So, I read some more from a variety of sources and since I always say that we should listen to the soldiers and those most affected by certain decisions, I find that I must take what they are saying to be more valid than my original opinion since they are the ones "in the know" and I am not.
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.
The new rules (.pdf) obtained by Wired News require a commander be consulted before every blog update.
"This is the final nail in the coffin for combat blogging," said retired paratrooper Matthew Burden, editor of The Blog of War anthology. "No more military bloggers writing about their experiences in the combat zone. This is the best PR the military has -- it's most honest voice out of the war zone. And it's being silenced."
Army Regulation 530--1: Operations Security (OPSEC) (.pdf) restricts more than just blogs, however. Previous editions of the rules asked Army personnel to "consult with their immediate supervisor" before posting a document "that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum." The new version, in contrast, requires "an OPSEC review prior to publishing" anything -- from "web log (blog) postings" to comments on internet message boards, from resumes to letters home.
Failure to do so, the document adds, could result in a court-martial, or "administrative, disciplinary, contractual, or criminal action."
Despite the absolutist language, the guidelines' author, Major Ray Ceralde, said there is some leeway in enforcement of the rules. "It is not practical to check all communication, especially private communication," he noted in an e-mail. "Some units may require that soldiers register their blog with the unit for identification purposes with occasional spot checks after an initial review. Other units may require a review before every posting."
Read both pages.
This affects me because I depend on those military blogs to get the truth our media refuses to tell us, and I still maintain that sensitive information that endagers our troops should not be taken lightly and shouldn't not be published.
With that said though, in all the miliblogs I read to get my information, never once have I seen a soldier part with "sensitive" information that they thought would endanger their fellow soldiers.
So, I find I must practice what I preach and stand with our military men and women in the field and our veterans who think this is not a good idea.
From BlackFive:
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...
I have to agree there.
Now this next issue I am not so sure about because I have often said that media sources such as CNN and NYT do things that can be considered against our troops interests.
One of the eeriest sections of the Army's tough new security directives -- for me, anyways -- has to be the part about about treating reporters like Al-Qaeda moles.
Read the whole thing.
Now, I can understand where our troops are coming from on this and I can also understand why the higher ups want certain news organizations treated like al-Qaeda moles.
Here are a couple examples:
CNN posted a sniper video, admittedly obtained from the enemy, of one of our soldiers getting shot, we called it enemy propaganda then and it was. Then they offered it on their on demand channel for pay!!!!!
NYT has a nasty habit of reporting leaked "classified" informations as well as crossing the line when they posted a video of a US soldiers dying BEFORE his family had even been notified of his death.
These two examples are concerning acts from our media that has brought about the mindset of our media working, deliberately for our enemies.
Wired has an interview with the author of the new regulations, go on over and read it, decide for yourself.
Once again, I plan on practicing what I preach and listening to those affected by the new regulations or as I put it more often, those "in the know".
Here are a few of the comments at the media piece:
By C-Low:
It is a sad day when the US military cannot trust the US Reporters. Unfortunatley we have reached that day long ago. The media has made sure to report, debate, rehash, for all its worth every single bad thing and every single doom gloom senerio. All the while ignoring or "balancing" any good news with more doom and gloom bad news.FirstFlight1117:
How do they say "tell a lie enough times it becomes truth".
If I was in charge of the Military I would have banned all reporters of any kind from the war zones a put massive penalties to any all leakers. Then expanded the existing US military news services to include feeding the US media the news via the military camera men, writers ect...
It truley is a testament to the rot of our nation were the US media cannot be trusted by the US military to not hinder the latters mission. If we had reported WW2 like we have the WOT the US would have surrendered well before the end of 43'. Average body count of over 300 a day with some days breaking 10k. But back then US reporters considered themselves Americans compared to todays reporters who disdain the idea of reporting as a American why they are "world citizens" what ever that is.
As a former member of the Air Force deployed in theater, I have seen OPSEC compromised by the media. Good men and women have died in droves since mass media has hit mainstream America. Should we prohibit the use of reporters in a war zone? Should we treat them like spies for the opposition? No.C-Low again with a point I have made MANY times on this blog:
Being an American fighting force, the people in uniform must bear the brunt of crappy political decisions. When a decision involves inflaming the American public and the world community, the media will be there to report it. Maybe not always fairly, I'll admit, but report it none the less. When access to information is denied to the public at large, governments have a free reign on it's actions without any public oversight. This is where democracy ends and tyranny begins.
To stop the public announcement of OPSEC information such as troop movements and target information, yet still allow full disclosure of information regarding the action happening in theater, I suggest a mandatory time delay before any story can be published or broadcast. When the story is allowed to air, the OPSEC information will become moot and it will allow for less "doom and gloom" stories.
As for the comment about WW2, the media at that time was almost all print and they were prohibited by censure laws to not report on certain things such as who had died fighting or that 78 black people had died in a church burning. The government controlled the censure application based entirely on political needs and "social responsibility". I would never want to see America enter that world again. Lets look forward people.
To clarify I am not saying its all good news or that the bad news should not be reported.
Just saying like most things in life its a "glass half full or glass half empty" situation. If you always frame the WOT with a glass half empty reporting that is a diservice to both Americans and World Citizens.
If you doubt the always glass half empty story line I challenge someone to come up with one Iraq related story of good news that is not "balanced" with bad somewere in the story. Yet there is hundreds of bad news only no balance of good at the bottom.
Go take a look at all of the story and all the comments yourself.
This post directly relates to my previous one this morning about a blue star familiy member asking President Bush about Media Bias.
If you are a miliblogger, active soldier or a veteran, please drop me a comment with your view or an email at wakeupamerica.spree@gmail.com to let me know your take on these two issues.
I will publish, if given permission, those comments and emails.
.
