talk about it.

[bthun]

I don't even know where to start. Between the immunity of our MSM when it comes to revealing state secrets, to the publication of enemy video and text by our MSM, to the CinC not getting hard-assed on those who do not produce results, friend or foe, to this...

A reasoned petition to the CinC might be a good start followed up by polite WTF letters to the congress-widgets and senators, always realizing that legit OPSEC is foremost, but as someone mentioned, we might begin by asking for the leadership to cite examples of when, where, how, and to what end has a MILbloggers actions undercut the effort?

Holding any and all violators of OPSEC or national security to the UCMJ or constitutional law ought to suffice, or so I would think.

/* just sitting here shaking my head while considering sending a case of RC cola to all the maroon's in positions of leadership */

[The WatchCat]

I'm with Wolf and AFSister. I'll be happy to post any valid info. Freedom of speech from those who make it possible.... There's more than one way to make it possible.

Since I'm a civilian, a list of the reasonable guidelines for sharing information would be helpful. I screen all comments on my blog, so feel free to include personal information if needed.

[Gmo]

Its the army way. They like their soldiers shiny, shaved, and silent.

[Teresa]

Since munu trackbacks don't work...

Ping!

[geekwitha.45]

>>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...

Same rationale as gun control, and the same awful outcome.

[D.W. Drang]

Being a retired MI Geek I understand the need for OPSEC, and the dangers of the enemy (which includes the media!) gleaning intel from seemingly innocuous information.
But.
If they're not going to require snail mail to be censored, too, this seems DUMB. Counter-productive. Another one of those "Let's see, how can I utterly destroy morale" decisions ossifers operating at Echelons Above Reality make from time to time. Justification for every Field Grade and Flag Officer to have a Senior Enlisted Advisor, and proof that all too many Command Sergeants Major are toadies and sycophants, not looking out for the troops. (FWIW, the biggest critics of Sergenats Major I ever met were all First Sergeants.)(And all too many Field and Grade Flag officers ignore their CSM anyway.)
"No, sir, I'm not sending any emails with anything other than 'The weather is here, wish I wasn't' in it." ("And I'm not going to tell you about the SD card with blog postings and photos I just snail mailed my mother...")
It does seem that the requirement that any blog postings be cleared by "a superior officer" would de facto approve unit blogs.

[LongTabSigo]

That sound you hear is an round going off into the Army's collective foot.

As mentioned earlier: (expletiving) Stupid.

Let's prosecute some real OPSEC violators (i.e. the Media) first.

[TallDave]

Given that Petraeus praised Robbins' piece, and he is the "superior officer" for all of Iraq, could he give blanket permission to everyone there, similar to what he did with the ROE saying his orders cannot be modified by lower commanders?

[LongTabSigO]

Is is safe to presume that there is going to be an agenda adjustment at the upcoming Milblog Conference?

[Don]

Someone please direct me/us to the 'regulation' being cited?

[Al Maviva]

This explains how the military is losing the hearts & minds battle in the west. Military f***ing genius Casey apparently didn't read Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap's book on how the NVs defeated us, nor, apparently, did he read Gen. Davidson's book on the subject. Evidently, the staff college reading in Sun Tzu and Clausewitz didn't sink in either.

Amazing. How can a general, in the post-Vietnam War era, be so stupid and blind to the importance of information in modern warfare, especially in small wars?

I'm aghast. It's like the 508 is on the other side - let them play their information warfare games, while we muzzle our most effective footsoldiers in the battlespace between the human ears. This is staggering.

[TallDave]

Also, I agree with e definitely need a petition drive to the CinC, something like "Don't Silence Our Soldiers." If it gets some media traction it could get smething done.

[Martin]

Besides being profoundly stupid, this also seems utterly unenforceable. Unless they shut down all the internet cafes, and every NIPRNET computer (for those of you not in theater, a NIPRNET computer is one that is on the regular, i.e. unclassified, internet) this simply cannot work. The year I spent in theater (2003 in A-Stan and 2004 in Kuwait) I sent - literally - thousands of emails to include photos. We understood that there was random monitoring for OPSEC and a few people did get busted either sending out photos of things they shouldn't have, or downloading PrOn or some such.

But saying that every email has to be approved by a senior officer? In some units you could hire a battalion of "senior officers" and order them to work 20 hours a day and still not make a dent in the millions of emails that get sent out of theater every day.

This makes as much sense as it would have to try banning soldiers from having digital cameras in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Unenforceable and idiotic. Makes me glad I retired in 2005.

Martin

PS: There are tens of thousands of civilians in theater who would not be subject to this order anyway....

[MaryAnn]

The U.S. Army has ordered soldiers to stop posting to blogs or sending personal e-mail messages, without first clearing the content with a superior officer...

Not only blogging, but sending personal email messages? This is a joke, right?

Right?

[Lola LB]

What planet is Casey on??? If the Public Affairs is clueless and milbloggers are shut off, where are we going to get information to fight back with?

[Tink]

Asshats

[Dr. Scott]

The new regulations are available at http://blog.wired.com/defense/files/army_reg_530_1_updated.pdf

I wonder if folks aren't overreacting to this. Seems to me that the new regs could be interpreted sensibly. Something like, before you start a blog, you talk with the CO and the OPSEC officer about the sort of things that shouldn't be posted. What would be so bad about that?

[Wolf]

Dr-
Because I've never met a sr. commander over there who didn't take it to the Nth degree to make CERTAIN it could not be violated. I'm surprised some of them let troops carry bullets in anything but their pockets sometimes. Thats extreme, but the mindset at times can be.

Integrity, integrity, integrity....

Wolf

[colagirl]

This is beyond stupid. It's boneheaded, unenforceable, and plays right into the enemy's hands. Are we *sure* this isn't a hoax? (That bit about requiring approval before *sending personal email* seems so jaw-droppingly ridiculous that it makes me wonder.)

Milblogs have been one of my crucial sources for gaining a nuanced, in-depth and accurate look at the war--they've been invaluable for countering the "drive-by media" and their shallow and often-inaccurate coverage. That the army would attempt to shut down these sources of information is just mindboggling.

[Padraig]

New OPSEC = FUBAR + SNAFU + WTF

[AndyJ]

This is Bureaucratic BULL Garbage... Just further evidence that some miliary commanders have started think of a Peacetime-Garrison-Political-Personal future... We have news reports of Majors-Lt. Colonels- Colonels posturing themselves for their promotions once the war is over... Its the same ticket-punching mentality we saw duringand after Vietnam... Everyone-including the bad guys- know how to send emails-post to a bulletin board etc without getting supervised, watched or leaving a record... POINT BEING... Daylight cures corruption...The Censorship Mentality is to cover-up the Military Screw-ups and notallow them to be prevented from getting the next promotion... (Retirement pay being based on rank at returement- not time in grade) OpSec can be protected and resolved while still letting strong lights expose the stupidity and corruption... Congress is prowling for scapegoats... That might mean no promotion, no higher retirement pay, possibly even no retirement. The Puzzle Palace Pension Protection Plan is full of P...

We do not need the Garrison-Peacetime-Political miliary mentality. This war is too far from over for our leaders to start wondering about curtains, carpets and retirement... The US military has done a magnificent job in shifting gears to respond to changes on the battlefield...Let's don't lose that edge... The Classified stamp protects more idiot decisions than national secrets...

[JM Hanes]

The new regs won't just piss-off bloggers, it will piss off friends, families, supporters & what I hope might become a tidal wave of general readers who, like me, just want to know where to send their objections.

More dire still, such overt censorship will also taint the primary, if not the only venue, for fact checking the MSM's ass!

The mere mechanics of oversight will entail an enormous waste of manpower in pursuit of the illusion of control, and it will cost us dearly at every turn.

[LongTabSigO]

Folks:
It's very enforcable in theater. It is not that difficult to limit access to a small list of URLs in the ".mil" domain.

Many internet cafes the troops use are commercially provided internet which can easily be shut down/blocked.

For the Army, they can mandate use of "AKO" (Army Knowledge Online) which offers email, chat, and video. Of course, there is the implied "threat" that you are being watched. For the other services, AKO can be offered/mandated (in fact, they are experimenting with a consolidated "Defense Knowledge Online" (DKO) solution now.

(As an aside, i'm a big fan of AKO/DKO. It's a very excellent capability that, leveraged correctly, helps troops and their families. I'm against using it as an information corral to restrict blogging.)

And just like the rules that restrict what can be said of public officials, the troops can easily be penalized for violating even the spirit of this regulation.

I think that MaryAnn and the other gals (who see these new rules as having the effect of cutting the "homefront" linkage) as having an opportunity to influence the leadership to rethink this policy. Clearly this is a threat to THEIR morale. They can probably best effect a change in thinking by demonstrating that.

Don't expect the Media to rise up in support of Blogs. As far as the Media goes - this a great news for them. Besides a muzzle on this medium of information, it makes them once again the "go-to" source for info. The only way they'll support a countering action is if the potential damage to the Military and/or the President out weighs the threat that the Blogs represent to their endeavors.

[Billy]

Regarding military blogs:
The practice should never've been allowed. Never mind "getting the word out." That's baloney. The military is there to do an important job for the nation. It's not about "me." Get the drift?
Who ever said it was okay to reveal anything to anyone about operational plans, needs, procedures or screw-ups. Too, whatever happened to the philosophy of "knowing one's place?" Just follow orders and do the job. The "Hemingway thing" doesn't fit within the confine of a world-wide jihad.

[the tapper]

Synova,,, 509thBob,,,I have not seen the actual orders curtaining Milblogs, but I certainly would not be suprised. My reasoning would be ROE's changed because of the negative reporting???Soldiers thinking instead of shooting. That and the fight against the MSM not reporting facts Or leaving out vital pieces of information changing the entire meaning of what actually happened. Not so much giving up sensitive information,, Just my take....

[Jess]

Man, they can't even get the regular media to follow opsec and keep secrets. How're they gonna enforce this? Their time and energy would be much better spent gagging the real offenders, true OPSEC threats, like the media, ie the Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC, who seem to have no qualms about revealing important strategic information or the identities of our operatives, etc., for the whole world to see; all the yahoos with really big mouths & loose lips in WA who think drinking too much is an acceptable excuse for them to flap their gums and blab everything they know to some bartender who's on the take with the opposition; and people like Arkin, etc. who also don't give a damn about giving out information that get important operatives in the field killed.

I'd bet these non-military culprits wrought far more damage than any milblogger out there. Also a bad idea, in general, for moral and the families who feel that they can at least keep in touch, or have that thread of connection with their loved ones in the field--the security that they get knowing s/he's still alive and how things are going as the war shuffles along. Unfortunately, the good are being inhibited and punished and the bad will just continue being bad and not feeling any kind of a pinch. The Arkins of the world will continue flapping their gums and giving the enemy primary opsec and those who're in the field and who wouldn't give out any info that would jeapardize their own lives will be the only ones hurt by this. It's just common sense that a milblogger isn't going to reveal opsec that would hurt themselves, yeah?

I think this reg gives the media carte blanche and there'll be no "checks or balances" to even out the faulty, biased and often inaccurate information they try to shove down our throats. I'm sure the media will be pleased as punch about this new reg. This is a very bad idea if we still want to win the war, because with only one-sided views of the war coming home, and only one pov offered as we seem to have with our print, online and tv news media, then what else should we beleive? This is no way to win or keep the hearts and minds here at home or abroad. Very disappointed.

[Cara]

>The good guys are restricted and the bad continue on.>

So if a soldier posts something negative that makes him a "bad" guy???

[Miss Ladybug]

I'll be composing a missive to go to the CinC, SecDef, SecArmy, my two senators and my representative.

[Cassandra]

Lotta heat here.

Not a whole lot of light. Why don't you all wait a bit and see how this plays out before going hermitile? Seems to me we've been down this road before and it leads nowhere except a whole lot of Monday morning sheepishness.

On that general tack, we might want to gaze back over the past five years and reflect upon just how wildly successful the entire right half of the blogosphere (let alone that subset we affectionately know as the Milblogging community) has been at shoring up public opinion in favor of staying the course.

Ummmm.... yeah.

Let's not get too big for our britches. On the windshield of history, we're a flyspeck.

[SDN]

Wonder if a Congresscritter would like to announce that he'll consider those who post to be covered by the various whistleblower laws....

[Ymarsakar]

Seems to me we've been down this road before and it leads nowhere except a whole lot of Monday morning sheepishness.

I just keep telling myself like a broken record, "just two more years of Bush, just two more before we roll the dice once again". This war is like crossing the Rubicon every 4 years, compacted into the entire compaign.

We do know that Bush's problem is that he seems to think that if people act good around him, act like good folks with good intentions, that this somehow means they are at competent at their jobs. Bush is totally wrong on that, as he was wrong about Tenet and that Fema guy, and a bunch load of other folks he didn't fire. If Casey is what people here say he is, he's going to fall into the same slot that others have fallen into, in relation to Bush.

[htom]

Insane. Are they /trying/ to lower moral both at home and abroad? Courtney Massengale would be proud of this, I'm sure.

[Gmo]

I remember in-ranks inspection whereupon the individuals would be given new helmet covers to replace their graffiti covered covers to cover up slang, vulgarity, and profanity. They would conduct bona fidis updates to compare handwriting for the ID of sh!thouse poets. Uniformity, conformity, anonimity.

[SGT Grumpy]

Like any bad piece of regulation, the way to deal with this is to obey it to the letter - I can just see my BC having to stop planning OPS so he can review "personal e-mail messages" and blog posts. The Army will have to create a new staff position just to deal with it. The system will quickly be overwhelmed. Really, there's no way to manage this policy, it just allows Army leaders to selectively enforce it when it suits them, which is probably what this for.

[Rosemary]

Matt, I have been doing a LOT of posting for CENTCOM. I guess I will have to shut down that propoganda machine if they do not respond to me in a favorable light. I'll keep in touch and let you know how it goes tomorrow (or the couple of days it will take for them to get their heads out of their asses after my email!).

[Rosemary]

Matt, I have been doing a LOT of posting for CENTCOM. I guess I will have to shut down that propoganda machine if they do not respond to me in a favorable light. I'll keep in touch and let you know how it goes tomorrow (or the couple of days it will take for them to get their heads out of their asses after my email!).

[Defendusa]

The morale thing is a ballbuster for sure...I do agree,however that the info posted could help the enenmy whether inflammatory or not. Already we have the pussy posse saying we've lost. It's tough not to be pissed about it.
Go back and have a listen to Cronkite's broadcast when we had kicked VC butt...decimated their army but the VC heard 'ol Walt say that we won. THey came back to kick booty (we stayed a few more years and lost many more men). Nothing is ever as simple as we wish it to be.

[Rosemary]

I'm with Wolf, AFSister, and WatchCat. If you have anything you want said, just e-mail me. RawSense2004 AT yahoo DOT com. I don't usually give out my email address, but I'm so angry I am seeing red. Have a nice freakin' time at the Milbloggers Convention! Darn, they have good timing.

HEY, WAIT A MINUTE! We can turn this thing around. There IS going to be hundreds of people there. You all can get together and come up with something. Post it, and I will repost the instructions with a link back to you. Yes! We have NOT been beaten yet! HOOAH!

[Michael Fumento]

It's not just milblogging. Warblogging by citizen embeds is becoming endangered. After I refused to embed in Tikrit because it's too boring (and, as it turns out, another citizen embed was assigned there at the same time) I had the audacity to complain in print that citizen embeds shouldn't be automatically sent to backwaters to make room for the MSM. Since then no PAO in the country that I've written to about embedding in Iraq has written back to me. And I've written to plenty. No, I DON'T think it's a coincidence. Then in Afghanistan, from which I returned a few days ago, I was given trouble about allegedly violating OPSEC on something I wrote that is not covered in the OPSEC rules reporters sign and turned out to not even be true! How giving false information to the enemy constitutes an OPSEC violation I can't fathom. The military appears more than content to allow the MSM a monopoly.

[Sgt. Mom]

Honestly, I'm surprised the Army went this long, without instituting some kind of rule... I wrote about it here
http://www.ncobrief.com/index.php/archives/power-and-control/ at the Daily Brief

[Michael in MI]

"The military appears more than content to allow the MSM a monopoly."

And I would add that the military appears more than content to lose the F***ING war. What happened the last time the media had a monopoly on war reporting? Oh that's right, we surrendered and cut and run from Vietnam (a war effort we were winning) and we surrendered and cut and run from Mogadishu (which proved to Osama bin Laden that America was not willing to fight the Islamists).

Whoever gave this order should be fired. Plain and simple. The support for the war may be low, but imagine how low it would be had military blogs not existed. NO ONE would know the truth about our success and progress there. Is that what the Army wants?

Imagine if blogs did not exist. Imagine the media with a total monopoly. Guess what... President Bush would have lost the 2004 election, and we would have John Kerry as President right now, because it was the bloggers (Free Republic, Power Line and Little Green Footballs) who exposed the lies of Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and CBS. The military blogs have the very same effect.

Not enough people read blogs yet, but slowly, but surely more and more people are starting to read them and become informed.

One thing to note is that the military blog community has the support of the Conservative blogosphere. I am quite certain Michelle Malkin, the Hot Air guys, the Power Line guys and Charles Johnson, among many others, would be willing to "blogswarm" a story to get the word out that the military blogs need people to harass the military to stop this nonsense. Though maybe instead of harassing them, we could write to tell our stories about how much reading military blogs has helped us understand the war effort better and has solidified our support for the war effort. And without them, we probably would be of the same ignorant mindset as Harry Reid.

[Rubberduck Crusader]

Express your concerns to the Pentagon directly by following this link:

http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.aspx

[Anon]

I have personally read things which I KNOW were dangerous to have been put out there. In past wars, nothing went out without the censors reading it and that was in a time when there were only letters home. In the time of the information superhighway, and inexcusable laxness on the part of some members of the military, something has needed to be done. Do you know for a fact that some of the Al Qaeda attacks in Iraq or Afgahnaistan have not been prompted by information put out in this way? My interest in knowing or the need to blog does not override someone else's need to exist or the threat that such lapses might pose to the overall mission.

Just a thought in the midst of all the inflamed rhetoric. That said none of the OPSEC problems I have come upon have been on this blog.

[baldilocks]

Sgt. Mom: So am I.

[1charlie2]

Anon,

I understand perfectly the need for OpSec. Did you read the regulation ? I found it interesting that they begin by talking about the need to protect "critical and sensitive information" and from there make a leap to:

"g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum." (2-1g)

In other words, as written, if I were still in, I couldn't email my Aunt Mabel (if I had one) and write "I had a great lunch -- they served turkey with dressing" without talking to my OpSec officer ???? It doesn't say information "that might be critical and sensitive." It makes NO distinctions.

I invite someone to tell me my reading of it is wrong. I REALLY WANT to be wrong. Because as written, it assumes that being over-cautious is free from cost. In information warfare, it's NOT. It always costs. Sometimes, extreme caution is worth it. Sometimes it's not. But it's NEVER FREE.

If you want to HAMMER some GI who posts something s/he should clearly not have, BE MY GUEST. But read the reg carefully -- this is prior restraint, and needless prior restraint at that.

I urge anyone who thinkgs MilBlogs are important to read the reg. Please, someone tell me I didn't read it right. Otherwise, drop a polite line to DefenseLink and let them know what you think about it. They just blew another hole in their foot.

[AFSister]

I have no problem with the Army cracking down on Opsec leaks. Bring violators up on charges and throw their butts in the brig. BUT. Why punish the masses for the asshattedness of the few? Why cut off the best PR campaign the Army's ever had?

Pure genius. NOT.

[jordan]

WashingtonPost.com just posted a long article on this order and milblogs, covering most of the angles. B5 is quoted extensively.

[DoubleTap]

I just made what might be my last post on my own blog. I, for one, am not going to get every one of my posts approved prior to publication. Blogging is very spur of the moment, and often driven by events of the day. If I have to wait until my boss gets around to reviewing everything I want to write, it will be old and out of date.

Come to think of it, according to that regulation, I can't even make these comments in this forum.

The Army is making a huge mistake.

[Michael Barger]

The entire war-supporting center-right blogosphere is exploding in outrage.

Politically, the President is facing a tsunami of protest from his own supporters. He needs to rescind this immediately.

If he doesn't he will continue to lose support for the war. The anti-war Democrats will smell blood and attack, just when the House is negotiating the war-funding bill.

He needs to act very, very fast.

[DoubleTap]

By the way, for those of you who think this regulation only covers soldiers overseas - it doesn't. It affects ALL soldiers, know matter where they are at (like me here in the U.S.). How do my comments concerning immigration, the 2nd Amendment, or the other issues I discuss have anything to do with this war? NONE. This is blanket regulation that covers ALL communications, not just those about the war.

[Richard]

Where is Donald Rumsfeld when you need him?

[Gmo]

Dead drop disc, Relay-e-mail. We're patriots, the last thing we would do is harm Us or aid opfor. The truth must prevail. Their stories must be told. I hope and pray that I've seen the last war of denial.

[Miss Ladybug]

I was just checking in on the AnySoldier.com website and realized that this, too, would fall under the stuff that must be cleared before being sent, even though Marty Horn is VERY conscious of OPSEC and would NEVER let anything through that could potentially harm the troops. AnySoldier.com is a valuable tool to aid in keeping the morale of the troops up, and I'd hate to think that outlet for the average American might be limited...

[FISTr]

As if officers and NCO's don't have enough to do - now they have to give clearance and conduct wordsmithing? Never mind that oporder and please drop that SITREP, by the way, ignore that FFE request - I need you to check that blog entry/email.

Bloggers are to the Army's cause what FISTr's with a good radio are to battle - a PR force multiplier!

I say there is more to this than opsec. Someone has the ear of the general, a REMF with an axe to grind.

[James]

Echelons beyond reason issuing orders devoid of thought.
Happy Groundhog day to all

[OldSoldier54]

This kind of anal, moronic braindead stupidity is the exact reason why I got out at the end of my second enlistment. Imbecile REMF officers that should be horsewhipped out of the service, instead are put into positions where they can cause maximum damage, and that useless dog turd with stars on his collar signed off on it!!

I swear, sometimes it truly appears as if too many of those in authority actually and actively want us to lose this war. And they will be the first ones to hit the knees, bowing East toward Mecca, saying, "Inshallah!"

Did that idiot major cite ANY example of OPSEC violations that got anybody killed or wounded? This clown needs a job at the State Department.

[alexa kim]

My comment at http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.aspx

"I cannot believe that someone has decided that now, NOW!, is the best time to stifle Our Troops' blogs?! I understand OPSEC, totally, but to make them all go through an already stuffed funnel to blog or email?! This is lunacy! You have got to come up with something better than this. Our Soldiers, Our Military NEEDS America's support now more than ever, and the blogs are the best way to keep it. Don't do this! Please!"

I'm sending it to comments@whitehouse.gov and Sen. Cornyn, and every media outlet I trust (not CNN or MSNBC).

[Miss Ladybug]

Alexa~

Sen. Cornyn will get something from me, too. And, hey, have you been emailing to Fox News Channel shows? I saw one on Neil Cavuto today from "Alexa Kim, Texas", and one I think last week on Fox News, too...

[Justthisguy]

I remember when they got all over Lieutenant Prakash for his blog, "Armorgeddon." They said he was (inadvertently, all agreed) letting slip some useful intel in his enthusiasm.

But I don't think that's what caught the attention of the brass, but more his bitching about the brass; the ones who wouldn't let him have canister when he needed it.

Oh, and Matty? Naples, FL still sucks. It's the demographics. I love the longitude and latitude.

[M. Simon]

I think this has gone beyond stupid and is now firmly into insane territory.

My guess is that this is a move to cover for the inarticulate Commander in Chief. If he can't adequately express himself no one can. Especially he doesn't want to be upstaged by some 2nd Lt or a corporal even. However, that is strictly a guess.

[M. Simon]

Speaking of information warfare I often like to quote St. John:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. - John F. Kennedy

I Support Democracy In Iraq

or if you are interested in a more animated version:

I Support Democracy In Iraq - The Animation

========

Where is Ted Sorensen when you really need him? A bit liberal for my tastes, but the guy could write a speech. Never met Ted. His cousin (from Omaha) was a good friend.

[M. Simon]

It seems to me that the way to handle this is blog teams. Each assigned to censor the others with a person responsible in each group. Each member of the team must check all the others posts. Self regulation.

Then you have a blog central to pass info and answer questions and handle opsec regulation.

I miss Armorgeddon.

[Yankee Sailor]

These are Army-only rules. They do not apply to Navy, Marine Corps or Air Force personnel.

[davod]

There are those in the army who are playing politics with Iraq. At the time of the of the "Surge" policy announcement I recall a senior general, it might have been Casey, implying saying that the troops wouldn't be getting there quickly. This, just after everyone being told that the importance of flooding the area with troops. Read the statements.

[Suihei Deloi]

@ LongTabSigO - You guys have video & chat on AKO? Sounds like they need to talk to the NKO guys. It's been awhile, but NKO frankly was lacking for content & function.

@ Yankee Sailor - Actually it could apply to other personnel in certain situations, specifically Indiv Augments. Several in my old unit were IA'd before I left; the only link they had back to the command or anyone else for the most part was through AKO.

Far as I know at this time the Navy doesn't have anything this sweeping. Most of it's already covered in the standard "You are logging on to a DoD system and can (I mean will) be monitored...." warning. They're more concerned about emails and phone calls than blogs. Of course that can change. I imagine part of the reason for lack of concern is well, when deployed we're usually in a more confined environment. No landlines, and only a limited amount of bandwidth to get everything done. Consequently there's limited or no access to the internet unless we get a liberty port somewhere. Those who do have internet access while the ship is underway can be monitored quite easily. And if you've ever worked in a SeaBee camp - half the time I barely had power to charge my PRCs - let alone a computer.

This reg is a heavy handed way of going about things folks. I'm not a big writer to begin with. But I know how this would've been interpreted at my old unit had the Navy implemented it - "Stick to snail mail people - we already have enough to do." This sounds like something my first chief (who was obsessed with his pristine desk calendar) would've come up with. If they lose the info war, it's no else's fault but those who did the rules-lawyering - anyone have a GIANT dodecahedron to catapult at the fools?

P.S. - Tip for the day - If you happen to have a chief (or sgt, or JO, or jacka%%, etc.) who IS obsessed with his govie issued desk calendar - and gives long lectures regarding what not to do to it (when you accidentally spill your coffee), keep this in mind. The stickers on the outside of Klondike Bar wrappers are the PERFECT SIZE to fit in all those little squares on the aforementioned day keeping device. Chances are, this will catch the dumba%% off guard, as several can play, and this is probably not on the long list of things not to do to the sacred calendar (yet). Have fun, win hearts and minds, & you didn't hear it from me.

"DESK CALENDAR - DOWN. STATUS - CASREP."

[Zoe Brain]

This will get lots of good political Karma for some political Generals - with the current majority in the Congress, and probably with the incoming Democratic Administration as well.

By restricting the source of news to the underfunded and amateurish CENTCOM PR unit, which few know of and no-one reads, and the Jihadi Propaganda that is 50% of MSM's raw data, then the correct Party Line is followed.

They're doing it because they're patriots you see, they don't want any more Bushite incompetence. They prefer Pelosiite incompetence, she's far more accomplished at it.

And of it helps advance their career...that's a bonus.

Maybe I'm being cynical. But as someone who has, as a US Ally, seen far more Avian Excrement in her life in the US Army and Airforce than she would ever have believed possible to exist, it makes sense. Nothing else does.

[walrus]

For once I am in agreement with Blackfive.

[LongTabSigO]

Comment below written by: Suihei Deloi
@ LongTabSigO - You guys have video & chat on AKO? Sounds like they need to talk to the NKO guys. It's been awhile, but NKO frankly was lacking for content & function.

Like I said, they are bringing the other Services into the AKO millieu, calling it DKO. Go to www.us.army.mil to find out the details of eligibility, but I believe other Service active duty folks and their spouses can sign up.

[walrus]

As a further comment, there is a heap of things that need to be done to tighten OPSEC before messing with peoples blogs and emails.

The classic example (posted elsewhere) is the dumbass commander and his staff who were wondering (on the net) why they got hit by IED's on THEIR RESUPPLY CONVOY EVERY TWO DAYS????????

Methinks that the insurgents could have used an alarm clock to trigger that IED. What was the Commander thinking????

Seriously, I would have thought that deception plans should be using the net - if of course people are smart enough to be running deception plans 24/7, god knows, the smarter people used them all the time in Vietnam. Don't the troops understand that they are under observation all the time???????

[walrus]

And as a PPS, No, I won't be more specific, you either know or you don't.

[ColoradoGuard]

This reg will not fly. Gen Casey is an idiot. RUMINT says this was in response to the very heated and direct criticism by the troops of Harry Reid.

As a contractor, I have access to some classified networks and emails, and I am going to risk my job by directly sending Casey an unclassified email on one of those networks, detailing him him on exactly how his regulation change was not only wrong, but f**king stupid, and inviting him to call me on the "Red" phone to talk about it.

Anyone out there hiring former 98Intel geek who is now a middle-aged software engineer that speak some Arabic, TS clearance (SSBI and Polygraph passsed in 04)? I'll probably be looking for a new job soon. Its worth it to jump on this grenade.

ColoradoGuard at Gmail

[seejanemom]

::taptaptap::::::um...is this thing hot?? (and I am CERTAIN that it IS since I know PRECISELY who reads this blog up at the Five Side Wind Tunnel, EVERY DAY):::taptap::::::

Can I just step up to the mic and ask OPSEC when they might be...um...kinda....<<<>>> GETTING RID OF ALL THE EMBEDDED COUNTER-TRIBALIST POS JOURNALISTS THEY CART AROUND IN THE APCs MY TAX DOLLARS PAY FOR? HHMMMMM?????????????

just sayin'.......

[@thepointyend]

I think we should take a step back for a second and think about what the new OPSEC regulation, which is the governing document being referred to here says.

First, it defines those things it thinks are sensitive. Having had a tour and soon to leave for another, the list is pretty reasonable to me - don't publicly desseminate info showing destroyed equipment (I've seen pics that could tell a guy how to kill a tank, for instance), casualties, protective measures, etc. The restrictions on WHAT is shared is reasonable.

The restrictions on HOW it is shared is perhaps more problematic, with commanders reviewing this, approving that, etc. But the good news is that the discretion is with the COMMANDER. That means that commanders can be as liberal (I'll periodically review your blog and tell you if you're screwing up) or tight (I'll review anything before you post it). Most commanders down range want the word out on what we're doing, and doing well I might add, so your average commander is not likely to engage in tight control over content. Hell, he doesn't have the time. What he WILL do is remind his folks about what is sensitive, and why it is so, and will probably establish a system for periodically reviewing sites. And I'm sure Mother Army will be reviewing blogs regularly and contacting commands if they see a problem.

As I read the reg, it sounds more restrictive than it really is since it does leave discretion with the commander. Further, it defines what info we're trying to protect.

It does mention that OPSEC extends beyond the military. That we soldiers should encourage our families to also be sensitive to OPSEC and not post info about missions (the whens and wheres), etc. If troopers are doing the right thing in protecting this info, families won't have it to post in the first place.

I'm not a security guy, a PAO guy, etc. I visit and comment on many blogs, and hope to start my own once I get back on the ground heading a transition team. But I have seen info in the blogosphere, and in the MSM, that made in cringe regarding its sensitivity. Trying to provide a little control, and using those with the most common sense (lower level commanders) is a fair approach. I don't agree with the idea of cutting everyone off, and then having some 'official' blog for a unit though.

I certainly hope that Acute Politics, Badgers Foward, TC Override, Mudville, etc., continue to do God's work in bring the truth to the folks back home, unencumbered by overzealous policing.

[@thepointyend]

The Army does have other ways of control. They can, for instance, block certain domains to keep folks from accessing them from a government computer. They do this with YouTube in some places, which is funny since MNFI has their own channel there, but we can't watch it.

[Suihei Deloi]

@ Colorado Guard - Most of the stuff I've seen fitting that description involves going to the sand for 135K, if you're into that kinda thing. However, send me your CV and I'll see what I can do. Will fire a msg over to the gmail later.

@ seejanemom - I know no body at the 'five side wind tunnel' (absolutely frickin PRICELESS). However while you're at the mic, pls advise those who happen to be common-sense-impaired that there is a medical solution. I'd consider it a cosmetic proceedure. It involve the addition of an abdominally placed clear viewing device. So when thier head is in that SPECIAL PLACE, they can see where they're going. Windshield wiper optional.

[pst314]

On April 5th Blackfive participated in a panel discussion on military blogs at the Pritzker Military Library in downtown Chicago. (It can be viewed here.) One of the participants was a US Army officer named Paul Swiergosz, who said that the Army respects and values milbloggers and is not interested in shutting them down. Suddenly I don't feel so confident of that.

[Gmo]

Some of you gays are yelling, shhhh, the ASA will hear you. Get it Ha ha , the GD MF @$$oles who always listen on the phones. Its like the ol'days when evryone shared the same line. Lisyten the Generals don't want anyone washing their clothes in public. Right.

[alexa im]

Miss Ladybug, yeah, that be me. *blush* I was pretty psyched. I've had to puncture my head several times to get through the door soz I can fetch a sandwich.

[@thepointyend]

interestingly enough, the wired article is a great example of the problem. The regulation is limited distribution, and yet they have it posted on their own website.

[alexa kim]

BTW, I found it rather more than ironic that the Wired article features a link to the pdf of the regulation which is clearly titled not for general release and the penalties for reading it if you aren't authorized to read it.

Um, to me... releasing that item feels a little too much like doing what we're disgusted with our Congresscreeps for doing: micromanagement.

And who leaked that document to Wired? That little fact is bothering me.

I'm still writing around asking everyone to raise a fuss. But I think the pdf of MAJ Robbins white paper on the issue is sufficient.

Just saying.

[@thepointyend]

The Army made this announcment today, which confirms my suspicion that the wired article is a bit overblown (and confirms my point that nothing has really changed with the new reg):

Summary:
America's Army respects every Soldier's First Amendment rights while also adhering to Operations Security (OPSEC) considerations to ensure their safety on the battlefield.
Soldiers and Army family members agree that safety of our Soldiers are of utmost importance. Soldiers, Civilians, contractors and Family Members all play an integral role in maintaining Operations Security, just as in previous wars.
Details:
* In no way will every blog post/update a Soldier makes on his or her blog need to be monitored or first approved by an immediate supervisor and Operations Security (OPSEC) officer. After receiving guidance and awareness training from the appointed OPSEC officer, that Soldier blogger is entrusted to practice OPSEC when posting in a public forum.
* Army Regulation 350-1, "Operations Security," was updated April 17, 2007 - but the wording and policies on blogging remain the same from the July 2005 guidance first put out by the U.S. Army in Iraq for battlefield blogging. Since not every post/update in a public forum can be monitored, this regulation places trust in the Soldier, Civilian Employee, Family Member and contractor that they will use proper judgment to ensure OPSEC.
* Much of the information contained in the 2007 version of AR 530-1 already was included in the 2005 version of AR 530-1. For example, Soldiers have been required since 2005 to report to their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer about their wishes to publish military-related content in public forums.
* Army Regulation 530-1 simply lays out measures to help ensure operations security issues are not published in public forums (i.e., blogs) by Army personnel.
* Soldiers do not have to seek permission from a supervisor to send personal E-mails. Personal E-mails are considered private communication. However, AR 530-1 does mention if someone later posts an E-mail in a public forum containing information sensitive to OPSEC considerations, an issue may then arise.
* Soldiers may also have a blog without needing to consult with their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer if the following conditions are met:
1. The blog's topic is not military-related (i.e., Sgt. Doe publishes a blog about his favorite basketball team).
2. The Soldier doesn't represent or act on behalf of the Army in any way.
3. The Soldier doesn't use government equipment when on his or her personal blog.
* Army Family Members are not mandated by commanders to practice OPSEC. Commanders cannot order military Family Members to adhere to OPSEC. AR 530-1 simply says Family Members need to be aware of OPSEC to help safeguard potentially critical and sensitive information. This helps to ensure Soldiers' safety, technologies and present and future operations will not be compromised.
* Just as in 2005 and 2006, a Soldier should inform his or her OPSEC officer and immediate supervisor when establishing a blog for two primary reasons:
1. To provide the command situational awareness.
2. To allow the OPSEC officer an opportunity to explain to the Soldier matters to be aware of when posting military-related content in a public, global forum.
* A Soldier who already has a military-related blog that has not yet consulted with his or her immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer should do so.
* Commands have the authority to enact local regulations in addition to what AR 530-1 stipulates on this topic.

[Wolf]

I don't have the reg here, but I think someone needs to show a response to the Army that the reg DOES place the restrictions, from the verbiage contained within, from doing what this last post says it DOESN'T. From the posts and wording taken from the reg, I think the Army is completely confused. Post the reg wording, then post the response the army posted above.

Then send it around.

W

[alexa kim]

Hmmm, @pointyend... I think I'm going to slow down a bit... I was wondering why, if the new regs were in place back on April 19, I would think I would've heard more by now about being cracked down on at the milblogs I read... maybe I lost some memory cells when I was managing my cranial inflations.

[@thepointyend]

@Wolf

Since the reg is For Official Use Only (FOUO) and limited distro, it would be inappropriate to post it. The Wired article contains a link to the document, which only points out the problem in the first place.

What is says in general (re blogs) is that soldiers "consult" with their commanders / OPSEC officers before posting in a public forum. And it provides things that might be sensitive to aid a soldier in knowing when to consult.

The onus is on the commander to ensure troopers know what info regarding their mission, location, etc. is sensitive (specifics versus the general examples in the reg) and ensuring troopers know it is okay to ask a question when in doubt.

[Ymarsakar]

It doesn't matter what it says, it matters what occurs. I trust Matt to have a somewhat greater grasp of the issue in practice, since presumably his stint to the rank of major had some positive effect on his knowledge of how other officers conduct themselves or just basic human nature (people skills)

Basically what that means is I think Matt's predictions are more likely to occur.

[Ymarsakar]

Comment below written by: Miss Ladybug

Alexa~

Sen. Cornyn will get something from me, too. And, hey, have you been emailing to Fox News Channel shows? I saw one on Neil Cavuto today from "Alexa Kim, Texas", and one I think last week on Fox News, too...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug | May 2, 2007 10:51:58 PM

oh, that is simply hilarious. Ironic even. I don't know why, but then again I have a warped sense of humour.

[@thepointyend]

@ Ymarsakar "It doesn't matter what it says, it matters what occurs"

Absolutely true. And I hope my 26 years combined enlisted/commissioned time, and advance to lieutenant colonel provides me with enough insight to know that most commanders want to do the right thing, and will intepret regs such that they can do the right thing. To me, that means give free reign to subordinates to the extent that they earn it, but as necessary, establish controls to protect your troopers. During my last stint, we never told anyone not to post or send pics home etc, but reminded them constantly that photos of security measures on the FOB, etc., could aid the enemy in their attempts to attack us.

I still say that common sense abounds at the lowest echelons of the military. You'd be amazed at how much brighter and knowledgable our young leaders are compared to my own days as a lieutenant or captain. They still need guidance occasionally, but war has put them light years ahead of where we were 15 years ago.

Some of our senior folks may not get it, just as many in congress don't, but all you have to do is look at Acute Politics or Badgers Foward to see young leaders telling the truth to the world, while safeguarding important information.

[OldSoldier54]

What Y said.

This is starting to get a slight political stench to it. Seems a little too convenient in the timing since that disgrace to the male part of the Race, Reid, started running his head. He, Looney Tunes Pelosi, and all the other like minded simpletons really, really, really want us to lose this war. It would a very sound strategy to silence, or severely impair, the most effective source of data we, who want the Good guys (COTW and folks like Mohammed and Omar at ITM) to win, have.

[@thepointyend]

Actually, this revision has been ongoing for months. And the measures in the new version have been in place through other policy venues for quite some time now. All the new reg did was add the new language (from the 05 version) to cover new tech like 'blogging'.

[Blackfive]

The Army is stepping back on this. This wasn't an overblown reaction to the reg. The reg was poorly written. The Wired article accurately reflected the changes in the regulation. And now, General Officers are on the move to prevent it from doing damage. The Army is doing the right thing here. This announcement is a welcome change...however, the "announcement" does not reside within the reg, and therefore, commanders, when consulting the regulations, won't know about it unless it's disseminated widely (like, say, at a milblog conference).

And, respectfully Eric, for anyone claiming to know anything about the Army and saying the commanders can interpret the reg in different ways...I think that's a lot of bullsh!t. Outside of Special Ops, I highly doubt that many commanders would ever take a liberal interpretation of any regulation, let alone a regulation pertaining to OPERATIONAL SECURITY?!

Taking a different tact than what the reg dictates is a substantial opportunity for demotion or a stay with all expenses paid at ol' Ft. Leavenworth.

[Timmer]

I've got a bad feeling that we're going to look back on this as when we completely gave up the information war. The government doesn't even seem to be fighting it. The media is mostly left and they're throwing more crap out there every day. I know an active duty guy that actually believes that Iraq would be better off if we were to leave and just let the bloodbath ensue, so we're not even getting the word out to our troops on what the consequences of pulling out would mean.

[DoubleTap]

I'm an O-5 level commander of a specialized unit based in CONUS. My boss is a general. Do you really think I'm going to be getting him to review all of my blog posts? Not likely. The best I can hope for is for him to let me "self-police" myself as I police the soldiers in my own unit. Otherwise, he'll have to review all of my "Rosie O'Donnell is an idiot" and "here's a cool video of crap getting blown up" posts. I can tell you - that's not going to happen.

I agree with BlackFive - I think the Army is backing down from their original regulatory requirements due to pressure from their own soldiers. I also agree that as the reg is currently written, I'd be fool as a commander not to put something in place to conform to this regulation lest I find myself, at a minimum, without a job.

[@thepointyend]

C'mon now, BlackFive. You know as well as I do that there is selective enforcement of damn near any reg out there. And when you throw in loosey-goosey terms like 'consult', that can mean just about anything the commander wants it to.

I love this site, and the many others I read daily. But really, you don't think "the end of soldier blogging from the war zones" is a little overblown? The reg doesn't forbid blogging. I guess we could argue as to whether any decent commander would shut down Badger 6 or TD. They are painting a damn good picture of what is going on there, and rarely have I seen anything that would make me, as a commander, say 'You shouldn't publish that.' I mean, to take DoubleTap's example, what commander gives a darn about what anyone says about Rosie? If he's not putting his office symbol, name, rank, etc., then he's just another dude who is sick of her crap.

But folks had a cow when Geraldo drew a map in the sand, yet you and I know that there are soldiers who have done darn near the same thing, albeit inadvertently. So how do we help prevent that?

This reg isn't about fixing a failed info ops campaign or keeping people from bitching about sand fleas and democrats. It is about making sure we don't inadvertently put stuff out there that gives the enemy an advantage.

I had to stop a dude from sending home a pic of a tank we lost in Baghdad, because the entry was so clean, and so clear that it screamed "shoot me here". Fortunately, that trooper asked because we made it a point to regularly remind folks about being careful with regard to battle damage photos, battle scenes, etc.

I won't disagree that the Reg is very poorly written, but having dealt with a similar effort here at my own installation, I also know that there is real concern about some of the stuff making it out into commercial email streams and on to websites - deployment schedules, itineraries of very senior folks, and force protection measures on some of our facilities in theater. Those bits of info constitute a real threat to security, especially as they are added together like pieces in a jig saw.

Any commander or other leader worth his salt is already engaging troopers on what they should and shouldn't say, what they should and shouldn't show in the interests of OPSEC. And they could do that by command edict even if there wasn't a reg. So a commander who will abuse the intent of the reg - OPSEC - could do so anyway. But if you do what the reg actually says - inform troops on what is sensitive and ask that they come back (consult) if they have a question about content, then you're in line with the reg. Yes, there will be some commanders who shut them off (I like to call that 'interpreting the reg' in its strictest sense)(yeah, I'm poking a little there). But the majority of the guys I work with would not take that kind of approach. We want, as much as anybody, for the folks back home to know what is going on - primarily because we believe in it.

So yeah, maybe I'm all f'd up. I guess I'll find out the first time I get called on the carpet for something one of my guys, or even something I have said. I've lived on the edge in the green suit for 26 years now, so I'm not too worried, as long as I'm doing my best to protect my troopers and their mission.

I know that this is extremely sensitive to folks that blog full time, just as certain restrictions on the media get them in arms. I on the other hand am a bit sensitive to the idea of painting the Army or her leaders (and I mean the lower level guys) with such a broad brush.

Our guys are out there doing the right things every day, and they will do the right thing here too.

[alexa kim]

Comment below written by: Miss Ladybug

Alexa~

Sen. Cornyn will get something from me, too. And, hey, have you been emailing to Fox News Channel shows? I saw one on Neil Cavuto today from "Alexa Kim, Texas", and one I think last week on Fox News, too...

Posted by: Miss Ladybug | May 2, 2007 10:51:58 PM

oh, that is simply hilarious. Ironic even. I don't know why, but then again I have a warped sense of humour.

Posted by: Ymarsakar | May 3, 2007 4:41:29 PM

Hilarious is it? Warped ye be, that we'll stipulate. Now that we've established that a feather of a flock we share, 'splain yourself. ;)

[Eric Jette , SantaFe , USA]

Folks,

I kinda doubt that the DOD is going to be able to afford the JAG personel needed to police and enforce by court marshal, restrictions of freedom of speech, (not including violations of security and classified data leaks), especially when the C in C seems to think blogging is a pretty nifty idea for a 21st century soldier.

As you'all will no doubt raise a big HooAhhh, and maybe frag a numbnut without a clue....or three,... I'd say the JCS would need to go hide under a digitally camoflaged couch for protection....or simply pretend they were asleep on it when this asinine idea was concocted.....(chuckle).

So hear this:

President Bush Discusses War on Terror, Economy with Associated General Contractors of America
Willard Hotel
Washington, D.C.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070502-2.html

(Excerpt)

"Thirdly, back to your question. You thought I was kind of doing one of these -- (laughter) -- Washington, D.C. dodges. (Laughter.) I talk to a lot of families who have got a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere else in this global war on terror, and they are in constant communication with their loved one. That's amazing, isn't it. You've got a kid in Iraq who is emailing mom daily, talking about the realities of what he or she sees. Information is moving -- you know, nightly news is one way, of course, but it's also moving through the blogosphere and through the Internets. It's amazing how many emails I see from people that are writing in what they think and what they hear."
- C in C / President Bush

I mean, let's face it with logic shall we? The intel community (DIA included) has been in "need to know" mode for decades, and is just getting it's legs with "responsibility to inform", and this is going to cause certain dysfunctional moments when paranoia strikes deep, and way off target.

Keep up the good work folks (DOD), let's try restricting Al-Quaida's blogging ability next time, shall we?

And I thought Congress was nuts.....

EJ

[Blackfive]

"...I guess we could argue as to whether any decent commander would shut down Badger 6 or TD."

That just shows how little you know about what's going on. Many of the more popular war zone bloggers have had a difficult time with blogging and their command. The details are for them to share, not me. But I would point out that many, many soldiers like Badger 6, Dadmanly, etc. won't blog any more because of it...

You're sounding an awful lot like a PAO.

[@thepointyend]

As I said, we could argue that. I'm sure folks have had problems with their commands on blogging. My point is that a decent commander wouldn't shut down Badger or TD because they haven't done anything to violate OPSEC, at least in my readings.

Maybe I don't know all about life as a blogger, but I do know about life as a commander and leader in a war zone, and that is the perspective I'm taking here.

I'm still a little frustrated that you haven't answered my question as to whether the quote I posted was a little bit (and I did say little) overblown? The rules have not changed substantially from what already exists, so there is no indication at this point that blogging will end. It will take commanders taking an extreme view to cause that, and it is precisely those types of views that I'm arguing against here - including extreme views by those looking at the Army and the Reg from the outside.

I think the dialog going on here is important, and hope that it helps make a difference - as I'm certain it has already, given the Army's 'clarification' yesterday. On the other hand, I don't much care for the personal digs regarding what I do or don't know. I've made pretty clear what my personal experiences have been with OPSEC in theater, so I'm not just talking out of my ass. I haven't tried to impune yours, or anyone else's qualifications here, so I'm not sure why you want to impune mine.

[Col Steve]

"It looks like General Casey and the acting Sectary of the Army signed the order. This beyond stupid. Casey should have been fired for his poor leadership in Iraq, instead the Army promotes him out of Iraq to Army Chief of Staff and this the kind of stupidity the Army gets."

Another example of the Army service leadership forgetting they are not fighting these campaigns -- they are enablers for the Joint Force Commanders who are actually employing forces.

If there is an OPSEC issue in theater, then the Combatant Commander and his subordinate component commanders should be making the call and determining appropriate policies. The Pentagon leadership, except the SecDef, should busy themselves with carrying out the functions of the Department so as to fulfill the current and future operational requirements of the unified and specified combatant commands.

As for Casey's appointment -- who else (among the 4 stars) was available? The Army has a thin bench at that position -- why do you think 9 of the 11 billets (CJCS, VCJCS, Combatant Commanders) are non-Army flags (and soon to be 10 when Brown leaves SOCOM)? I would have loved for the SecDef to break the culture and elevate a 3 star to CSA, but wasn't going to happen (especially with McNeill going to ISAF)-- so who else? (and please don't say Cody)

A lot of Senators complain about how mismanaged operations have been -- yet 83 voted yea on Casey to CSA. At least Hillary and McCain figured out to vote Nay..

[Carrie]

I guessed I missed the memo about viewing PAO and CO's as the enemy.

[Cassandra]

You're sounding an awful lot like a PAO.

Something in that last comment really RUBS me the wrong way Matt.

I'd really like to believe it wasn't intentional. Because otherwise I'd have to start thinking we've been manipulated into taking potshots at our own side.

And that would be a shame. Because last time I checked, al Qaeda was the enemy.

And I hope my 26 years combined enlisted/commissioned time, and advance to lieutenant colonel provides me with enough insight to