Saturday, September 12, 2009

The Military-Media Relationship: A Dysfunctional Marriage?


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/


Thursday, September 10, 2009

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.”

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

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.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

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/