Redstate

By haystack Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

[UPDATED:The Army has "clarified" things for us. In essence:

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.

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.

The rest of the specifics at the bottom of the post]

In accordance with the Newly updated OPSEC regulations [h/t Wired and a thank you to Gordontaylor for telling me about it]:

2–1. All Army personnel
Operations security is everyone’s responsibility. Failure to properly implement OPSEC measures can result in serious injury or death to our personnel, damage to weapons systems, equipment and facilities, loss of sensitive technologies and mission failure. OPSEC is a continuous process and an inherent part of military culture and as such, must be fully integrated into the execution of all Army operations and supporting activities. All Department of the Army (DA) personnel (active component, reserve component to include U.S. Army Reserve, Army National Guard, and DA civilians), and DOD contractors will [...]
g. Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.
(1) This includes, but is not limited to letters, resumes, articles for publication, electronic mail (e-mail), Web site postings, web log (blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards or other forms of dissemination or documentation.
(2) Supervisors will advise personnel to ensure that sensitive and critical information is not to be disclosed. Each unit or organization’s OPSEC Officer will advise supervisors on means to prevent the disclosure of sensitive and critical information.

I'm not going to wring my hands or claim the sky has fallen, but this is REALLY REALLY BAD news.

More below the fold...

It's bad for several reasons, and while I certainly "get" that OPSEC matters more than anything else, I'm concerned about what effect it will have on our guys doing the fighting and doing the writing.

So is Patriot, over at Soldiers Perspective who had this to say:

Military blogs are the best form of public relations that the Army has. While the possibility exists that military blogs are also the worst form of public relations, there simply aren't very many people that are truly violating OPSEC on their military blogs.
[...]
Soldiers are not the problem here. Most of the information that is considered OPSEC and/or classified is leaked from "top military officials" who always tend to remain nameless in the media. Instead of going after the little man on the ground supporting the mission and doing the right thing, the military needs to focus on those subversive and treasonous people who speak with the media on "condition of anonymity" about things that compromise military operations and programs. Without military bloggers who, to date, have not been constrained by such silly requirements as being forced to ask permission before publishing an opinion, the American people would be clueless about the good our country is doing. We would not get the man on the ground perspective and the media's false portrayal would rule the roost.

blackfive ain't so impressed either:

The Bottom-Line to 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.

I'm not in the Military, nor do I speak from first hand experience about what it is like to operate within the rules and regs of the Military "machine", but I DO know that we ARE losing the information wars, and shutting down the boots on the ground is likely only going to let us hear what the MSM gives us and what the DoD Public Affairs machine gives us.

Frankly, I have a lukewarm reception for either of them as to whether they give me clear unfiltered information not jaded by an agenda...to be fair.

DadManly, John at OpFor, and countless others have much to say on the subject. The caution here is in falling to the temptation that folks are just upset because they can't do the things they did before...and there may be some of that, but the problem doesn't lie with those being shut down...it lies with those of US being shut out.

And, it lies with having made it so difficult to communicate with the outside world, that most of the people in charge of a unit or platoon or company or WHATEVER, will just shut them down all together...there IS a war going on, and they have much better things to do with their time than screen emails and blog posts.

This comes after months of the Army reviewing the blog aspects of the Military life, and has come down to this final decision. Screaming and yelling and getting petition drives going, or calling your Congressman (as if THAT ever changes anything) is likely NOT going to change anything...not anytime soon anyway.

There ARE those looking for new alternatives. Laughing wolf over at blackfive has some ideas...there may be ways to get the words from the warriors doing the fighting, but if some alternative doesn't appear, SOME may opt OUT of the military all together rather than be silenced or have the rights they fight for taken away with such seemingly indiscriminate restrictions...as in this quote, again from patriot:

If this means that I need to get out of the military to maintain my civil rights, I guess that's what I need to do. I don't believe that a person should have to choose between their civil rights and military service. People have this perception within and without the military that once you enlist you surrender those rights. That's simply not true. I never signed such a document. I will never sign such a document. I do realize that my rights are somewhat restrained based off of missions and knowledge. As a Libertarian, I refuse to ever surrender my rights. It's those rights that I'm fighting to protect in the military to begin with. I love my country and would never do anything that put it or its protectors in danger. Most Soldiers feel the same way.

Not wanting to sound too alarmist, I'll leave it at that. We need news and facts and reality-based perspective. The Army just took that away, whether on purpose or as collateral damage...

from the updated info I received:

Army Operations Security: Soldier Blogging Unchanged

Summary:
o 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.

o Soldiers and Army family members agree that safety of our Soldiers are of utmost importance.
o 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.
o 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.
o 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.