View Full Version : OPSEC OR CENSORSHIP? Does this mean we have to stop posting on PS.com?
OPSEC? (http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/05/army_bloggers)
CDR's are going to go into CYA mode and nothing will be approved for release. Is this in response to LTC. Yingling?
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-03-2007, 05:10
I think ps.com does a pretty good job about policing OPSEC and dropping the hammer on those that violate it. Remember most of us have a vested interest in security as we have comtemporaries and family serving. Most of us also do not cut the bonds that we forged as brothers over the years and non of us would ever place folks in harms way with whom we served nor those that have picked up the torch for us. We still stand with those with whom we served, respect those who serve today, and while our rucks may be hung up we still willingly carry the weight of duty, honor and country. The problem today is that folks seem to like the anonimity of cyber space and many use screen names not for personal security but to hide their own identity to remain unaccountable for letting their mouth overload their ass. While many want to be heard they do not want to stand toe to toe with those with whom they have a problem. This medium allows instant fire and forget action where you can dive back into your foxhole hoping that while text hits home no one heard from where the shot came. In the way back when, you knocked on a door, spoke your piece and got the other side of the story. If you had a problem that you thought still needed attention you did what you were supposed to resolve it and it was kept in house, dealt with in house with folks that knew how to solve it. Today folks are playing in the court of public opinion; unfortunately the publics' opinion is often under or uneducated and built on nonsense. Even the term "blog" sounds like something that was hacked up from the depth of an infected sinus. While there is some value to being able to get the word out instanteously and get it off your chest, bullshit at the speed of light is still bullshit.
kachingchingpow
05-03-2007, 05:51
Col.
That is one of the most well thought out assessments of cyberspace forums that I have read in quite some time. Having designed several message board websites (centered around fishing & hunting), we've grappled with the anonimity associated with message boards, and the problems that go along with them. What was intended as a virtual front porch "spit and whittle" experience inevitably provides the cover for some to grow virtual balls 5 times their size. We've had "meet and greets" for board members, and invariably those ones that pop off at the keyboard, generally making a mess of things are the most quiet and introverted of the group.
"Even the term "blog" sounds like something that was hacked up from the depth of an infected sinus." - classic quote... needs to be preserved somewhere.
CDR's are going to go into CYA mode and nothing will be approved for release. Is this in response to LTC. Yingling?
I think in a way yes, but then again No.
Everybody hates to here the phrase "Soldier, you need to step back and see the Big Picture" but sometimes the phrase is true.
With the instant communications via e-mail, blogs and cell phones people in the combat zones can talk to "the world" instantly. While most are funny and well intentioned, some attack policy and some violate OPSEC. Are the attacks true or just the persons opinion based on his view from where he's at? Is it OPSEC or the Commander trying to CYA?
True or not, posts can race around the world at the speed of light. A false rumor out on the web can never be killed. Snopes.com can't cover everything. OPSEC can get people killed.
This subject is a hard rope to balance on.
No mater what, the press will make the Military look like the bad guys.
Pete
my squad leader had to read my handwritten letters back to mom, pop, and suzie rottencrotch...
My internet communications were monitored, as well as the phone.. I even got to see the typed out manuscript, which was neat.
I think that there's alot of communications from overseas that irregardless of tactical or strategic operational value to the enemy, don't need to be happening.
I mean, in all honesty, the only thing that you can really say is "I'm here, it sucks" over and over.
Even temperatures or time of day/season are indicators..... it's the little things that kill...
The Reaper
05-03-2007, 07:04
When, in the history of the United States, have combatants been able to make their impressions available to family members and the American public within minutes of the engagement, and to be on the phone with members of the media or their elected representatives within minutes as well? In WW II, Korea, or early Vietnam, official correspondence was by telegram, phone calls home were rare to nonexistent, and there was no way to reach strangers at home and around the world unless the media picked up your story and ran it.
As JM stated, most people color their view with their personal perspective and opinion, the true facts usually lie somewhere more or less further away, depending on emotion and expectations.
So, we actually have the capability now for a soldier to report his version of an event before the media can, and to reach millions of people within a day or two, including the enemy.
Is this good, or bad? We may not know for years, but the military will have a policy on it, and it needs to be a good one that protects the force while preserving the rights of the soldier.
Just my .02.
TR
Ret10Echo
05-03-2007, 08:00
Most soldiers will look at any form of censorship as a bad thing. Joe is looking at his mail / email / blog entry from his perspective.
The Army looks at the broader scope. How much open source data can you pile up and make something that is compromising to current operations?
Time delay is the only factor. We don't like it when the press breaks a story on an upcoming operation...or they are waiting on the LZ. Can't imagine what sort of operational picture you could pull on a minute by minute basis by way of the current level of connectivity.
I have busted Libs balls for supporting one freedom (speach) while trouncing another (the right to bear arms). I understand the need for opsec - Our lives, our success, our nation depends on it. Certainly there are ways to provide this, as some of you have mentioned 'time delay' in other posts in this thread, or simply enforcing the regulations in existence. (enforce guns laws dont make new ones)
But, (and I like officers) some of the officers I have had the misfortune of serving with, will in an instant, simply ban all communications - and will then have the blessing of the Army to do so. The big picture is important, agreed. But how many more rights/freedoms must we do without? Where do we draw the line in the sand that says, "it stops here." ?
If you look at this on a linear chart, we are slowly moving in the direction of fewer and fewer rights. Where does this end? ** Worried**
If you look at this on a linear chart, we are slowly moving in the direction of fewer and fewer rights. Where does this end? ** Worried**
I hear you. And, I'd line up with you on most of what you've said.
However, I'm a less concerned that we're (as soldiers) losing ground as far as our rights. When I raised my right hand, and took the oath that all of us have taken, I agreed to do *anything* that my commander told me to do (or conversely not to do what he told me not to do). That covered every aspect of my life, and had only one exception, the "illegal order". Though our resident legal eagle could put it in better words, that illegal order was an order to commit what any fool would know to be a crime.
If each of us looks at our personal military history, we went where we were told, were on/off duty at the commander's will, dressed, ate, slept as directed. Even back in garrison, the commander could put us on a schedule for each of our 24 hours, should he wish.
Never could tell the boss (with impunity) that he was an a**hole, couldn't refuse to disarm a boobytrap, or to walk point.
Basically, I gave away most of my civilian "rights" willingly because what was good for me as an individual became less relevant than what was needed from me.
I don't think that a soldiers rights have changed. If we're talking about the expectations of today's soldiers (and I think we are), then perhaps the expectations have changed.
I know that my generation didn't think that it *had* as many rights as the younger generations claim. There was a lot more earning involved, and fewer entitlements.
But, it always seemed to me that I got a *reasonable* share of the wooly mammoth. ;)
Team Sergeant
05-03-2007, 10:29
I have busted Libs balls for supporting one freedom (speach) while trouncing another (the right to bear arms). I understand the need for opsec - Our lives, our success, our nation depends on it. Certainly there are ways to provide this, as some of you have mentioned 'time delay' in other posts in this thread, or simply enforcing the regulations in existence. (enforce guns laws dont make new ones)
But, (and I like officers) some of the officers I have had the misfortune of serving with, will in an instant, simply ban all communications - and will then have the blessing of the Army to do so. The big picture is important, agreed. But how many more rights/freedoms must we do without? Where do we draw the line in the sand that says, "it stops here." ?
If you look at this on a linear chart, we are slowly moving in the direction of fewer and fewer rights. Where does this end? ** Worried**
Soldiers do not have the same rights as civilians. You gave up almost all your rights when you took that oath to defend the very freedoms you do not enjoy.
If we were to run the military in a democratic fashion we would fail in our mission in a matter of days.
If you were ordered to charge and neutralize a machinegun nest after watching six of your buddies die a few moments before I would expect you to charge, without question.
If the order to ban all communications was given I would expect all communication to cease. How hard is that to understand? That is not an "unlawful" order.
As an NCO or officer I would also expect you not to run your mouth on the internet with complaints that should be handled by a military chain of command.
Be happy I'm not making the decisions or to the man you'd be communicating the same way they did in WWI and WWII.
TS
Sionnach
05-03-2007, 10:40
The terrorist asshats are crushing us in the PR department, and like it or not, the Internet has changed warfare as much or more as 24-hour news channels.
By de-facto eliminating blogs, I think we're losing one of the military's best PR sources. A vast majority of the soldier's blogs support our mission, and provide us with the good news we're not getting from the media. Obviously, some of these guys need a swift kick in the ass, or at least, a better understanding of the concept of "loose lips sink ships," but I'd like to see the military make use of this potential tool instead of shutting it down.
If you get the order to shut your pie-hole, then you need to do so, but while lawful, I believe the order removes a potential tool from our toolbox.
ETA: After dealing with folks at work today, I'm going to have to amend my opinion and say a blanket "no" is probably the best idea. Even smart folks do some incredibly stupid things.
Peregrino
05-03-2007, 10:46
I hear you. And, I'd line up with you on most of what you've said.
But, it always seemed to me that I got a *reasonable* share of the wooly mammoth. ;)
Well put. Perhaps a little pragmatic for an original idealist but reflects my own experiences nicely. Soldiers do surrender a portion of their "rights" when they join the military. The good of the group takes precedence over the rights of the individual. Technology and social expectations have advanced faster than the military can compensate, hence the current knee-jerk reaction. Human nature, on both sides of the discussion, further complicates the issue. Eventually - like water - the competing interests will level out and the security issues will balance with personal expectations. In the meantime we have conflict/angst. Life goes on. I don't see it affecting the discussions on PS.com. We are already sensetive to the issues and take active measures to police ourselves. Peregrino
Eating my humble pie......
Yes, I am a Soldier. And yes, I will abide by orders received. I concur, the Army is not a democracy. I realize the extreme importance of OPSEC. I realize that Soldiers do not have the same rights as American Civilians. In my short post, I did not make it clear, but I do not expect that Soldiers are to receive the same rights as our citizenry. However, I cannot help it, I am concerned when I see things moving in the direction they are. Although I must agree with you TR, that never has communication for Soldiers been as fast or as readily available as it is today, and we will not fully understand the ramifications of that very soon. When viewed from that angle, if I were "king" I would probably issue the same policy.
Commanders have plenty of UCMJ authority to NUKE a Soldier running off at the mouth. We've all been forewarned regarding OPSEC, there are briefings ad naseum, counseling statements must be written, followed up on, etc. If the joe then steps on his dick, well, then he was warned.
I do not know this first hand... but from what I have read, this kind of OPSEC that the article mentions is nothing new to the Special Operations community - ISOFAC's etc. So perhaps it raises no concerns in the minds of QP's. But to a typical line doggie, it is unusual to have every communication approved. Since CDR's/PSG's/LT's/1SG's, do not have the time to scrutinize the electronic, telephone, and mail of every rifleman in the company, while simultaineously conducting missions, this will be the end of email for many. This isn't going to go over well. That does not mean that I will not abide by whatever directive my command puts out.
But erosion of rights has to start somewhere, first at the tiniest level, at the fringe of society, and then there is precidence for it, then acceptability, then we have courts ruling that in fact you have no right to do this or that. Realize that's a bit of a leap, so go ahead and call me chicken little, but I can't help feeling a little bit like this is a slippery slope... That's all.
The Reaper
05-03-2007, 11:11
I hate to point this out, but soldiers have no entitlement to teleconferences, personal email, internet access, or telephones.
DoD started allowing these conveniences as a morale enhancer.
And sad to say, but the Army giveth, and the Army taketh away.
If all of those electrons were turned off, and written communication via letters (and perhaps weekly 5-minute morale calls) were the only means to communicate, the war would not grind to a halt.
If I were King, I would look at the risks vs. rewards of each of these conveniences, and would issue policy letters regarding use of the same. Anyone violating the policy would be warned, lose access, or be UCMJed.
Just my .02.
TR
If you get the order to shut your pie-hole, then you need to do so, but while lawful, I believe the order removes a potential tool from our toolbox.
I heard on CNN today that the Army is uploading videos of some of the non-combat actions that show our troops being the people they truly are, to the youtube site.
That, however, is being done by folks with an eye for OPSEC.
I know a lot of those clips will make it around where I work. Hopefully a lot of family members will point their friends/compainies toward those videos.
It seems the Iraqis who appreciate the American Soldier and who worry when there's a discussion of the troops leaving, simply haven't been as newsworthy.
But they surely exist.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-03-2007, 14:39
Commanders have plenty of UCMJ authority to NUKE a Soldier running off at the mouth. We've all been forewarned regarding OPSEC, there are briefings ad naseum, counseling statements must be written, followed up on, etc. If the joe then steps on his dick, well, then he was warned.
.
From my limited experience, UCMJ authority is the last thing a commander want's to resort to. There are many other things that should happen first. I cannot believe what I am hearing here about the rights of someone to be able to violate lawful orders, regulations, common sense, and place his compatriots at risk because he needs to talk to mommy, daddy, susie, jodie or whomever. If they are all that distracted from the task at hand they need to find another line of employment. Now I am all for technological advances and the health, moral and welfare of the troops, but this war and not some friggin game. For some reason some folks seem to have a very narrow focus and seem all to self-centered. There are just times when it is better to cut the damn apron strings and drive on with what is important than maintaining instant communication to deal with all the isolated homebody problems over which you can do nothing. Let's get real here.
blue02hd
05-03-2007, 16:19
I read the link that NG M4 originally posted, and I still am not impressed. I guess I keep remembering when a young wife who's husband was in another Platoon I was deployed with learned of her husbands death by reading it on an FRG site. That is wrong on so many levels it can't ever be excused away. I wonder how that poor 20 something wife would respond to this post?
I have no sympathy for anyone who feels their personal rights have been infringed, especially if they have raised their right hand and swore an oath. Sometimes service really demands some MAJOR sacrifice. If it makes the offended happy, I'll research a "Milblog free" medal for Congress to consider in order to console those who have been unplugged.
Just recently I had a conversation with friends that instruct in various portions of "the pipeline". They told me how amazed I would be about about "milblogs" created by students in the course that outline our training. I understand that steps are in place to correct this.
If it really burns someones muffins not to be able to post like "Rosie O'Donnel" then atleast they have the satisfaction that after they get out they can write a book on their experiences. Just like George Tenent. Hmmm, I wonder if he had a blog?
I shall now end my blog,,,,
groundup
05-06-2007, 23:57
I think it needs to be narrowed down to mission oriented information. Or, if you are in a combat area. For someone stateside (not dealing with combat operations) to have to submit their posts to their commander for approval is absurd in my opinion.
The CBS national news just ran this story and honestly I think there is still too much wiggle room here. Blogs will have to be approved but E mails aren't. OK, so technically, soldiers can still report information but it won't have the ability to touch so many people at once. Someone explain to me how sending out sensitive, sometimes very critical information, in near real time to a civilian who is not a decidion maker, regarding life or death combat situations is a good thing anyway. The fact that YOUTUBE has become a posting place where Soldiers can go on a patrol, get shot at, blown up, and treat the dead and wounded, and film it all, then go back to their FOB and post it online for all to see is rediculous. When a Soldier posts a Blog and in detail, describes the horrors of combat and the effects it has on morale, doesn't the enemy use that as a continued source of motivation to keep attacking us.
Call me old school, but while the internet has improved many aspects of our daily lives, it has also complicated them. It will be hard to go back but maybe that's what needs to happen. The enemy is smart and they are flexible. If they can gleen even the slightest amount of information on tactics, equipment, and abilities, they will adjust their tactics, equipment, and abilites to attack us.
This war is not "Show and Tell"..it's war and good men and women die everyday. My daughter will soon be over there as a nurse and she will deal directly with the carnage we see on TV. If she is safer because the higher ups only allow her 1 phone call home per week, than I'm OK with that.
Mission First...Men always
I think it needs to be narrowed down to mission oriented information. Or, if you are in a combat area. For someone stateside (not dealing with combat operations) to have to submit their posts to their commander for approval is absurd in my opinion.
Well, sure unless you are getting info from an unchecked source and posting it for your buddy because his stuff has to be submitted to the CO. Never underestimate the ability of soldiers to get around regulations. Besides, the Army is a one-size fits all type place. That's what I think anyway and I could be wrong.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-07-2007, 11:49
For someone stateside (not dealing with combat operations) to have to submit their posts to their commander for approval is absurd in my opinion.
Perhaps, but then perhaps not. What makes you think that some seemingly insignificant post concerning anything of military nature when combined with other seemingly insignificant posts cannot provide an intelligence bonanza? Something simple such as a training event, the introduction of a new piece of equipment, or a bitch concerning the failure of a system or a slump in moral or discipline provides an opening for not only exploitation but psyops. While the reaction to some things like this can in fact be overkill, or appear to be overkill, it is only so because there is a distinct lacking in discipline and maturity within certain levels or units that create hardships for all. If you need but one example, think about what Abu Graeb did because some shit birds had to just be "cool". Something dumb, like the wrong pocket litter, can burn you and this is nothing more than inappropriate pocket litter than needs to be cleaned up for those who want to hang out their dirty laundry for all to see.
Perhaps, but then perhaps not. What makes you think that some seemingly insignificant post concerning anything of military nature when combined with other seemingly insignificant posts cannot provide an intelligence bonanza? Something simple such as a training event, the introduction of a new piece of equipment, or a bitch concerning the failure of a system or a slump in moral or discipline provides an opening for not only exploitation but psyops.
JM,
I agree. My earlier post was so similar to yours. I don't think enough folks understand "2nd, 3rd, and 4th order effects", or even an understanding of how their actions can cause any number of resulting reactions. As a young Soldier, my NCO's taught me how my actions or lack thereof will cause a reaction or lack thereof. This enemy we face now is College Educated in many cases and may very well have spent time in Western Countries learning about our customs and way of life.....oh wait, that's how SF guys work too!
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-07-2007, 14:08
As a young Soldier, my NCO's taught me how my actions or lack thereof will cause a reaction or lack thereof.
As did my NCOs. Of course with the tragic comedy that today's elementary education has become most kids have never heard the rhyme "For the Want of a Nail". I am sorry I missed seeing your post before I let my fingers stomp on my keyboard, I could have saved some space on the site as you hit all the points I wanted to make.
When my husband was in Iraq last year for the first month or two we were getting calls on a DAILY basis (literally) reporting every injury (so and so broke his hand, so and so has an eye injury) to us that happened anywhere in the brigade. It got so bad that our battalion had an incident briefing for a guy who got shot in the butt from a completely different battalion one night. They wouldn't tell us what the deal was until we all got to the briefing so all the wives were pretty well convinced we had a KIA in the unit. This was the last straw and we staged a revolt after this one. For some reason the Batallion Commander decided that instead of letting information come in throughout the batallion families and friends he was going to get everything out through the FRG callers. I can sort of understand that he was trying to control the rumor mill - but seriously. It was the worst month of my life. He finally saw the error of his ways after the wives spoke loud enough that the Brigade Commander heard what was going on. What they needed to do was black out all communications and take away everyone's cell phones (almost every soldier had a personal cell phone) during any real incidents. (Which they never did oddly, though fortunately we had very few KIA and only 1 in our unit.) I'd have been totally cool with it.
Blackouts are fine with us. (When I say us, I mean Army wives with a brain.) I'd prefer not talking to my husband for weeks on end via internet, phone or otherwise if it means that someone is going to get notifications the right way, or OPSEC is going to stay intact. Who in their right mind really needs to talk to their husband (or child/wife/girlfriend/etc) if there might be information given to them that might be intercepted that might end up endangering them? I loved talking to my husband, but I'd give it up in a heartbeat if it meant he was going to be safer!
The whole thing just seems so silly to me. My generation (me included) feels like we have to do it all/say it all/be it all/know it all right now. I guess that means we feel like we must get our voice out right now because it's so stinkin' important. Wouldn't it be a lot more prudent to take the information in those blogs and just write a journal the traditional way?
I guess I keep coming back to what blue02hd wrote about that wife who found out about her husband on an FRG site. It just makes me rage.
I grew up watching that AFN commercials about OPSEC... "Loose Lips Sink Ships" I think we need to show more of them. Just keep your traps shut, it's a whole lot safer that way.
I think it needs to be narrowed down to mission oriented information. Or, if you are in a combat area. For someone stateside (not dealing with combat operations) to have to submit their posts to their commander for approval is absurd in my opinion.
Experience says otherwise, however.
In the early 70's in Okinawa, we were generally divided into the 1st Group and "the rest of the troops". I don't know how we wound up with the mission, except the the COL said "go, do". We ran a handful of Counterintel types into the O-Club to give the GO who ran the island an evaluation of OPSEC. (We had our own MI Det.)
Our agents kept notes on what they picked up from the casual conversations, the grousing, the "how's it coming along" that took place between the patrons.
At the end of about two weeks, we could tell the commanders nearly "across the board" what their troop strength was, how ready their equipment was, the status of their training, other areas of weakness, and any "special efforts" going on.
Basically we knew how prepared they were and what they were preparing for. Any native bartender or waitress could have pointed out the vulnerabilities of those units to any interested person on the day that those troops deployed, in much better depth than our two-week mission provided us.
For a grin, just imagine the look on the face of the CI guys who were given the assignment to go and drink beer for the next two weeks.
For another grin, wanna guess what unit's current activities they knew *nothing* of at the end of that two weeks that they didn't know as a part of their normal duties?
The only difference between a unit that's stateside and a unit that's deployed in combat is that you aren't there *yet*.
When I was in the MPs, we had CID and NIS working in our building. One of the NIS guys explained OPSEC in a way that made great sense to me.
He said it is like working a jig saw puzzle. One never knows which piece will pull the whole puzzle together. In Intel, one never knows what pieces the other side has. The best information is no information, for what may be common and everyday to one person may just be the piece the other sided needs to pull the puzzle together.
Sort of gives "Don't ask, don't tell" a whole new meaning.
groundup
05-10-2007, 02:20
I completely agree in respect to the puzzle analogy. We all get the OPSEC (I am trying to remember the acronym for the anti-terrorism/spy) briefings and they all seem to say the same thing. I've sat in the DFAC and heard more information than I should have ever known. I've heard Soldier's tell their loved ones more information than most other Soldiers know.
Before posting my last post, I rewrote it all. I tried to figure out how I would like to say that we are still Americans. Loose lips sink ships - yes. But sometimes you need to be able to blow a whistle and not have negative repercussions. And honestly, I don't mind people reading my correspondence... when I don't know the person. If my NCOs or Officers were reading all of my correspondence and it had personal things, I would feel really embarrassed oppressed. In a fairy-tale world what we say in those emails to our wives would have no bearing on anything. Then again, it's not.
There really is no black & white with this subject. That is probably why they needed to take such drastic measures as limiting communication. Unfortunately, a Soldier that wants to get information out will always find a way.
Daver: I can easily setup an email account to publish to my blog. It can be done on this forum too.
blue02hd
05-10-2007, 05:24
Groundup,
I respectfully disagree with your post that this is not a black and white subject. It is.
If I were a civilian, or sad to say, a conventional soldier in the military today, I might agree. I mean after all,"if we can't expect freedom of speech, what the hell we fighting for right? " BUT, I need to point out that this is PS.com. You are not speaking to average Americans, soldiers, or what not. ( Well, maybe some what not). True Quiet Professionals rank personal attention and ego stroking a little lower than all others. Vetted individuals here fully understand the dangers of "loose lips", and go out of their way safe guard against it. When we take our oaths, we offer up our personal freedoms in order to ensure the sheep can maintain theirs.
We expect more here of ourselves and our teammates, and when the day comes that our personal interests outweigh our commitment to the teams, then that is the day we need to look for another job. That plan of action begins in SFAS, and is one of the basic stones that QP's build their foundations on. So you see, having been a product of this system, I cannot agree with your point.
If you want to practice democracy and argue for your civil rights, our corner of the world isn't where you need to be.
When we take our oaths, we offer up our personal freedoms in order to ensure the sheep can maintain theirs.
That's gonna make the best quote list ; ego stroking or not!
Team Sergeant
05-10-2007, 07:21
Before posting my last post, I rewrote it all. I tried to figure out how I would like to say that we are still Americans. Loose lips sink ships - yes. But sometimes you need to be able to blow a whistle and not have negative repercussions. And honestly, I don't mind people reading my correspondence... when I don't know the person.
Spoken like a true private.
"Blowing the whistle" is for civilians. If you feel the need to "tell on" your Lt, squad leader, company commander etc; go and see his or her Commander or CSM. That is of course you stand firm in your convictions and possess a set of balls to do so.
Whining to a bunch of "civilians" that your company commander ordered no showers for a week and you had sand in your panties or you had to eat cold MRE’s for 48 hours, it hurt your feelings and you think its wrong; is NOT food for public consumption. It's whining pure and simple.
While you might set up a blog and whine about your company commander, if you do it on active duty expect repercussions.
I've never been assigned to a military unit that the Commander and Command Sergeants Major didn’t have an "open door" policy. IF you got balls you take them up on that open door policy. Real soldiers knock and walk through those doors, sissies whine to the public.
Team Sergeant
Basenshukai
05-10-2007, 08:55
Perhaps, but then perhaps not. What makes you think that some seemingly insignificant post concerning anything of military nature when combined with other seemingly insignificant posts cannot provide an intelligence bonanza?
Interesting point. However, Sir, do you realize that as a result, anything I ever post on here regarding the military (my SFAS series, for instance) will now have to be cleared by my Battalion Commander before I upload it? The BC does not have nearly enough time in a day to clear postings on the net. I remember sending my SFAS series to TR for the purpose of "clearing" up anything sensitive, if any existed.
As the rule is currently being interpreted, this may well be my last post on "Professional Soldiers", unless I post about ... sports? I guess enough clowns have screwed-up so that many of us will have to hold back. Anyway, we are at war; this was long overdue.
The Reaper
05-10-2007, 09:25
I've never been assigned to a military unit that the Commander and Command Sergeants Major didn’t have an "open door" policy. IF you got balls you take them up on that open door policy. Real soldiers knock and walk through those doors, sissies whine to the public.
Team Sergeant
Good point.
I would also add that you need to give your CoC an opportunity to resolve the problem before you kick it upstairs.
Your Battalion CO is not going to want to hear your feedback if you have not already spoken with your Squad Leader, PSG, PL, 1SG, and CO Cdr to give them a chance to address your concern. If you start at the top, you are pissing people off and are not fixing the problem.
The enemy, and I have no doubt that they read these boards as well, does not need to know that you have a new, more restrictive ROE, that your unit has been ordered to stay out of a certain area, that you were deployed without body armor, or ammo, that you suspect someone has committed a war crime, etc. If you have concerns, tell it to the CoC, the IG, the Chaplain, the JAG, or someone other than the press and public.
There are a bunch of highly decorated combat vets on this board. Most have never posted a war story in the open here. If they aren't talking about their experiences and problems, why should newbies with less than two years in the Army be doing so on a blog or chatroom?
Interesting point. However, Sir, do you realize that as a result, anything I ever post on here regarding the military (my SFAS series, for instance) will now have to be cleared by my Battalion Commander before I upload it? The BC does not have nearly enough time in a day to clear postings on the net. I remember sending my SFAS series to TR for the purpose of "clearing" up anything sensitive, if any existed.
As the rule is currently being interpreted, this may well be my last post on "Professional Soldiers", unless I post about ... sports? I guess enough clowns have screwed-up so that many of us will have to hold back. Anyway, we are at war; this was long overdue.
Bas:
I am sorry to see that common sense has gone out the window here. Now you have senior people having to be cleared by even more senior people to discuss matters not involving OPSEC. Truly sad. Mass punishment, instead of making an example of the most egregious violators. This will not help with the mid-grade retention problem.
Note, there is a huge difference between asking for advice or help and putting out dangerous info or airing personal dirty laundry in public.
TR
incommin
05-10-2007, 12:10
Rules, regulations, and laws have always lagged behind technology. Years ago a soldiers only way to communicate was through mail or by wire cable. Now there are computers with blogs and e-mails, blackberries, and cellphones. Where and how does the military draw the line when it worries about operational security????? The youth of today grew up with this technology and consider it a right........ many will have withdrawals if cut off from it. When I was deployed, my wife expected to get a letter every now and then. Today's families expect almost daily communications of some kind. I'm thankful the military realized there was a problem and acted. I just wonder what happened to cause the change......usually a reaction like this means someone found something serious..... good soldiers will do what they have always done; bitch and comply with policy!
Jim
The Reaper
05-10-2007, 12:13
More discussion.
TR
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,271115,00.html
Military Bloggers Eye Army Crackdown on Web Reporting
Thursday , May 10, 2007
By Griff Jenkins
WASHINGTON —
The military blogging community is abuzz over the perceived crackdown on bloggers, who Army officials readily admit are providing firsthand accounts that the media generally miss in daily reporting from the war zone.
The bloggers are now awaiting word on whether the Army will make permanent changes to regulations issued last month that attempt to limit the details offered by soldiers writing from the frontlines.
"The regulation was either poorly written or intended to crack down on bloggers," said Matthew Currier Burden, a former defense intelligence officer who runs Blackfive.net, one of the most widely read military blogging sites.
"I've been threatened on numerous occasions — two threats in the last two months alone — to be booted out of Iraq," said Michael Yon, a former Green Beret now in Iraq who frequently reports for FOXNews.com. "Bloggers who express independent views are seen as a threat, while (pro-military bloggers) seem to be viewed as tools. The military is simply trying to keep the tools and mitigate the threats but in doing so caused quite a stir."
But a visit to another of the most popular independent military Web sites, millblogging.com, suggests that many soldiers and their supporters are not deterred from their blogging mission. 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," he wrote.
Still, the April 17 regulation issued by the U.S. Army had military bloggers atwitter at last weekend's 2007 Milblog Conference in Northern Virginia when the language sent a “shock and awe” wave of concern through the milblog community.
“Regulation 530-1” updated policy regarding operational security by requiring all active duty soldiers to “consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.”
A "fact sheet" issued two days before the conference attempted to clarify the Army's position.
"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," reads the sheet distributed by Andi Hurley, a blogger, spouse of a career solder and organizer of the 2007 Milblog Conference.
Major Ray Ceralde, Army operational security program manager, noted that the new regulations apply to Army civilians as well as contractors and family members.
“Not every blog entry needs to be cleared for content. But to establish a blog, the soldier needs approval,” Ceralde told FOX News. “We want to protect First Amendment rights but we also want to protect operational security,” he said.
Added White House spokesman Tony Snow: “Some of the stories about muzzling the milblogs were overblown.”
Milblogs typically consist of three types of blogs: active-duty troops “in theater,” former military citizens and spouses or family members back home. Burden said the purpose of the blogs is to "stay in touch with family and friends, document the history of their deployment, or provide a place to vent. ... Others are just really great writers that want to express themselves."
He added that bloggers perform a service that the military is getting in short supply — positive news from the war front.
"I worry that we're losing the information war and am trying to find ways to make some victories for our military, which does amazing things every day," Burden said. "When was the last time you read a story about the combat effectiveness of a unit in Afghanistan or Iraq? They are kicking ass against terrorists, working with the Iraqi public and training their soldiers and police, and no one is reporting it."
Efforts to block bloggers have gained some attention on Capitol Hill. Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Jim DeMint, R-S.C., sent a letter last week to Defense Secretary Robert Gates in support of military bloggers.
“We are concerned the regulations may also inadvertently weaken what has proven a significant asset in our media age: the firsthand accounts of American military men and women on the ground,” the letter reads.
That concern is especially significant to bloggers who say that the Pentagon has been its own worst enemy both in fighting the propaganda war and in protecting operational security.
"The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon. I get more advance notice from a Pentagon Press Brief of U.S. movements from Kuwait into Iraq than I get from all other sources combined. The Pentagon acts as if it is not at war, and the leaks emanating from Arlington are enormous," blogger D.J. Elliot, a retired Navy intelligence analyst, wrote on The Fourth Rail.
Badger 6, who identifies himself as an Army officer in Iraq commanding an engineering company, writes on his Web log that operational security is tantamount to success in the war in Iraq, although even he has wondered if the decision to update the regulations may have had a political component to it.
"Some of my comments and the comments at other Milblogs have indicated they think that this is driven by politicians who are skeptical about the mission and call for our return home. On the anti-war side of the blogosphere, I see comments indicating this is a plan by the Bush Administration to keep criticism by Soldiers in the field from leaking out and proving Iraq is a catastrophe. Both strike me as wrong headed," he wrote.
"The Army has a legitimate and important interest in maintaining Operational Security. It is a large Government organization that still does not know how to deal with this technology and capability. I see nothing political in this, it is a bureaucratic issue," Badger 6 continued.
The mere fact that the 2007 Milblog Conference opened up with a videotaped salutation from President Bush demonstrated to many in attendance that bloggers are getting noticed and their role is growing in importance. Burden said that as they become more influential, he would like “to see the military give bloggers the same rules as embed reporters” and see deployments adopt “unit blogging” — one soldier responsible for telling the history and activities of the unit.
"The future of milblogging is heavily dependent on toughminded milbloggers hanging in there," Yon said. "Keep in mind that most of the so-called milblogs ... are mostly written from home in the states. To my knowledge, I am the last remaining full-time blogger in the war who is not on active duty. Yes, the influence seems to be growing, but when my time is up here, probably nobody will be left to cover our troops full time."
Burden also offered words to the wise if soldiers want to stay out of trouble. Paraphrasing blogger “Lt. Smash,” the supposed granddaddy of military blogging, Burden said, “When you publish a post, write it like, one, your mother will read it, two, Usama Bin Laden will read it and three, your commander will read it.”
Griff Jenkins is a contibutor to FOX News Talk.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-10-2007, 13:54
Interesting point. However, Sir, do you realize that as a result, anything I ever post on here regarding the military (my SFAS series, for instance) will now have to be cleared by my Battalion Commander before I upload it? The BC does not have nearly enough time in a day to clear postings on the net. I remember sending my SFAS series to TR for the purpose of "clearing" up anything sensitive, if any existed.
As the rule is currently being interpreted, this may well be my last post on "Professional Soldiers", unless I post about ... sports? I guess enough clowns have screwed-up so that many of us will have to hold back. Anyway, we are at war; this was long overdue.
Of course this forum would be all the poorer for your, and of course others, inability to post as you see fit, but as you say, this was long overdue. You know, having been a BC who had to clamp down on folks that didn't realize that computers and most other electronic devices needed to be "tempested" because of where we were and what we were doing, I can appreciate your BC's position. I can also truly appreciate the military's position and I actually support it. While forums such as this provide a valuable service to those that would like to learn more about the topics discussed and have eased the path for many, we old timers did not have the benefit of something like this and we seemed to have made it just fine. I will miss your input and those of your comtemporaries, but I will feel a whole lot better knowing that that one shit bird who is going to screw the pooch for ALCON doesn't get the chance. I know that it comes as no surprise to you that there are items in most of our pasts that will never see the light of day and while it might make for great reading or further elucidation of what SF is all about it is self censored by us as it is by you. It remains to be seen, however, just how well the military polices itself. I think one of the best quips I have ever read on someones desk was, "Maturity is getting more enjoyment about knowing a secret than sharing it". It is the maturity level of the troops involved that are going to make or break this policy-just as always. I am sure that after the smoke clears, clearer heads will prevail, policies will be better defined, and left and right limits set. We have all gone through this in the past and it will happen again. Just my opinion.
x SF med
05-10-2007, 15:21
Used to be phone calls home from deployments were monitored by the MI guys as yoiu were making them; and letters had to be posted opened so they could be vetted as 'clean' -- that was if you had a chance to either write a letter or make a phone call. Anybody else remember MARS?
Rules, regulations, and laws have always lagged behind technology. Years ago a soldiers only way to communicate was through mail or by wire cable. Now there are computers with blogs and e-mails, blackberries, and cellphones. Where and how does the military draw the line when it worries about operational security????? The youth of today grew up with this technology and consider it a right........ many will have withdrawals if cut off from it. When I was deployed, my wife expected to get a letter every now and then. Today's families expect almost daily communications of some kind. I'm thankful the military realized there was a problem and acted. I just wonder what happened to cause the change......usually a reaction like this means someone found something serious..... good soldiers will do what they have always done; bitch and comply with policy!
Jim
Some of us have been involved with projects that were started as a direct result of information found in some cave or Hut, Downloaded off the Internet. This was a few years ago. I am sure it wasn't the only time. But your right, something was probably found on a captured to set this in motion.
We do best in policing our own. A Youtube video showing Rangers was taken down before I could post on here asking who to notify about it.
Right now we are lucky our enemy doe's not have the tactical skills to take advantage of some of the information posted on other Boards. Just a photo of one of our own, showing him in full kit tells us a lot. But we know what we are looking at.
I know a Forum called IEDPlanter.com, InsurgencyFighter.com, IEDtalk.com..etc. would help our troops immensely.
Has anyone ever seen a Foreign Military Forum? One for Spezneks or Israels Commando's. Would be interesting to read, minus the language barrier of course.
Spoken like a true private.
"Blowing the whistle" is for civilians. If you feel the need to "tell on" your Lt, squad leader, company commander etc; go and see his or her Commander or CSM. That is of course you stand firm in your convictions and possess a set of balls to do so.
Team Sergeant
TS,
Thanks for the comments. As a CSM, I WANT guys to come see me..I EXPECT guys to come see me about problems and issues. My past NCO leadership knew I wouldn't hesitate to see them....and at times I was told to "Get the hell out of my office"..Quote to me from CSM Cary Pennington!!!
Your keys words TS were "Possess a set of balls". Last time I checked, the only guys I trust around me with weapons and explosives are the guys that are like me...not a civilian!
Daver sends.....
groundup
05-11-2007, 19:12
Spoken like a true private.
"Blowing the whistle" is for civilians. If you feel the need to "tell on" your Lt, squad leader, company commander etc; go and see his or her Commander or CSM. That is of course you stand firm in your convictions and possess a set of balls to do so.
Whining to a bunch of "civilians" that your company commander ordered no showers for a week and you had sand in your panties or you had to eat cold MRE’s for 48 hours, it hurt your feelings and you think its wrong; is NOT food for public consumption. It's whining pure and simple.
While you might set up a blog and whine about your company commander, if you do it on active duty expect repercussions.
I've never been assigned to a military unit that the Commander and Command Sergeants Major didn’t have an "open door" policy. IF you got balls you take them up on that open door policy. Real soldiers knock and walk through those doors, sissies whine to the public.
Team SergeantTS: I used poor judgement in my wording. If I have a complaint about someone, I will take it up with that person or with a ranking NCO/Officer. I meant something more personal or political. As a Soldier, I have no place in politics. As an American man, I want my voice to be heard. If my views differ from my command's on politics, I don't want there to be a backlash because of it.
Lets say I am in New Orleans after Katrina. This scenario works well for all servicemen because there were people there from all branches and components. Let's say I see some ridiculous things with the NOLA PD. I was there as a Soldier in a military operation. Should I be allowed to post that?
In my opinion, I think it would be better to get Soldiers to think about what they are doing instead of having someone think for them. God knows that the internet isn't the only place where they are collecting HUMINT. They are doing it in the DFAC, the line at the PX, while you walk past a construction site, as a pizza delivery guy, the list just goes on. What's to stop Private Joe Schmoe or even worse Major Payne from talking to their buddies about what is going on as they sit and eat their dinner? The only thing that would stop that is to make Soldiers think.
"It is the maturity level of the troops involved that are going to make or break this policy-just as always. I am sure that after the smoke clears, clearer heads will prevail, policies will be better defined, and left and right limits set." COL Maroney
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-11-2007, 19:27
"It is the maturity level of the troops involved that are going to make or break this policy-just as always. I am sure that after the smoke clears, clearer heads will prevail, policies will be better defined, and left and right limits set." COL Maroney
Damn, I wish I had said that:D
groundup
05-11-2007, 19:37
Damn, I wish I had said that:Dheh, I meant to quote your quote, Sir.
Jack Moroney (RIP)
05-12-2007, 04:50
heh, I meant to quote your quote, Sir.
It was a good try, however you used some other no-neck's name.
TS: I used poor judgement in my wording. If I have a complaint about someone, I will take it up with that person or with a ranking NCO/Officer. I meant something more personal or political. As a Soldier, I have no place in politics. As an American man, I want my voice to be heard. If my views differ from my command's on politics, I don't want there to be a backlash because of it.
Lets say I am in New Orleans after Katrina. This scenario works well for all servicemen because there were people there from all branches and components. Let's say I see some ridiculous things with the NOLA PD. I was there as a Soldier in a military operation. Should I be allowed to post that?
In my opinion, I think it would be better to get Soldiers to think about what they are doing instead of having someone think for them. God knows that the internet isn't the only place where they are collecting HUMINT. They are doing it in the DFAC, the line at the PX, while you walk past a construction site, as a pizza delivery guy, the list just goes on. What's to stop Private Joe Schmoe or even worse Major Payne from talking to their buddies about what is going on as they sit and eat their dinner? The only thing that would stop that is to make Soldiers think.
"It is the maturity level of the troops involved that are going to make or break this policy-just as always. I am sure that after the smoke clears, clearer heads will prevail, policies will be better defined, and left and right limits set." COL Maroney
You said the following: "I meant something more personal or political. As a Soldier, I have no place in politics. As an American man, I want my voice to be heard."
Once you became a soldier you made certain concessions for multiple personal rights. I thnk we can all agree on that.
COL Moroney is right and this is probably a reactionary regulation that will be adjusted after certian leaders find out and learn that which they don't know now.
As for the leading line in your last post: "I used poor judegement in my wording..." Perhaps that's what this is designed to stop. Poor wording, depending on the subject, can impact future and current operations. You proved the point of the regualtion through your action.
With the NOLA PD scenario, I think it's disturbing that you'd rather post the questionable activities of a police department on a blog than report it to your chain of command. You're beginning to hurt the reputation of the Armor community. Please stop.
groundup
05-12-2007, 15:02
RTK: A CoC can only go so far. Especially when dealing with politics. The entire thing with NOLA was political.
I don't think curbing Soldier's voices in relation to certain topics is a bad thing, I think I made that clear. I think the method of which they want to do it is excessive. I think we should make the Soldier think. Isn't that what the Army is about nowadays? Making the Soldier think and making them accountable for their actions?
If they don't want Soldiers to speak about their experiences, they shouldn't encourage it. Every class I have been to, they have always said "feel free to speak about what you have seen and done. Just stay your lane - don't make up things." Like I said, I usually just talk about the weather because I think I understand that nothing should be said. Other troops might take those classes differently. They might take them as "I can say what I want, so long as I don't make up anything"
Col Moroney: woops, typo.
blue02hd
05-13-2007, 06:04
groundup,
It is quite clear that you do not agree with the views of many on this thread. Your coments all center around "I" and "me". You don't seem to be reading the responses and actually trying to understand the points being made. You are not listening, only waiting to talk.
Your example centering on the NO Police Department during Katrina was a very bad example. Why is your voice more important than your chain of command's? I hate to say this, but while there are many good soldiers in the NG and Reserves, it's the "citizen" soldiers who lean towards "citizens" that discredit the rest. Once you put on that uniform, if you don't have the discipline to do whats right, over what you individually want, then you are no longer an asset to your team. If I am told not to call home, I don't call home. If I am told the internet is off limits, then it is off limits.
Unless it is illegal, immorale, or we CLEARLY understand that the CoC is gravely misinformed and the requested actions conflict with the Commanders Intent, we say "Roger Out" and complete the mission.
Is it different in your Army?
Lets say I am in New Orleans after Katrina. This scenario works well for all servicemen because there were people there from all branches and components. Let's say I see some ridiculous things with the NOLA PD. I was there as a Soldier in a military operation. Should I be allowed to post that?My answer would be NO! The CoC is there for a reason.....:munchin
Stay safe.
groundup
05-13-2007, 08:46
blue02hd: I use "I" and "me" a lot because I am not a representative for anyone but myself. I would never disobey the order. Please, don't get me wrong on that. I wish less was said too. I just wish that the command went about having less said in a different way.
blue02hd
05-13-2007, 09:42
"I use "I" and "me" a lot because I am not a representative for anyone but myself."
Well said! You must have taken a different Oath than the rest of us in uniform. So what is it you are looking for here then?? Your mind is made up, and no amount of honest intellectual exchange will change it.
Enjoy,,,
Team Sergeant
05-13-2007, 09:50
blue02hd: I use "I" and "me" a lot because I am not a representative for anyone but myself. I would never disobey the order. Please, don't get me wrong on that. I wish less was said too. I just wish that the command went about having less said in a different way.
You are done with this thread.
We're not going to waste anymore bandwidth discussing "your" opinions. Col's, LTC's, CSM's SGM's MSG's etc. have attempted to enlighten you to no avail.
This is not military.com and we are not going to continue to argue with privates, nor allow them to agrue with us.
You may post in other places, do not post on this thread again.
Team Sergeant
BMT (RIP)
05-14-2007, 09:56
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,272014,00.html
BMT