Military’s New Media Policy: About Half Smart

posted at 8:02 pm on May 2, 2007 by see-dubya

There’s plenty of outrage circulating about the military’s new policy which is going require official approval of everything military bloggers publish. I concur. In the name of operational security–though a worthy name that is–a great PR/ hearts-and-minds tool is being thrown out to rust.

Blackfive links to this Danger Room interview with the “Army’s Info-Cop”, the major responsible for drafting these new regulations. There may be an end run for a few lucky milbloggers with understanding CO’s:

Q: If a soldier has to consult his supervisor or an OPSEC officer every time he wants e-mail home or put up a blog posting, doesn’t that effectively kill the practice? What supervisor is going to have the time to check all of that material?

[A:]The regulation says that a Soldier or other U.S. Army personnel must consult with their immediate supervisor and OPSEC officer prior to posting information in a public forum. However, this is where unit commander or organization leadership specifies in orders, policies, or directives how this will be done. 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 that’s half the story. The dumb part. The other part–the better part–is a crackdown on the media. Danger Room’s Noah Schachtman also links to this .pdf of an army presentation on media relations*. It makes some good points about how details taken from milblogs could compromise operational security, but it also offers this threat matrix–note the lower right hand item:

Evil Doers!

Eric Boehlert’s delusions notwithstanding, I don’t quite put the media–most of them–among such nefarious company. But they are not invested in maintaining operational security the same way military bloggers are. And they are interested in breaking stories that the military doesn’t want broken. The worst of them are so politicized against the war that they may try, unconcsciously or consciously, to undermine the war effort. And of course, some may be outright spies.

So I don’t share Schachtman’s outrage at the directive that soldiers should write a report about members of the media who try to solicit critical information. Writing a report about the incident doesn’t prejudice the free press in any way. But it may, over the long run, help to identify leaks and snoops of a more sinister cast.

Maintaining a healthy suspicion of the media doesn’t mean you think Osama is secretly editing the New York Times.** It’s natural not to trust them, especially when you’re in a business like the military which involves keeping a lot of secrets. The military needs to use the media to get its message out, but for a gang that has gleefully compromised so many security secrets, a certain frosty reticence is in order.

It’s just a shame the military doesn’t trust its own members any more than they do the MSM. If cautioned about opsec, milbloggers could be a valuable asset that the army ought to encourage. Instead they’re treating their trusted front-line guys as liabilities, as lightweights, as greenhorns no more cautious or trustworthy than the New York Times. That’s got to hurt morale.

The other irony, of course, is that while all this is going on, the Army Public Affairs people are bending over backwards to get the New York Times to whisper, once in a great while, between the constant drone of defeatism and misery, some of the same things these milbloggers are shouting every day.

P.S.: PRCalDude in the comments notes that ” By this logic, they’d ban emails also.” They nearly have. E-mails come within the purview of the new regulations:

“…private e-mail message to Family Members is not considered posting information in a public forum, but U.S. Army personnel are informed that unclassified e-mails can be intercepted and that they shouldn’t write anything that they wouldn’t say on an unsecure phone. “

But what about e-mails to non-capitalized non-family members?

____________________
*Which is funny, if you read his interview, because the slideshow is marked “FOUO”-For Official Use Only. It’s the kind of stuff the policy was meant to prevent from leaking out to the media.

**I understand Zawahiri handles most of the day to day stuff now.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s just a shame the military doesn’t trust its own members any more than they do the MSM. If cautioned about opsec, milbloggers could be a valuable asset that the army ought to encourage. Instead they’re treating their trusted front-line guys as liabilities, no more cautious than the New York Times.

By this logic, they’d ban emails also. Loose lips sink ships, but no millblogger is going to endanger himself. If they want to keep the troops safe, they should kick all the Muslims out of the military, like the kid on the USS Benfold who was giving away the ship’s schedule. Another worthless order.

PRCalDude on May 2, 2007 at 8:08 PM

They nearly have banned e-mails to anyone but their families.

see-dubya on May 2, 2007 at 8:10 PM

This is one area I have a lot of inside knowledge about and couldn’t agree more with what they are doing. The key seems to be blogging from a war zone. While not everything is classified , classified info can be gleaned from many different unclassified snippets. It is not so much a matter of not trusting our guys – it is a matter of knowing that many are not privy to much of the classified info and what may seem innocuous to the poster, may be the key to the bigger puzzle to a trained analyst.

Written letters are not being screened from what I’ve read.

Take my word for it about the cyber challenges the military is encountering. Workstations are supposed to be for official use only and most members don’t take personal laptops to the field with them.

As for using milbloggers in psyops … as long as they are trained to do so for an objective. You won’t get many answers from the military folks when you ask about this area.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 8:11 PM

What I want to know is which civillian political hack pressured the military into this? Is this some sort of lone weasel at the Pentagon or, please forgive me, a wider scheme brought about byu Democratic lawmakers to silence the news coming out of Iraq and therefore allow them unfettered control to shape their surrender strategy?
I hate myself for even thinking that way but heh I question the timing. The plus up of troops is 3/4 done and positive changes seem to be occuring.
Thank goodnes for people like Michael Yon. Now more then ever.

LakeRuins on May 2, 2007 at 8:14 PM

Could it be, and this is just devil’s advocate questioning, that they are going dark in prep for a new …twist on the offensive front?

bbz123 on May 2, 2007 at 8:15 PM

Like I said, I’m really sympathetic to opsec concerns and I don’t think tightening up is necessarily unreasonable. But why castrate the best PR machine the Army has?

see-dubya on May 2, 2007 at 8:16 PM

They nearly have banned e-mails to anyone but their families.

see-dubya on May 2, 2007 at 8:10 PM

All personal emails are screened now, under that policy, too.

amerpundit on May 2, 2007 at 8:16 PM

The worst of them are so politicized against the war that they may try, unconcsciously or consciously, to undermine the war effort.

See-Dubya, I assume the “unconsciously” was either an attempt at salvaging some shred of dignity for the MSM or a tongue-in-cheek show of naivete for our amusement.

SailorDave on May 2, 2007 at 8:17 PM

Same thought came to my mind, bbz123

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 8:18 PM

This policy makes a lot of sense.

That powerpoint is right on the money, do not delude yourself, a majority of the media in America wants the US to lose in Iraq and they have no qualms about doing whatever they can to undermine our efforts there and to sap our pilitical will.

I am glad to see that our military has the intelligence and sophistication to realize this and has taken steps to neutralize this threat.

In many ways, The New York Times represents a greater danger to American lives than Al Queda.

JayHaw Phrenzie on May 2, 2007 at 8:19 PM

Look opsec is one thing but I would say almost everything I read on their blogs is always about operation that have completed. Besides any twit with more then 20 minutes on the ground over there know the Iraqi communication channels are quicker then any blog on the internet.
Telephone
Telegraph
Tell a Iraqi

LakeRuins on May 2, 2007 at 8:19 PM

“But why castrate the best PR machine the Army has?”

If the risk is greater than the reward.

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 8:20 PM

Sailor Dave, put “Pam Hess” in the Hot Air search box over there and you’ll see why I allow for some exceptions.

Also, John Burns of the NYT is actually pretty level-headed, even though he looks like Phil Spector on trial, and Dexter Filkins is likewise good. For all my jabs at the Times I think the problem there is in the editors less than the reporters, especially the Iraq reporters.

see-dubya on May 2, 2007 at 8:21 PM

We need real reporters on the ground now more then ever. I know it is dangerous, I know it is a hassle to get the approvals required by the military PAO (Public Affairs Office)but without these first person accounts I feel we are taking another loss in this information war and God knows we are already getting our hats handed to us in this regard.

LakeRuins on May 2, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Look opsec is one thing but I would say almost everything I read on their blogs is always about operation that have completed.LakeRuins on May 2, 2007 at 8:19 PM

And there is valuable info that can be gleaned to prepare for defending future ops. I used to make a living doing this kind of analysis – it’s real and the safety of the troops outweighs any morale concerns. It is really that cut and dried in my opinion.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 8:34 PM

PRCalDude on May 2, 2007 at 8:08 PM

I disagree with kicking out people because of their religion. The clearance process is tough and tends to weed out undesirables. The Walkers gave the soviets the opportunity to close what had been a 15 year technology gap in their submarine capabilities – Ames and Hansen gave away tons of stuff.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Half Smart? How about stuck on stupid?

liberrocky on May 2, 2007 at 8:38 PM

Bradky
I wasn’t looking at the morale issue but rather the real information. Restricting emails can indeed affect morale and something tells me that part is going to be selectively enforced.
Blogging on the other hand while I can agree to monitoring for the most part during this whole operation has been the only way to get the other side or more sides of the story. If the enemy is reading so much of these blogs it would be more damaging to thier morale I think then to ours. It seems the only damn people in the whole frigging world who think we are making gains in Iraq are the buys and gals with their boots on the gorund. Once you silence them, well once they are silent you will have done more then bullets and bombs were able to accomplish.

LakeRuins on May 2, 2007 at 8:43 PM

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 8:38 PM

At the start of the war, a Muslim in the army fragged a bunch of officers, then the Benfold thing, I don’t know how many other stories there are, but as long as their Muslim, they can’t swear loyalty to any infidels.

PRCalDude on May 2, 2007 at 8:46 PM

What the old saying about the right way, the wrong way, and the Army wrong way?

Lotta people figuring Bend-over-and-smile Harry and San Fran Nan are behind the crackdown. Not that a milblogger would dare badmouth either of them or anything.

Michelle’s latest quotes from the group site I run so I can’t let this thread get any farther along without mentioning her post; go read it next.

Bradky, you may be right about the “Lessons learned” issue but that needs to be weighed against the fact that the milbogs are doing a lot better PR job of Uncle Suger than the DoD is, not to mention that low morale can get people killed too.

bdfaith on May 2, 2007 at 8:48 PM

During wartime (and it will be wartime until Islamofascism is eradicated) there need to be well-understood guidelines for ALL outgoing communications (emails, blogs, et al) by ALL service personnel.

You have no “freedom of speech” once you join up.

And the release of potential propaganda material to be exploited by the enemy has to be tightly controlled. (How much was the jihad in Iraq, etc., re-energized by the “should have been destroyed” Abu Ghraib photos, -and how many more military deaths resulted from this disastrous release of information-unnecessary-to-expose-to-the-world-because-all-it-does-is-weaken-the-war-effort-against-homicidal-maniacs?)

Embedded reporters are another piece of lunacy, with modern, instantaneous cellphone and satellite video communication, etc., since these permit battle info to potentially go out uncensored. It gambles too many lives for no more advantage than a specious 6 o’clock scoop.

The enemy is avid to take advantage of every slip.

If only the MSM were as motivated to destroy jihadi websites and expose Islamofascist preachers in the West as they are to undermine our own security and war efforts, then this entire “button it” “strategy would be less necessary.

But it’s better to be cryptic than be in a crypt.

profitsbeard on May 2, 2007 at 9:01 PM

Bad Timing for this. We don’t get much good news out of Iraq by the MSM, most is only grudgenly reported if the blogosphere starts to run with it. This will do nothing but make it easier for the MSM to assist their buddies the Dhimmicrats in convincing the heartland that the war is ‘really’ not worth it.

opusrex on May 2, 2007 at 9:09 PM

PRCalDude on May 2, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Those are two examples but there are a lot of Muslims in the military as well as wiccans, atheists, etc. I think it would be more beneficial to interview the soldiers who are Muslim to let them explain how they resolve their occupation and religion — may be very helpful.

bdfaith on May 2, 2007 at 8:48 PM

It is not Harry or Nancy that is behind it. We have lost more troops per month in the last few months than in awhile. I think the army is doing what it can to avoid any inadvertent leaks. I can’t emphasize enough what unsanitized information can provide to the trained eye.

As for your PR comment, while it may or may not be correct, what is a fact is that each soldier is briefed on their responsibilities in reporting news and using the Public Affairs chain to do so. There are cases where soldiers report information that is not accurate and misleads some of the media – remember when the soldier asked the armor question because a reporter handed him the paper with the question.
Put more reporters with the units and you solve some of the PR you mentioned.
I spent a couple of decades in the military and can speak with some expertise on this subject.
Morale might suffer some but that is where you have to have faith in the leaders, officers and NCOs to take care of those under their charge to include morale.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 9:11 PM

opusrex on May 2, 2007 at 9:09 PM

I’m not challenging you but this could also be the point where some brave citizens took up the journalistic cause to counter the concerns you mentioned. Use troops for fighting not reporting.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 9:12 PM

On the fence. As a military dad this chaps my fanny. As ex-Army I understand the military point of view. I will probably step down on the side of caution here though. I would rather not know what the boy is doing and exactly where he is doing it then have everyone know. Tough call.

Limerick on May 2, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Having read the revised AR on OPSEC, I can say that I am not really pleased. It is clumsy and ill-defined. Too much in the way of Plans and appointed gatekeepers, etc. When you are busy fighting a war, your answer will often be – nothing gets posted, nothing gets e-mailed except what goes to family over AKO, there, problem taken care of…

Bah.

major john on May 2, 2007 at 9:46 PM

Just if you are interested: Here is one of the very first ‘bloggers’…..God bless him

http://www.authentichistory.com/ww2/news/19420506_Last_Broadcast_From_Corregidor.html

Limerick on May 2, 2007 at 9:51 PM

If the milblogger is embedded with the unit he/she is bloging about, I would think there would ample incentive to keep the posts from revealing classified info. Just a thought.

DCA on May 2, 2007 at 9:59 PM

DCA on May 2, 2007 at 9:59 PM

The incentive is certainly there but not necessarily the expertise — this is why they leave it to the CO and public affairs officer to decide.

Units are only sent out with as much information as necessary to accomplish the mission. Reporting that they got 20 of the bad guys may seem like no big deal but the terrorists can use that to do battle damage assessment of their remaining fighters. Simple example but relevant.

It is not divulging classified that is such a problem as it is divulging enough unclassified information that in the aggregate can reveal a classified fact.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 10:03 PM

“But why castrate the best PR machine the Army has?”

If the risk is greater than the reward.

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 8:20 PM

So why let CNN over there?

Tim Burton on May 2, 2007 at 10:22 PM

So why let CNN over there?

Because they do have to get the okay before airing their tape or report – no much “censorship” per se but commanders get the chance to ensure nothing that would reveal operational details gets out. Remember when Geraldo got booted from Iraq for drawing the planned army movement in the sand on a live broadcast? Most reporters have better sense.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 10:26 PM

The Military is generally either way behind the general culture or way ahead of it. They are probably just how coming up with rules concerning blogging and since the horse is quite a ways out of the barn, there is going to be something of a struggle to get it back in again. Since there had been no rules in the past, this is going to chafe.

Part of the reason could also be partisan political comments or opinions posted about various politicians and parties.

One test I would apply is to see how the rules for blogging might differ from rules for writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. I would equate those actions as being on the same level of speech. Is a soldier required to get his CO’s approval for a letter to a newspaper?

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 10:27 PM

One test I would apply is to see how the rules for blogging might differ from rules for writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. I would equate those actions as being on the same level of speech. Is a soldier required to get his CO’s approval for a letter to a newspaper?

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 10:27 PM

The differences as I see them are (a) the letter to the editor is normally reviewed by the staff and has to be selected or approved for print (b) If selected the time before being put into print is a matter of days (c) the enemy (in this case terrorists) does not have the resources to efficiently monitor every newspaper in print to look for possible nuggets (d) newspapers cannot be googled the way that blogs can and at anywhere near the efficiency or speed of internet searches (try googling “hotair.com crosspatch” and you get an idea)

In short blogs are near real time and easily searchable where letters to the editor are not.

Bradky on May 2, 2007 at 10:38 PM

My gut feeling is that the vast majority of commanders are going to use the “register and spot check” process and that the more strict procedure is there to be put into place before or during major operations or if someone just completely screws up.

crosspatch on May 2, 2007 at 10:48 PM

A bigger question I have, is why do the troops have to do this job (of selling themselves and their task to the people)?

Shame on the people for not backing the troops.

Shame on the Whitehouse for not selling their policies better.

Shame on the media . .well for being what they are.

Shame on Congress using the troops as political pawns.

Shame on the military for still after (how many years since Veitnam?) learning their lessons about PR.

- The Cat

P.S. Put together a panel or something and get the best milbloggers together and let them do a blog project. Give them a military cencor (to filter out potential ship sinkingness) as an ombudsman

MirCat on May 2, 2007 at 11:17 PM

That should be ‘NOT learning’ their lessons.

- The Cat

MirCat on May 2, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Very nice work See-Dubya.

Griz on May 3, 2007 at 12:06 AM

All personal emails are screened now, under that policy, too.

amerpundit on May 2, 2007 at 8:16 PM

All e-mails, in any company or government office here in the U.S. is subject to the same rules. That means, they are the property of the company or the office and the proprietors have a right to inspect them. How much of it actually gets inspected is determined ‘as needed’.

This became so in the major Microsoft case, when hundreds of part-time employees were forced to be hired and paid back in benefits, based on their (until then) uninspected e-mails. The owners can also set retention guidelines and can delete old e-mails on a routine basis (ex. all older than one year).

Entelechy on May 3, 2007 at 1:00 AM

To clarify my own comment – certain government correspondence must be kept, like any other government records.

And I concur with Griz that See-Dubya does great work.

Entelechy on May 3, 2007 at 1:03 AM

interview the soldiers who are Muslim to let them explain how they resolve their occupation and religion

Yeah, that’s intelligent. The real fanatics LIE and have no compunction about doing so.

This is one area I have a lot of inside knowledge about….

I spent a couple of decades in the military and can speak with some expertise on this subject.

Take my word for it about the cyber challenges the military is encountering.

I used to make a living doing this kind of analysis….

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 7:04 AM

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 7:04 AM

Grow up

Bradky on May 3, 2007 at 7:26 AM

that soldiers should write a report about members of the media who try to solicit critical information.

How ’bout save the paper and just let the guys pop ‘em in the chops?

tree hugging sister on May 3, 2007 at 9:36 AM

I adopted a soldier (Blackhawk troop) and have sent him letters, care packages and emails. He responded enthusiasticly and sent me an email about once a week. In his last email to me he said he had gotton an American flag and the PX and had gotten it signed by all the troopers. I haven’t heard from him since April 2nd. I wonder if this is the reason. I know he hasn’t been injured or killed because we get several updates on the troop.

Neocon Peg on May 3, 2007 at 10:08 AM

gotton = gotten

Neocon Peg on May 3, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Bradky on May 3, 2007 at 7:26 AM

hahahaha! I’m just waiting for you to offer to give us all the phone number to your former CO so we can verify your “expertise”.

LOL!

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 10:10 AM

Well, THIS CAPITALIZED “Family Member”, Marine Wife HAS AN OPINION ABOUT THE OPSEC CENSORING MILBLOGS.

Not that any of you will care. I’m just a CAPITAL “D” , “Dependent”.

PPfffttt….

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

NAKED?!

DAMN! You’re tough.

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 12:15 PM

First the military is not taking away anything from the brave soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines serving this great nation. The only thing the military is doing is putting safe guards in place in the name of Operational Security (OPSEC). Blogs, emails and such can be an excellent source for operational information.

On October 1979 I signed on the dotted line and started a career which spanned 22 years. When I signed that line I understood that in order to protect the rights of American citizens I was giving up some of my own rights. It’s still the same today the only difference is technology. Regulations and policies have changed to keep up with the times.

SPIFF1669 on May 3, 2007 at 12:48 PM

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Great job Jane – and, no one, but no one, can say it like you do! Thanks for being as strong as you are.

P.S. when you write that best-seller, I sure hope you won’t swich sides to market it :) Respectfully and thankfully,

Entelechy on May 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I read your post and disagree slightly with your view. I am not against soldiers being allowed to share their experiences but only when they are safely back in the US and can do so with the confidence they won’t accidentally share a detail that could damage current operations.
Another consideration is that the bloggers are using government networks from the theater and technically should not use them for unofficial purposes, which is what a blog is. That’s the legalese but the practical reason is that the networks are carrying operational traffic, images and data that the troops at “the tip of the spear” need unfettered access to. Unofficial traffic and bandwidth heavy things like mpegs and pictures stress the finite amount of bandwidth available.

An additional comment for those concerned that the MSM is not doing its job objectively is that there is nothing stopping a “consortium” of bloggers from putting their resources together to send some journalists of their choosing to report the news. I’m not trying to be a smart alec about that but our troops are there to fight – not feed the blogosphere and people should recognize that.

Bradky on May 3, 2007 at 6:15 PM

NAKED?!

DAMN! You’re tough.

csdeven on May 3, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I’m a FED. UP. TO. THE. GILLS. Marine wife.

That’s why you read all the way to the end, right, sweetie?

ALWAYS a punch line.

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 6:50 PM

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

Great job Jane – and, no one, but no one, can say it like you do! Thanks for being as strong as you are.

P.S. when you write that best-seller, I sure hope you won’t swich sides to market it :) Respectfully and thankfully,

Entelechy on May 3, 2007 at 2:23 PM

::blushblush:: ….and THANK YOU.

COMMENT AT MY SITE. I have a growing, and deeply disturbed following. You’d fit right in!!!!

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 6:52 PM

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I read your post and disagree slightly with your view. I am not against soldiers being allowed to share their experiences but only when they are safely back in the US and can do so with the confidence they won’t accidentally share a detail that could damage current operations.

With all respect, Bradky >>>>>>>>>

With the exception of the greenest PFCs (who I can ASSURE YOU DON’T HAVE TIME TO POOP, much less TYPE), these men are PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS with a TAD more to lose than a promotion if they can’t tell what is “safe” to tell and what is not. They are trained to know that better than you would be in the same situation. It is what they do.

Again, my Marine, and all his buddies MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE. Hell, he doesn’t tell me anything regarding troop movements, plans or equipment. And I sleep with him.

Secondly>>>

Never you mind about BANDWIDTH. How Lame is THAT argument. And the MWR (Moral Rec and Welfare) computers are on a DIFFERENT Lan than these “secret machines” you are so worried about.

The NiprNet is the UNCLASSIFIED military computer network. The SiprNet is the “Secret” or Secure Network. I assure your little arm chair worry stone need not be rubbed on THAT score.

And with regards to “consorium” of bloggers. We did that. Michelle went. but the MSM STILL HAS the corner on the “press pass” review and dispensation market that is like understanding DIGG. It is Greek, but set up to protect Liberal interests. And YES, EVEN AT THE PENTAGON.

Lastly, Bradky,

The Department of Defense computers and bandwidth are technically “work” computers, you are right.

But more than a few Officers I know TOOK THEIR OWN MACHINES to Iraq and THE DoD WAS MORE THAN HAPPY TO SUPPORT MILBLOGGERS WHEN THIS SHIP WASN’T SINKING AND MILBLOGGERS WERE NOT POINTING OUT THAT THE PRESIDENT IS BEING A P*SSY THE EMPEROR IS NAKED.

And THAT. IS. A. FACT.

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 7:14 PM

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 7:14 PM

1. The bandwidth is a real concern. Been over there tending to those pipes and know what the infrastructure looks like. There is no difference between which network and which pipe it traverses. In other words they run on the same pipes in different channels.
2. Some of the critical applications run on the unclassified networks – such as medical apps designed to ensure that no matter how remote a troop is, if he or she is injured access to their records is a keystroke away.
3. four or five days in the desert by a couple of people is not sufficient to counter your concerns about the MSM (and not nearly enough people to do it right)
4. My area of expertise is comm and network security. I don’t presume to tell your husband how to lead marines or you how to run a blog or site as I have no experience with either. I don’t recall you mentioning that you have expertise in comm.
5. All military personnel are expected to work through their PA officers to avoid divulging information that may not be appropriate. We are briefed on it periodically as well and can be held accountable for disobeying those instructions.

Bradky on May 3, 2007 at 7:29 PM

COMMENT AT MY SITE. I have a growing, and deeply disturbed following. You’d fit right in!!!!

seejanemom on May 3, 2007 at 6:52 PM

Jane, you make me laugh, often, and, yes, it’s disturbing what’s going on in our country. I’m trying to say that I’m “disturbed” in a variety of meanings, one disturbed, as in “who wants to be a normal personality? boring, boring, boring”. But seriously, I’m very disturbed at the lack of seriousness displayed by the leaders on both sides.

I meant to write to you not to “switch” parties, instead of ‘swich’, blech. I hate it when I don’t pay attention.

I’ll look into commenting on your site. There are a few with my handle on other blogs, totally unrelated.

p.s. off topic – we need to talk about Fred – I met him once and have followed his political moves for years. Best always,

Entelechy on May 4, 2007 at 12:11 AM