OPSEC OR CENSORSHIP? Does this mean we have to stop posting on PS.com?

JGarcia · 05-02-2007, 23:23

OPSEC?

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.

**Pete** · 05-03-2007, 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by NG_M4_Shooter

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

TF Kilo · 05-03-2007, 06:26

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.

JGarcia · 05-03-2007, 08:54

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**

plato · 05-03-2007, 09:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by NG_M4_Shooter

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NG_M4_Shooter

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by plato

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

JGarcia · 05-03-2007, 11:02

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

plato · 05-03-2007, 14:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sionnach

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.