Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death

[irregularmedic]

Army Squeezes Soldier Blogs, Maybe to Death

 

Noah Shachtman (Wired)

 

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."

 

But with the regulations drawn so tightly, "many commanders will feel like they have no choice but to forbid their soldiers from blogging -- or even using e-mail," said Jeff Nuding, who won the bronze star for his service in Iraq. "If I'm a commander, and think that any slip-up gets me screwed, I'm making it easy: No blogs," added Nuding, writer of the "pro-victory" Dadmanly site. "I think this means the end of my blogging."

 

Active-duty troops aren't the only ones affected by the new guidelines. Civilians working for the military, Army contractors -- even soldiers' families -- are all subject to the directive as well.

 

But, while the regulations may apply to a broad swath of people, not everybody affected can actually read them. In a Kafka-esque turn, the guidelines are kept on the military's restricted Army Knowledge Online intranet. Many Army contractors -- and many family members -- don't have access to the site. Even those able to get in are finding their access is blocked to that particular file.

 

"Even though it is supposedly rewritten to include rules for contractors (i.e., me) I am not allowed to download it," e-mails Perry Jeffries, an Iraq war veteran now working as a contractor to the Armed Services Blood Program.

 

The U.S. military -- all militaries -- have long been concerned about their personnel inadvertently letting sensitive information out. Troops' mail was read and censored throughout World War II; back home, government posters warned citizens "careless talk kills."

 

Military blogs, or milblogs, as they're known in service-member circles, only make the potential for mischief worse. On a website, anyone, including foreign intelligence agents, can stop by and look for information.

 

"All that stuff we used to get around a bar and say to each other -- well, now because we're publishing it in open forums, now it's intel," said milblogger and retired Army officer John Donovan.

 

Passing on classified data -- real secrets -- is already a serious military crime. The new regulations (and their author) take an unusually expansive view of what kind of unclassified information a foe might find useful. In an article published by the official Army News Service, Maj. Ceralde "described how the Pentagon parking lot had more parked cars than usual on the evening of Jan. 16, 1991, and how pizza parlors noticed a significant increase of pizza to the Pentagon.... These observations are indicators, unclassified information available to all … that Operation Desert Storm (was about to) beg(i)n."

 

Steven Aftergood, head of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy, called Ceralde's example "outrageous."

 

"It's true that from an OPSEC (operational security) perspective, almost anything -- pizza orders, office lights lit at odd hours, full or empty parking lots -- can potentially tip off an observer that something unusual is afoot," he added. "But real OPSEC is highly discriminating. It does not mean cutting off the flow of information across the board. If on one day in 1991 an unusual number of pizza orders coincided with the start of Desert Storm, it doesn't mean that information about pizza orders should now be restricted. That's not OPSEC, that's just stupidity."

 

During the early days of the Iraq war, milblogs flew under the radar of the Defense Department's information security establishment. But after soldiers like Specialist Colby Buzzell began offering detailed descriptions of firefights that were scantily covered in the press, blogs began to be viewed by some in the military as a threat -- an almost endless chorus of unregulated voices that could say just about anything.

 

Buzzell, for one, was banned from patrols and confined to base after such an incident. Military officials asked other bloggers to make changes to their sites. One soldier took down pictures of how well armor stood up to improvised bombs; a military spouse erased personal information from her site -- including "dates of deployment, photos of the family, the date their next child is expected, the date of the baby shower and where the family lives," said Army spokesman Gordon Van Fleet.

 

But such cases have been rare, Major Elizabeth Robbins noted in a paper (.pdf) for the Army's Combined Arms Center.

 

"The potential for an OPSEC violation has thus far outstripped the reality experienced by commanders in the field," she wrote.

 

And in some military circles, bloggers have gained forceful advocates. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, for example, now regularly arranges exclusive phone conferences between bloggers and senior commanders in Afghanistan and Iraq. Major Robbins, for one, has argued strongly for easing the restrictions on the soldier-journalists.

 

"The reputation of the Army is maintained on many fronts, and no one fights harder on its behalf than our young soldiers. We must allow them access to the fight," Robbins wrote. "To silence the most credible voices -- those at the spear's edge -- and to disallow them this function is to handicap ourselves on a vital, very real battlefield."

 

Nevertheless, commanders have become increasingly worried about the potential for leaks. In April 2005, military leaders in Iraq told milbloggers to "register" (.pdf) their sites with superior officers. In September, the Army made the first revision of its OPSEC regulations since the mid-'90s, ordering GIs to talk to their commanders before posting potentially-problematic information. Soldiers began to drop their websites, in response.

 

More bloggers followed suit, when an alert came down from highest levels of the Pentagon that "effective immediately, no information may be placed on websites … unless it has been reviewed for security concerns," and the Army announced it was activating a team, the Army Web Risk Assessment Cell, to scan blogs for information breaches. An official Army dispatch told milbloggers, "Big Brother is not watching you, but 10 members of a Virginia National Guard unit might be." That unit continues to look for security violations, new regulations in hand.

 

See the Wired blog Danger Room for additional information on the Army's blogger ban.

[Paul in Qatar]

Almost like they were hiding something.

 

 

==Edited for typos==

Edited May 3, 2007 by Paul in Saudi

[Scott Cunningham]

One of the more anal, stupid things the Army has done.

 

Some S-2 is WAY out of control here.

[Jim Martin]

This is a really stupid way to try to win the infowar. As has been noted elsewhere, the guys who were already above-board with their commands and followed the rules will get stomped on, and the Article 15 schleps and malcontents will keep posting under the radar. The milbloggers are the voice of the troops, and for the most part have given out a positive image of the mission and the way we're accomplishing it. Sure a Hell of a lot better than what we've been getting from the MSM.

 

The Pentagon just killed its best advocates.

[Manic Moran]

Well, there go the Manic diaries... Not that there would have been much I'd be able to write about in any upcoming position...

 

But, really.

 

NTM

[Gregory]

I think that Tanknet should do it's part by requiring all postings from active duty service members to be accompanied by a written statement from the unit commander clearing the post.

[Jim Martin]

Almost like the were hiding something.

 

Of course they are, Paul. They don't want anyone to know about the extermination camps and rape squads, you know that.

[Paul in Qatar]

Jim why do you slander the American military that way? Why do you hate them? Is it because of the freedom?

[Jim Martin]

It's because I hate rural America, Paul.

[Brasidas]

It's because I hate rural America, Paul.

 

Drunk with haterade. *tsk tsk*

[Sardaukar]

I prefer to be "equal opportunity hater"..I just hate anyone else...

[Paul in Qatar]

I prefer to be "equal opportunity hater"..I just hate anyone else...

 

 

Well sure, who doesn't?

[Catalan]

I was hoping to start a blog too. What about online forums?

[rmgill]

Is there a defined difference between keeping a journal and then publishing it after return to CONUS or is that considered a violation of the order as well?

[m1a1mg]

As someone who has seen the results of some blogs, it's not a totally bad idea. I agree that 90% of blogs are good stuff, it's the 10% that are causing huge issues. There are so many damn OPSEC violations on the net, it's absurd.

 

For example, unit pictures with full names. Bad guys read the internet as well. Then they call the spouse back home and tell them their Soldier has died in combat. It's actually happened more than once. Causes a complete cluster for those back home.

 

I've personally read a Soldiers blog which included TTPs and ROEs.

[Guest JamesG123]

I donno, I kind of agree with this. I have seen some really big (and alot of minor) OPSEC no-nos on blogs. Plus soldiers bitch and moan, even if things are prefect. Always have always will. There's no need for that to get transmitted unfiltered in real time to the whole world. We have enough trouble shooting ourselves in the media foot as it is...

 

Those are the main reasons I didn't post much on here during my deployment.

[irregularmedic]

As someone who has seen the results of some blogs, it's not a totally bad idea. I agree that 90% of blogs are good stuff, it's the 10% that are causing huge issues. There are so many damn OPSEC violations on the net, it's absurd.

 

For example, unit pictures with full names. Bad guys read the internet as well. Then they call the spouse back home and tell them their Soldier has died in combat. It's actually happened more than once. Causes a complete cluster for those back home.

 

I've personally read a Soldiers blog which included TTPs and ROEs.

 

 

What about educating more about OPSEC issues and coming down hard on violations like full names?

 

Might that not be a better solution than this?

[m1a1mg]

What about educating more about OPSEC issues and coming down hard on violations like full names?

 

Might that not be a better solution than this?

It would be if the Army had the manpower to track all the violations. One Soldier has already been prosecuted for this.

[m1a1mg]

From a different viewpoint, the Stars and Stripes:

 

New regulations worrying Army bloggers

Service aims to balance operational security with rights of Web-savvy soldiers

 

By Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes

Mideast edition, Friday, May 4, 2007

WASHINGTON — Bloggers worry that new Army rules for all online postings could put severe restrictions on soldiers’ Web sites, but Army officials insist that isn’t their goal.

 

“If they are enforced as written, I think it would end or severely curtail blogging downrange as we know it,” said Minnesota National Guardsman Staff Sgt. Dave Thul, who has been serving in Iraq since January and maintains the blog Foreign and Domestic.

 

“But as with most things in the Army, the key is in how it is enforced. If it is enforced similar to say, height and weight standards, then I think we’ll be OK.”

 

Last month, the service issued new regulations regarding operational security, updating restrictions on all electronic communications and reminding all military personnel not to release “classified or sensitive information” on the Internet or to the media. The new regulations can be found at www.stripes.com.

 

The document specifically bans posting pictures of roadside bomb attacks, images of troops killed in action, and any shots of base security measures. But it also mandates that soldiers “consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC Officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum,” specifically citing blogs.

 

Army spokesman Paul Boyce said that isn’t new policy.

 

“We want soldiers to be able to speak their mind and share with each other what they’re doing,” Boyce said. “We just want to remind them that there are people out there who want to kill them, so they need to be careful.”

 

Noah Shachtman, editor of Wired’s Danger Room blog, which has been chronicling the backlash to the regulations, said the blogging community has been outraged by the changes.

 

“Either that’s unbelievably sloppily written, or their intent is to shut down any site they want,” he said. “It seems like a back door way for them to bonk any blog [by a soldier] if they decide to.”

 

But Boyce said that soldiers already must inform their commanders before they start any sort of Web site, and he said the new rules simply reiterate that service officials must be aware of all postings. But he maintains the language does not require soldiers get prior approval before writing.

 

“We’ve tried over the past three years to be as open as we can be,” he said. “We just want to make sure [soldiers] are thinking about security before they post.”

 

The rules also require that commanders ensure all information released — including any posting from subordinates on the Internet — receives an operational security review. It also states that units should conduct quarterly reviews of Web sites to ensure that “the content remains relevant and appropriate.”

 

Shachtman said those details are clearly a tighter restriction than blogging troops have faced in the past. Boyce said soldiers who already are following the rules should not notice any differences under the new policy.

 

Boyce added that when Army officials have updated their rules in the past, he has not seen a drop-off in the number of soldier blogs or their postings.

 

So far Thul hasn’t changed his blogging habits. He said his unit has been supportive of his writing, and that commanders routinely check his site to make sure he is complying with operational security regulations.

 

Capt. Keith McNeilly, an Oregon National Guardsman blogging from Afghanistan, said he doesn’t think the new regulations will change his postings either. His unit also monitors his blog, McNeilly’s Perspective, and he makes sure the content of his postings don’t violate Army rules.

 

“I believe that military blogging done by soldiers, done correctly, is a huge asset to the military,” he said.

 

“That does not mean that I have drank the Kool-Aid and am regurgitating Army thought. What it means is that the American public and our executive and legislative branches deserve as much information about what actually happens here as they can get. It is a form of check and balance; There are rabid fanatics on both sides of the spectrum.”

 

[Paul in Qatar]

There is a bigger technical and social issue here. We see it everywhere. Information is harder and harder to control.

 

The Saudis are loosing their battle to censor the internet. Same for the Chinese. We get live footage of disasters as people use their cell phones to take pictures as they flee. Everybody everywhere is connected it seems and the trend is only going to continue.

 

Efforts to censor soldiers who post to the internet will fail. Does anyone think otherwise? Do we have enough lieutenants to approve everyone's e-mail? I understand people are e-mailing their families with, "I am off on patrol, back in about nine hours." then the wife expects to hear the soldier is A-OK in nine hours. Do we want to further stress families? Beside if we were to plug up the internet we would still have to worry about regular mail (Does any one write letters anymore?) satellite phones, digital cameras and who knows what else.

 

I see no full solution to this, although increased OPSEC training is a start.

[Scott Cunningham]

So we are gona ban blogs and other sources of info because something bad happened??? ooooohhhhh Something bad!!!! We can't have that.

 

Its like "lets all wear a rubberized crash helmet because some guy in Colorado smacked his head on a table (while drunk) back in September, and GOT HURT!!!"

[Guest JamesG123]

Its the control of information the same as it always has been in war. Only now with technology efforts to control it is the equivalent of the Dutch kid sticking his finger in the leaky dike...

 

I wonder if there are Islamist blogs where Abdul and Ali bitch about the sand, that their cell leader wouldn't let them have any booze, and that their last car bomb was a dud?

 

 

Edit: Ok fixed it to be more "realistic".

Edited May 4, 2007 by JamesG123

[Wobbly Head]

I wonder if there are Islamist blogs where Abdul and Ali bitch about the sand, that their cell leader wouldn't let them have any porn, and that their last car bomb was a dud?

 

If they have access to the internet finding porn would be a non-issue.

Letter writing is something every soldier does to pass time on a active posting, with the internet it just doesn't take so long to get the pornographic photos and letters back to them.

[DB]

Well sure, who doesn't?

Me.

 

I just love drunken lesbian cheerleaders.

 

David

[Paul in Qatar]

That is a "given."