GOLD STAR MOTHERS DAY

Mothers of fallen servicemembers began calling themselves “Gold Star Mothers” during the First World War, but the sorrowful bond they share reaches back to every woman who has lost a son or daughter in uniform since our nation’s revolution. The Army cherishes the mothers of its Soldiers as bedrocks of support and comfort, and honors the mothers of its fallen as resilient legacies of their children’s service. The United States began observing Gold Star Mothers Day on the last Sunday of September in 1936. This year, the Army joins the nation on September 27th in recognizing the sacrifice and strength of its Gold Star Mothers.

Northeast Kansas Chapter
http://www.goldstarmoms.com/Depts/KS/NEKansasChapt/NEKansas.htm

Video:
http://www.army.mil/media/amp/?bcpid=6981683001&bcpid=20104047001&bclid=38457190001&bctid=42040359001

Related links:
http://www.goldstarmoms.com/

http://www.army.mil/goldstarmothers/?ref=home-spot0-title

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=55987

Command and General Staff College CSM talks to Staff Group 19A

On 18 September 2009, CSM Johndrow, the Command and General Staff College Command Sergeant Major, spoke to the officers of Staff Group 19A, in answer to the group's invitation. He spoke on multiple topics, but the central theme was clearly on the Soldier, which was a welcome refresher in a curriculum of strategy, force management, and organizational-level leadership. CSM Johndrow's comments to the class demonstrated the importance for non-commissioned officer involvement in an officer's professional military education; the relationship between officer and non-commissioned officer counterparts is essential in our units and needs to be mirrored in the classroom.

His easy conversational style and approachable demeanor helped to convey the important take aways from his time in our classroom:

- Trust and transparency are essential, especially to tear down the stereotypical wall between officer and non-commissioned officer "business". Officers must trust their NCOs to handle issues at their levels while NCOs need to keep their officers informed of the basics.

- Let those high-speed NCOs go from the S3 shop after they've received professional development and have contributed to the battalion after a while. It's not healthy to keep that NCO that knows land and ammunition so well chained to his desk; get him back out there in a platoon.

- Rear Detachment is an essential command. If it doesn't hurt to nominate and let that officer and NCO go to be the rear commander and sergeant major then they aren't the right choice.- a mirror is the most important piece of furniture in your home, not simply for your physical appearance, but for the personal reflection it provides. Look yourself in the eye.

- Need for a personal relationship between the S3, XO, and CSM in the battalion, again based on trust.

We were honored to have him speak with us and if this constitutes the "wrap-around" following a guest speaker, then Staff Group 19A strongly agrees that he contributed to the curriculum for adaptive and agile leaders and hopes that more groups bring him into their classrooms.

For more information on CSM Phil Johndrow go to: http://www.cgsc.edu/leadership.asp

MAJ Tim Gallagher

US Army, LG

CGSC SG19A

Twin majors have leapfrog careers

Twin majors have leapfrog careers
Fort Leavenworth Lamp
By Tisha Johnson Staff WriterPublished: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:17 PM

Majors Clydellia "Dellia" Prichard-Allen and Clydea "Dea" Prichard-Brown, twins in the Command and General Staff College Intermediate Level Education 2010-01 class, pick up their 3-year-old daughters Kristian Allen and Zaria Brown at the Child Development Center Sept. 1. The twins also have 9-year-old sons, Michael Allen Jr. and Zion Brown. Lamp photo by Prudence Siebert.

Twin sisters currently attending the Command and General Staff College Intermediate Level Education say their lives, including their military careers, have leapfrogged each other through the years.Nicknamed Dea and Dellia, Majors Clydea Prichard-Brown and Clydellia Prichard-Allen, are named after their grandfather, Clyde Keys.The pair graduated a year early from high school. They were attending Mercer University in Macon, Ga., as electrical engineering majors and modeling to help pay for college when Prichard-Allen did something that changed both of their lives - she enlisted in the Army.

The idea of military service was not foreign to the sisters - their mother was in the Women's Army Corps for a year and a half, and they say they have many other members of their extended family who have been in the military.When Prichard-Allen enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1989, her sister resisted."She wasn't so apt to go in, she was modeling still," Prichard-Allen said.

Prichard-Allen said she joined because she discovered the student loan repayment program. Their mother, a single mom, had been helping them pay for college and had used some of her retirement money to do so."I was probably the recruiter's best recruit," Prichard-Allen said."And I was fighting it," Prichard-Brown laughed.

Then, Prichard-Brown said she realized how well the military was treating her sister."I saw she was living so well, the Army was paying for everything, she had her own car ... I was still at home with mom and I said, Yeah, this is what I want,'" Prichard-Brown said.Prichard-Brown enlisted into active duty in 1991. And her sister, who was deployed as part of Desert Storm at the time, decided to stay on active duty after her deployment.

"When she went active duty, I said, 'You know what? I'll go active duty as well,' because I was enjoying it," Prichard-Allen said.Both of the sisters made their way to sergeant and were eligible to be promoted to staff sergeant when they found the Green to Gold program - a year apart.The last to join the Army, Prichard-Brown was the first to receive a scholarship for the program in 1995. She received her commission in 1997, graduating magna cum laude with a degree in criminal justice from Indiana University, Purdue University of Indianapolis. Prichard-Brown was a distinguished military graduate, a George C. Marshall Award recipient and the first minority and first female cadet battalion commander in the history of the school's ROTC program.

Prichard-Allen was awarded a Green to Gold scholarship in 1996 and received her commission in 1998, graduating cum laude with a degree in psychology from South Carolina State University. Prichard-Allen was a distinguished military graduate, a George C. Marshall Award recipient and the first cadet brigade commander for the school's ROTC program, a new position at the school.Wearing the same U.S. Army Central Command combat patch they earned 17 years apart, this is the first time the sisters have been stationed together.Last year Prichard-Brown was scheduled to come to CGSC, but was diverted and deployed to Kuwait. While she was there she knew she was going to be coming to ILE next and called her sister about it.

"So we talked about it. I said, 'Hey, look, I'm going to school. Why don't you go to school?'" Prichard-Brown said. "We hadn't been together in 20 years."Prichard-Brown is here with her husband of 17 years, Rick Brown, her 9-year-old son Zion and 3-year-old daughter Zaria. Her husband, an Army veteran, works for the General Services Adminstration in Kansas City.Prichard-Allen is here with her 3-year-old daughter Kristian. Her husband of 14 years, Sgt. 1st Class Michael Allen, is still stationed in the D.C. area with their 9-year-old son Michael Allen Jr.

The sisters say they did not plan to have their children close together like they did, but like everything else in their lives that have leapfrogged, it was simply coincidence."Our sons are seven months apart and our daughters are five months apart," Prichard-Brown laughed.The sisters said family has always been a driving force in their lives. Like many twins, they said they rely on each other, but their mother and grandparents have also been important in their lives.
Prichard-Allen said their mother has been the rock in their lives. She was a single mother who raised four children. She said they do everything they can to make her proud."She has been the one to actually encourage us to continue," Prichard-Allen said. "She is the backbone for us.""In everything we do," the sisters said in unison.

Prichard-Brown said their mother wanted them to identify with what they wanted to do."We grew up with discipline and leadership," Prichard-Brown said.The sisters say they value their enlisted time in the Army, and their time as noncommissioned officers.In different staff groups at CGSC, the pair say they bring some insight to their groups with their prior service."As leaders we have to understand our Soldiers, so if you were the Soldier at one time ... we are giving them (staff groups) a better insight," Prichard-Brown said.Through the years, they have remained each other's mentors, they said. Prichard-Brown is a logistics officer with almost 17 years of active-duty service. Prichard-Allen is an Adjutant General officer with more than 18 years of service."When I was in command in Alaska, I would call her all the time and say 'What do you think about this?'" Prichard-Allen said. "I would be her sounding board as well."

http://www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/articles/2009/09/17/features/features1.txt

TRADOC Commander's Blog on SWJ

Below is a blog that was posted on the Small Wars Journal last month by GEN Dempsey, Commanding General for US Army TRADOC.

First, GEN Dempsey leads by showing the power of the blog and the opportunities it possess to stimulate intellectual discussion. Embracing the Culture of Engagement.

He then briefly defines hybrid threats and three imperatives that must guide our efforts. The bottom line I hear is, "Leader Development." If in fact we continue to correctly develop leaders we will be able to achieve these imperatives, our fours roles in the defense strategy, and the six qualities in order to face the requirements of 21st Century conflict as out lined in the CSA's White Paper.

Take a look at this blog and the CSA's White Paper. What is your bottom line?

MAJ Phil Kiniery
IN, US Army
CGSC SG19A



TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference
Posted by Martin Dempsey on August 13, 2009 2:38 PM
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/08/tradoc-senior-leaders-conferen/

I first want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the important issues facing us and to gain your perspectives and insights on the critical task of adapting our institution to more effectively support the nation’s national security interests. I view Small Wars Journal as an important gathering place for strategic thought, and I appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with some of the most thoughtful minds in our country.

The upcoming TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference (TSLC) in Gettysburg comes at an important time for Training and Doctrine Command and for our Army. We continue to transform TRADOC while simultaneously supporting transitions in both OIF and OEF. Let me offer some thoughts and considerations as we put our shoulders behind these challenges and opportunities over the next 2 years.

If our experience over the last eight years has taught us anything, it’s that war and conflict will continue to increase in complexity. We know that conflict will be waged among the population and for influence on the population, and we know our leaders and their soldiers will operate among a diverse set of actors along blurred military, political, economic, religious and ethnic lines with the potential for escalation and spillover in a variety of unpredictable ways.

Hybrid threats--combinations of regular military forces and irregular threats often in collaboration with criminal and terrorist elements--will migrate among operational themes to seek advantage. The operating environment will become more competitive as our adversaries decentralize, network, and gain technological capabilities formerly found only in the hands of nation states.

The challenge confronting us is building balance and versatility into the force by developing our leaders, by designing our organizations, and by adapting the institution. The outcomes we seek are flexibility and resilience to hedge against future uncertainty. Three imperatives are guiding our efforts to align the operational and institutional Army to meet demands and support the
Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) model:

• Develop our military and civilian leaders
• Provide trained and ready forces to support current operations
• Integrate current and emerging capabilities

These imperatives will remain in tension for the foreseeable future, but there are things we can do to bring them into better balance.

The TRADOC Campaign Plan (TCP) describes how we’ll achieve balance across our priority lines of operation: Human Capital, Initial Military Training, Leader Development, and Capabilities Integration.

The focus of our discussions during the TSLC will be on the TRADOC Campaign Plan (TCP). We will also examine how TRADOC’s TCP aligns with and complements the Human Capital Enterprise. We'll demonstrate how the Central Training Database will become the “Training Brain” for TRADOC and provide us the opportunity to enhance training in the institutional schoolhouse.

As you may know, we've asked ourselves how we can replicate the complexity our leaders experience while they are deployed, and we will discuss some emerging opportunities to do just that. I'd like this to generate discussion about how TRADOC can lead innovation in training and education to account for the speed of change in the contemporary operating environment.
I look forward in the coming weeks to a lively, thoughtful discussion with the Small Wars Journal community.

Military Chief Suggests Need to Enlarge U.S. Afghan Force

NEW YORK TIMES September 16, 2009
By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military officer pushed back Tuesday against Democrats who oppose sending additional combat troops to Afghanistan, telling Congress that success would probably require more fighting forces, and certainly much more time.

That assessment by the officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stopped short of an explicit request for more troops. But it signals that the military intends to have a public voice in the evolving debate as many Democrats express reluctance to expand the war and President Obama weighs options.

Admiral Mullen, called before the Senate Armed Services Committee to testify for his nomination to serve a second term as chairman, said that no specific request for more troops had yet been received from Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan.

“But I do believe that — having heard his views and having great confidence in his leadership — a properly resourced counterinsurgency probably means more forces, and, without question, more time and more commitment to the protection of the Afghan people and to the development of good governance,” Admiral Mullen said.

Admiral Mullen’s comments were his most specific to date in a public setting on whether more troops would have to be sent to Afghanistan.

The debate will probably be affected by the mounting political uncertainty in Afghanistan. Election officials said one out of every seven ballots cast in the presidential election last month would be examined as part of a huge recount and fraud audit.

A range of officials have said that the White House hopes to have at least several weeks before having to deal with any request for more forces for Afghanistan — and the political implications of such a request here at home. But Tuesday’s debate on Capitol Hill, which framed the arguments for how to shape the mission, indicates that the sweeping public discussion is already under way.

The military’s counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan is focused on protecting the population and preventing the Taliban from destabilizing the country.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has not yet decided whether to support a request from commanders in Kabul for more troops, should it be made. A group of about 4,000 trainers is scheduled to arrive in Afghanistan by November, bringing the American troop level there to 68,000.

Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said Tuesday that Mr. Gates’s initial opposition to expanding the American “footprint” in Afghanistan had at least been softened.

Previously, Mr. Gates expressed apprehension over a force so sizable that Afghans would view the Americans as occupiers. Now, Mr. Morrell said, the defense secretary was taking to heart General McChrystal’s “explanation that it’s not so much the size of the force, but the behavior of the force that determines whether or not it is accepted by the Afghan people.”

During Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the committee’s chairman, laid out the emerging position of Congressional

Democrats by insisting that accelerated efforts to train and equip Afghan security forces should precede any deployment of American troops beyond those already committed by the Obama administration. Mr. Levin’s stance is expected to have great sway because he is the committee’s chairman and the most powerful Democrat in Congress on military matters. Many House Democrats also oppose sending more troops.

But the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, countered by asserting that more troops were “vitally needed” in Afghanistan and that any delay in ordering more combat forces to the fight would put American lives at risk.
Admiral Mullen acknowledged the importance of the training effort advocated by Mr. Levin, but said that such a mission could not quickly provide the level of security required by the new counterinsurgency strategy.

“I share your view that larger and more capable Afghan national security forces remain vital to that nation’s viability,” Admiral Mullen said. “We must rapidly build the Afghan Army and police.”

But he also said that “sending more trainers more quickly may give us a jump start, but only that.”

“Quality training takes time and patience,” he continued. “Private trust by the Afghans — so vital to our purpose — is not fostered in a public hurry.”

Mr. Levin, who met with commanders and troops in Afghanistan during Congress’s Labor Day recess, said that training Afghan Army and police units “would demonstrate our commitment to the success of a mission that is in our national security interest, while avoiding the risks associated with a larger U.S. footprint.”

And he said that “these steps should be urgently implemented before we consider a further increase in U.S. ground combat troops, beyond what is already planned to be deployed by the end of the year.”

Mr. Levin said new goals should be established for Afghan security forces. The army, he said, should grow to 250,000 troops by the end of 2012, and the police to 160,000 officers by that date. The current targets are 134,000 army troops and 96,000 police officers by the end of next year.

Mr. McCain staked out an opposing view. He recalled that initial attempts in Iraq to shift the security burden to local forces from American forces were a colossal failure. “I’ve seen that movie before,” he said.

“I’ve been encouraged over the past year by the statements and actions of the president and the unequivocal priority he has placed on achieving success in Afghanistan,” Mr. McCain said. “The president’s approval of increases in troop strength was needed then, and I believe even more necessary now.”

Other members of the committee said the civilian agencies of the United States government needed to accelerate their assistance for rebuilding Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama said Monday that the public should “not expect a sudden announcement of some huge change in strategy,” and he pledged that the issue was “going to be amply debated, not just in Congress, but across the country before we make any further decisions.”

During a news conference, Mr. Morrell, the Pentagon spokesman, also pointed out a contradiction in the argument of those who support trainers but not more combat troops, because mentoring by American trainers includes joining local forces when they go out on combat missions.

On General Krulak's E-mail to George Will

Posted by Paul Yingling on September 11, 2009 4:43 AM
From Small Wars Journal

Ten years ago, the ideas about warfare expressed in General Krulak's email to George Will would have been merely disappointing. However, after eight years of war have we have learned many hard lessons at a very high price, and the ideas attributed to General Krulak are now incomprehensible.

General Krulak appears unsure as to whether al-Qaeda and the Taliban are our enemies, and whether the United States has an interest in preventing Taliban control of Afghanistan. Exactly eight years ago today, al-Qaeda operatives supported by the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan murdered 3,000 Americans on American soil. The answer to the general's question is yes - al-Qaeda and the Taliban are America's enemies.

General Krulak advocates the use of 'hunter-killer teams' backed by airpower governed by minimal rules of engagement to 'take out the bad guys.' This light footprint tactic has failed for the last eight years. Aircraft operating with few or no ground forces cannot distinguish between insurgents and innocent civilians. Minimal rules of engagement result in maximum civilian casualties, tacitly assisting our enemies as they seek sanctuary and support from civilian populations.

General Krulak misrepresents the manpower requirements necessary for success in Afghanistan. Most of the troops required to provide security for the Afghan people can and will come from the Afghans themselves. Indeed, the most important task for American military forces is to strengthen the capabilities of Afghan security forces to accomplish this task.

General Krulak speculates that the American people would not provide the resources necessary to prevail in Afghanistan. While every citizen is entitled to his or her opinion, it's not clear that General Krulak has any particular expertise in the area of domestic American political opinion.

What's more certain is that the American people and their elected representatives have provided virtually everything asked of them by our military leaders. If there are insufficient resources to prevail in Afghanistan, it is the responsibility of senior military officers and other leaders within the executive branch to ask for more. It is dismaying that a retired general officer would advocate abandoning the war in Afghanistan out of concern for its impact on military personnel or equipment. We must tailor our forces to meet the demands of our wars, rather than vice versa.

After eight years of war, we have learned some hard lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan, including:

* Al-Qaeda and its terrorist affiliates pose a serious threat to the security of the United States, our people and our allies
* Airpower and special operations forces are a necessary part of any counter-terrorism operation, but in and of themselves are insufficient to deny sanctuary to terrorist organizations.
* Developing host-nation security forces is an essential component of counterinsurgency operations. These forces are more credible, more enduring and more cost-effective than relying exclusively or primarily on U.S. forces.
* It is the responsibility of general officers to ask for the resources necessary to win our wars.

I respect General Krulak for his decades of service to our country. However, I was dismayed that any officer, active or retired, could still hold the views attributed to him on September 11, 2009.

Posted by Paul Yingling on September 11, 2009 4:43 AM

More information on SWJ at: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/09/on-general-krulaks-email-to-ge/#c004330

The Military-Media Relationship: A Dysfunctional Marriage?

Posted by SWJ Editors on September 11, 2009 4:19 PM
From Small Wars Journal

A Miltary Review twofer on the military-media relationship:

The Military-Media Relationship: A Dysfunctional Marriage? - Thom Shanker, New York Times, and Major General Mark Hertling, U.S. Army.

In the information age, the first casualty of war is often trust—between those who fight the wars and those who report them. A general and a journalist express their ideas about truth, trust, and getting the story straight.

Fostering a Culture of Engagement - Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell IV, U.S. Army, Lieutenant Colonel Shawn Stroud, U.S. Army, and Mr. Anton Menning.

In the contemporary media environment, the Army must move beyond “business as usual” to embrace a culture of engagement. This dynamic mediascape can be potentially chaotic, but it also offers opportunities.

Much more in the September - October 2009 edition of Military Review.

More information at: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/09/the-militarymedia-relationship/

NYT Article: Blogging in the Military

Below is a great article on our military and blogging. Jim Dao points out that we can't seem to get on the same page when operating in the information domain. Some leaders are for blogging and social media outlets while some are against it. As leaders in the Army we tend to get very anxious about those things we cannot control. We immediately put tight control measures on it until we can figure out how to apply appropriate risk mitigation measures to it. Our intentions are in the right place and the protection of our Soldiers and their families is what we believe is at risk.

I found it interesting that in the article Jim notes, "Noah Shachtman, editor of Wired.com’s national security blog, Danger Room, which has reported extensively on the new policy review, said he recently asked students at West Point whether they would allow soldiers to blog. Almost every cadet said no. " Is the right message being taught to our future leaders? Are they feeling the pressures of a "zero defect" area? Are they receiving the same message that we are at the Command and General Staff College that our Chief of Staff has put out on embracing a Culture of Engagement?

I have to agree with "Mud Puppy" (from the article) “I think that people need to hear from us, more than they need to hear from the big whigs. War has a cost, and that cost is paid by soldiers.” As leaders we should embrace this new operating terrain and learn to work inside it instead of avoiding it because it will not go away.

All that being said our guidance to our Soldiers should be; We are professionals all the time. We must ensure that our actions are in line with the Army Values and rules we volunteered to live by. If in fact we step outside those boundaries then we should ready to accept the consequences. If you engage any media outlet and are a member of the Armed Forces you should always be able to put your name next to what you say because you are a professional. We then must be ready as leaders to underwrite their mistakes because they occur.

Thoughts?

MAJ Phil Kiniery

IN, US Army

CGSC SG19A

Pentagon Keeps Wary Watch as Troops Blog

New York Times

By JAMES DAO
Published: September 8, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/us/09milblogs.html?_r=1&adxnnlx=1252584080-vptPSyOQ4tllOV5Lhq5UbQ&pagewanted=all

Over the course of 10 months in eastern Afghanistan, an Army specialist nicknamed Mud Puppy maintained a blog irreverently chronicling life at the front, from the terror of roadside bombs to the tyrannies of master sergeants.

Often funny and always profane, the blog, Embrace the Suck (military slang for making the best of a bad situation), flies under the Army’s radar. Not officially approved, it is hidden behind a password-protected wall because the reservist does not want his superiors censoring it.
“Some officer would be reviewing all my writing,” the 31-year-old soldier, who insisted that his name not be used, said in an e-mail message. “And sooner or later he would find something to nail me with.”

There are two sides to the military’s foray into the freewheeling world of the interactive Web. At the highest echelons of the Pentagon, civilian officials and four-star generals are newly hailing the power of social networking to make members of the American military more empathetic, entice recruits and shape public opinion on the war.
Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of American forces in Iraq, is on Facebook. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, has a YouTube channel and posts Twitter updates almost daily.

The Army is encouraging personnel of all ranks to go online and collaboratively rewrite seven of its field manuals. And on Aug. 17, the Department of Defense unveiled a Web site promoting links to its blogs and its Flickr, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube sites.
The Web, however, is a big place. And the many thousands of troops who use blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites to communicate with the outside world are not always in tune with the Pentagon’s official voice. Policing their daily flood of posts, videos and photographs is virtually impossible — but that has not stopped some in the military from trying.
The Department of Defense, citing growing concerns about cybersecurity, plans to issue a new policy in the coming weeks that is widely expected to set departmentwide restrictions on access to social networking sites from military computers. People involved with the department’s review say the new policy may limit access to social media sites to those who can demonstrate a clear work need, like public information officers or family counselors.

If that is the case, many officials say, it will significantly set back efforts to expand and modernize the military’s use of the Web just as those efforts are gaining momentum. And while the new policy would not apply to troops who use private Internet providers, a large number of military personnel on bases and ships across the world depend on their work computers to gain access to the Internet.

To many analysts and officers, the debate reflects a broader clash of cultures: between the anarchic, unfiltered, bottom-up nature of the Web and the hierarchical, tightly controlled, top-down tradition of the military.

“We as an institution still haven’t come to grips with how we want to use blogging” and other social media, said Lt. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the commander of the Army Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan.

One of the Army’s leading advocates for more open access to the Web, General Caldwell argues that social networking allows interaction among enlisted soldiers, junior officers and generals in a way that was unthinkable a decade ago.

He requires students at the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth to blog, and the college now sponsors 40 publicly available blogs, including his own, where policies are freely debated.

But getting approval for those blogs, as well as for YouTube and Facebook access at the college, was a struggle. “At every corner, someone cited a regulation,” General Caldwell said. In recent months, however, “the Army has made quantum leaps” in embracing the Web, he added.

Noah Shachtman, editor of Wired.com’s national security blog, Danger Room, which has reported extensively on the new policy review, said he recently asked students at West Point whether they would allow soldiers to blog. Almost every cadet said no.

“Then I asked, ‘How many of you think you can stop the flow of information from your soldiers?’ ” Mr. Shachtman recalled. “Everybody agreed there is no way to stop this information from going out anyway. So there is this sort of dual-headedness.”

Skeptics of the Pentagon review say it is motivated partly by a desire among certain officials to exert control over the voices of troops on the Web.

Since the advent of military blogging during the Iraq war, some commanders have remained uncomfortable with the art form, citing concerns about both security and decorum.
Over the years, blogs have been censored or shut down, and several years ago the Army instituted requirements that bloggers register with their commanding officers and submit posts for review. As a result, some bloggers say, blogs have become tamer — or, as in the case of Mud Puppy’s blog, gone underground.

Officials knowledgeable about the review say it is a result of growing concerns at the United States Strategic Command, which oversees the military’s use of the Internet, that social networking sites make military computers vulnerable to viruses, hackers, identity thieves, terrorists and even hostile governments. (Those concerns are not focused on the military’s secure system for classified material, which does not use the public Internet.)

The review may already be having a chilling effect. The Marine Corps recently restated a ban on using any social media on its network. And the Army, which in June gave some bases access to Facebook, Twitter and other networking sites, recently urged units to avoid creating new social media pages until the final department policy was issued.

Still, even as they consider restricting the troops’ access to social media, the most senior Pentagon officials have clearly come to view Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and blogging as crucial elements of their public information operations.

“This department, I think, is way behind our curve” in using social media, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said in July as he extolled the use of Twitter by Iranian dissidents.

To critics, the Pentagon’s social media sites are goofy at best, propagandistic at worst. “It’s like your parents’ using modern slang and failing miserably,” said Sgt. Selena Coppa, who writes a blog, Active Duty Patriot, which frequently criticizes the Iraq war and, she says, has gotten her into trouble with her superiors.

But to many troops, the deeper question is whether the military will allow personnel in the field to use the sites the Pentagon itself wants to exploit. For a generation raised on the Web, any restrictions will damage morale, those people say.

“What comes out of my blog is the experiences of a soldier right in the middle of all of this,” Mud Puppy (a nickname for military police), who recently returned home to Illinois, wrote in a recent e-mail message. “I think that people need to hear from us, more than they need to hear from the big whigs. War has a cost, and that cost is paid by soldiers.”

In Remembrance of SFC Jared Monti

SFC Jared Monti will be award the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry on the 17th of September.

"Sergeant First Class (SFC) Jared C. Monti, a Military Occupational Specialty 13F Fire Support Specialist, was a Targeting NCO assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Troop, 3rd Squadron, 71st Cavalry, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, New York. He distinguished himself by acts of conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty against an armed enemy in Gowardesh, Nuristan Province, Afghanistan. On 21 June 2006, SFC Monti, then a staff sergeant, was the assistant patrol leader for a 16-man patrol tasked to conduct surveillance in the Gowardesh region. The patrol was to provide up-to-date intelligence, interdict enemy movement and ensure early warning for the squadron’s main effort as it inserted into the province. As nightfall approached, the patrol was attacked by a well organized enemy force of at least 60 personnel. Outnumbered four-to-one, SFC Monti’s patrol was in serious danger of being overrun. The enemy fighters had established two support-by-fire positions directly above the patrol in a densely wooded ridgeline. SFC Monti immediately returned fire and ordered the patrol to seek cover and return fire. He then reached for his radio headset and calmly initiated calls for indirect fire and close air support (CAS), both danger-close to the patrol’s position. He did this while simultaneously directing the patrol’s fires. When SFC Monti realized that a member of the patrol, Private First Class (PFC) Brian J. Bradbury, was critically wounded and exposed 10 meters from cover, without regard for his personal safety, he advanced through enemy fire to within three feet of PFC Bradbury’s position. But he was forced back by intense RPG fire. He tried again to secure PFC Bradbury, but he was forced to stay in place again as the enemy intensified its fires. The remaining patrol members coordinated covering fires for SFC Monti, and he advanced a third time toward the wounded Soldier. But he only took a few steps this time before he was mortally wounded by an RPG. About the same time, the indirect fires and CAS he called for began raining down on the enemy’s position. The firepower broke the enemy attack, killing 22 enemy fighters. SFC Monti’s actions prevented the patrol’s position from being overrun, saved his team’s lives and inspired his men to fight on against overwhelming odds. SFC Monti epitomizes what it means to be an NCO. Because of his personal sacrifice and selfless service to the Army, the men of his patrol are alive today and continue the fight." --Taken from FIRES Bulletin. United States Army. March–April 2009--

"SFC Jared C. Monti—A Redleg Hero". FIRES Bulletin. United States Army. March–April 2009. http://sill-www.army.mil/firesbulletin/2009/Mar_Apr_2009/MAR_APR_2009_Page3.pdf. Retrieved 2009-09-02-23.

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

On September 17, President Barack Obama will award Staff Sergeant Jared C. Monti, U.S. Army, the Medal of Honor for conspicuous gallantry. Staff Sergeant Monti will receive the Medal of Honor posthumously for his heroic actions in combat in Afghanistan. He displayed immeasurable courage and uncommon valor - eventually sacrificing his own life in an effort to save his comrade. Staff Seargent Monti’s parents, Paul Monti and Janet Monti will join the President at the White House to commemorate their son’s example of selfless service and sacrifice.

PERSONAL BACKGROUND:
Jared C. Monti was born on September 20, 1975. He was a native of Raynham, Massachusetts. He graduated from Bridgewater-Raynham High School. He enlisted in the United States Army in March 1993. He attended Basic Training and Advanced Individual Training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

His military decorations include: the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, five Army Commendation Medals, four Army Achievement Medals, three Good Conduct Medals, three National Defense Service Medals, to name a few.

He is survived by his Father, Paul Monti, his Mother, Janet Monti, his Sister Niccole Monti, his Brother, Timothy Monti, and his Niece, Carys Monti.

He was posthumously promoted to Sergeant First Class.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-To-Award-Medal-of-Honor/

Admiral Mullen's Strategic Communications Article

Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressed strategic communications in a recent article that was published in the Joint Forces Quarterly. "From the Chairman, Strategic Communications: Getting Back to Basics." http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/edition/i55/1.pdf

The Chairman talks about several points on Strategic Communications in his article. I believe there are two points that are being applied at the Command and General Staff College, (CGSC) located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Admiral Mullen states, "we have allowed strategic communications to become a thing instead of a process..." At a microlevel, the Command and General Staff College requires students to engage in four different types of outreach engagements. These "practicle exercises" allow field grade officers to understand the powerful impacts these engagements can have before going back to the deploying force. It is essential in today's information domain to consider incorporating strategic communications as part of our planning processes. Engaging with the public, in any domain, as a military should be considered an operation and treated as such, deliberate planning with a clear endstate.

Admiral Mullen also states, "... But more important than any particular tool, we must know the context within which our actions will be received and understood. We hurt ourselves and the message we try to send when it appears we are doing something merely for the credit." The Chairman's point is clearly to back our message up with our actions; but I believe he also brings up another point, it should never be about "I". As we work to fullfill the requirements here at CGSC, we are focused on making it about those we serve. Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines represent half of one percent of the U.S. population. Their stories are the ones that need to be shared. The American public should know the sacrifices that these heroes and their family members are making for our nation each and everyday.

Our Army is providing an opportunity in a learning environment to become more active in a Culture of Engagement. We definitely don't have it completely right and we are not the best at it, but our Army is taking the right steps toward training and educating Leaders so that we embrace it.

MAJ Phil Kiniery
IN, US Army
CGSC SG19A
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/