Driving milbloggers out of existence

They don’t get the attention they deserve, but there’s a thriving community of military blogs (milbloggers) led in part by active-duty troops who update their sites from Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes literally from the front lines.

But as Noah Shachtman noted today, these blogs may soon be a thing of the past.

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.”

If there’s a reasonable defense for this, I can’t see it. It’s not as if the soldiers are giving away classified information about troop movements or military plans; they’re writing about their experiences in the midst of war.

Occasionally, these bloggers have criticism to share. Apparently, that’s too much for Bush’s Pentagon to bear.

Ed Morrissey explained quite well what a mistake this is from the perspective of a conservative war supporter.

The Army gets paid to protect operational security. In this war, more than any other, the enemies of our troops use the Internet to their advantage, both in their own communications and to scope out their enemies — the American military and government. If troops have leaked classified information either deliberately or inadvertently through their on-line communications, this would be a large area of concern to the Pentagon. However, no one has any evidence that milbloggers have violated Opsec orders in their communications. […]

Milbloggers have provided a vital voice in this war, reporting from vantage points unattainable elsewhere. We have learned about the successes in this war, such as rebuilding efforts and the enthusiasm of Iraqis in neighborhoods protected by American forces, that we do not get in our mainstream media since the embed program ended. Nothing appears ready to replace it except for official Pentagon statements, which carry less weight with the reading public than the soldiers on the front line.

The Army should be concerned about the operational security of the mission — but without those voices engaging the American public, the mission may be lost here at home.

The Pentagon will no doubt respond by noting that the new policies won’t ban milblogging, but will only add a layer of regulations. The reality is that troops a) will be less likely to criticize their mission or leaders if they have to get approval for their speech; and b) will blog less if they have to wait for a bureaucracy to approve their writings.

This is senseless. I realize the administration literally fears dissent, but these men and women want an outlet for a free exchange of ideas, and their families enjoy reading about their perspectives. Many, if not most, of these milbloggers are conservative, which you’d think the adminstration would like. Why insist on silencing them?

***Why insist on silencing them?***

Because a certain individual in the WH is so deathly afraid of criticism against his Versailles-esque policies. Can’t have the legions talking trash about Caesar, now can we?

  • Ever seen The Simpsons (The Shining spoof) where Mr. Burns takes Homer’s beer and tv away for the winter while he’s locked up in the lodge? But hey, I suppose taking away the crutch that helps someone keep it together in hard times could theortically have the exact opposite effect, too, of what pyschologists (liberal elitists w/ their fancy degrees) tell us would happen.

  • Ok, so I email with a penpal in the National Guard, serving in Iraq. Will that be stopped, too?

  • This is retarded. In fighting this kind of war, we need our junior officers sharing as much information with each other as possible. New insurgent tactics will show up in one area and be effective until the troops in that area figure out how to defeat it. That tactic will then show up in another area. Don’t we want our junior officers talking to each other so every single one doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel?

    The Pentagon’s thought process must be “When fighting a network of enemies, what we really need is a stricter hierarchy.”

  • Occasionally, these bloggers have criticism to share. Apparently, that’s too much for Bush’s Pentagon to bear.

    I respectfully disagree with this take. As CB noted, milbloggers have been some of the best advocates for the war — I’m always seeing some Bush defender pointing to a milblog as evidence the war is realyl going well.

    I’d say this action suggests the good news is becoming increasingly harder to come by.

  • Funny how people who burn CIA agents get to keep their security clearances, but kids writing letters home get threatened.

    And remember how the Republicans put up a huge stink during the 2000 recount, claiming that Democrats didn’t want the troops to be able to vote? (of course the reality was that the Democrats didn’t want the troops to vote late, but of course that didn’t stop the Republicans).

    Well now who’s taking rights away from our soldiers?

    I’m sure this will be good for morale and recruitment.

    and jezus cripes get a load of this:

    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.

    You can’t read the rules you’re supposed to obey.

    Sounds like something a church would think up.

  • What about troops of other nations in the “coalition of the willing?” Can the Brits still blog? How about the private contractors?

    “Freedom is on the march.”

  • Well, that would certainly have ended the writing career of my good friend who shall remain nameless for now, who leaves Afghanistan on the Freedom Bird this Saturday. Sad to hear. My friend’s assignment there was an important one (working with the Afghan National Army to make them the national army), but not one that gets much publicity from what they call “the Big Army” or from reporters. One would never have known about this, had he not written about it at the Doonesbury “Sandbox.” I guess the Sandbox will be a thing of the past, too, which the Army will come to regret.

    Another case of “military intelligence is to actual intelligence as military music is to actual music.”

    “There’s the right way, the wong way, and the military way.”

  • Although it pains me to agree, I have to say that I don’t think blogging from the front lines is a good idea. Dissent is and will always be a part of military life but soldiers do their duty and obey orders. When you join the army you agree to certain restrictions on your freedom. There are no free speech zones in foxholes. My suggestion is tath the soldiers keep a diary and if they want to publish it they can either get a book deal or work someting out with a newspaper columnist or civilian blogger.

  • I tend not to have a real problem with this. Members of the military do give up certain 1st Amendment freedoms that civilians take for granted. In previous wars, overt censorship of communications from those fighting on the front lines was normal and accepted. If you had somebody fighting in Europe and he sent a letter home, you would not expect that that letter would arrive intact, nevermind still sealed. It was just one of those things of war.

    Why should the expectations necessarily be different now just because the method of communcations are different? I think this is definitely one of those situations where the military world definitely is different from the civilian world and maybe it’s one of those issues that spotlights why it’s wrong for the Bushies to pretend that we’re “at war” politically and militarily while acting and encouraging things to be normal on the home front. If we really were at war, and if the government acted like it and mobilized the civilian population to act like it, maybe people would have an easier time accepting these sort of measures when they’re promulgated.

  • Both #10 and #11 are dead wrong. In fact, so long as military secrets are not compromised, members of the military DO NOT GIVE UP THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. This has been demonstrated for quite some time. Allow me to educate the two of you with a recent article in the Los Angeles Times (free registration required):

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dissent30apr30,1,5439547.story

    This is a fight that was won 35 years ago. I’m surprised a “progressive” wouldn’t know that.

  • bush-shit wouldn’t want to let the milbloggers ever bring out the truth now, would he? heaven forbid that americans don’t get all their news from faux news…….

  • Do these folks not get the irony of Bush saying just yesterday “our enemies hate us for our freedoms” – and so today we take those freedoms away from the very people fighting against the enemy?

    *head spins*

  • Tom – no one said that “members of the military GIVE UP ALL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.” – but certain rights ARE given up – the right to publicly criticize the Commander in Chief is one of them. Appearing in uniform at a political rally is another. And I would certainly think that certain restrictions – such as pre-screening – on communcations from the front lines during wartime would survive a constitutional 1st Amendment challenge. And nothing in your atricle says otherwise.

  • I’ve had a little experience with the military surfing the web looking for post critical of the Iraq War. Take a look here to read about it.

  • The key is that they aren’t being stopped from publishing at all. It’s they are stopped from publishing without it being pre-approved. This just means that the pro-Iraq voices will now standalone with no dissenting voices from the military to be heard from.

  • #17, edmund dantes (Count of Monte Christo?),

    Quite so. Also, I think the positive voices will be “encouraged”, one way or anohter, so that the picture will be skewed even more.

  • If Bush can control it, he will control it. Doesn’t matter what IT is. Smart strategy? Good policy? Irrelevant. Suppress. Control. The internet makes him even crazier than he is normally.

  • What the military recognizes is the growing anger in the military about the war in error. I talked last week to a young man we know, who was once again being redeployed to Iraq. His commanding officer had given all of the troops a lecture about the punishment for malingering – two years in prison followed by a dishonorable discharge because there had been suicide attempts, breakdowns, and real anger about the new orders. Don’t forget that most of the troops are fairly unsophisticated kids and that the military recruiters lie shamelessly about military life.

    It’s emails from these kids that the military wants to suppress.

  • Comments are closed.