First, Phil Carter, as always, offers a rationale and intelligent look at an issue - this time it's the OPSEC Regulation:
Literary Battle Fatigue
The Army can regulate soldiers' blogs and letters—but it shouldn't.
By Phillip Carter
Posted Wednesday, May 9, 2007, at 4:54 PM ET
In the name of "operational security," the Army established new regulations last month that sharply restrict the content of letters, e-mails, blogs, and articles written by military personnel, and require a security review before they can be published. (Ironically, the regulations were themselves restricted for security reasons; Wired got a copy and published them online.) To defend the new rules, the military cited reports that al-Qaida and other terror groups have been trolling the Internet for useful information about how American units fight on the battlefield. After a brief flurry of criticism, including some from Congress, the Army backed down somewhat, saying it would not enforce the new regulations strictly by reading every letter and e-mail home from soldiers in the field...
Griff Jenkins at FoxNews has a round-up of milblogger opinions on the regulation. I'm kind of wondering about Army Lawyer's take on it. I disagree:
...And blogger Army Lawyer, who identifies himself only as a JAG attorney, wrote in his blog that he doesn't think the Army is trying to censor soldiers' Web sites.
"No, the Army didn’t try to ban blogs. No, the Army didn’t backtrack. No, the Army wasn’t going to be some Communist-like organization where only approved information is uttered. And all the histrionic commentary to the contrary ... looks rather silly and borderline insulting...
And in a strange twist on the OPSEC thing, a military blogger has been blogging in Russian and has posts picked up by the Russian media. Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard has the scoop.
Update: Here's two links to more opinions about the regulation: