Could blogs help the military in Iraq?
Tish Wells, our masterful researcher came upon this study that tackled blogging and the military. Written by James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning for a U.S. Special Operations Command class, it proposes the military consider “clandestinely” hire bloggers to present the military view on the war on terrorism. It points out the military is in the middle of an information operation, or IO, campaign. And in Iraq, some insurgent groups, Iraqi politicians, academics and everyday citizens have blogs that share observations interspersed with agendas. So far, the military does not have a go-to blog that is both popular and sly enough to get the military message out.
The authors argue that this war demands an Internet campaign. And so far, the military is losing.
“Just as during World War II, the military recruited the top Hollywood directors and studios to produce films about the war (in effect conducting domestic influ¬ence campaigns in the name of maintaining the national morale and support for the war effort), waging the war against terrorism and its underlying causes, as spelled out in the National Security Strategy, may require recruiting the prominent among the digirati (probably those native to the target region) to help in any Web-based cam¬paign.”
The idea already has come up at least once during this war. Earlier this year this article revealed that the Pentagon had handed out talking points to retired military commanders sitting in the talking pundits’ chair. The Pentagon was called propagandist.
To be sure, this paper doesn’t purport to represent the Defense Department. Indeed, it was written in an academic setting. But still, it is an interesting and controversial proposition. And it gets at the festering frustration amongst soldiers: The military doesn’t aggressively defend itself against attacks from critics or bloggers. Out on a military base in Iraq, I found it usually came up when someone asked me: “Why don’t you write about all the good things we are doing here?”
The military is quite strict about who can blog out of Iraq, and frankly the Internet service at most bases is so lacking, it would be difficult to keep a blog going. Some argue that letting any soldier share his views, however complementary to the military, could eventually lead to a slip up. A soldier may inadvertently alert his/her enemy to secret security plans. Still others say a military engaged in a complex counterinsurgency battle needs to think in more sophisticated ways. Where firepower is not enough, the military must do more, they argue.
But will hiring people to pose as objective bloggers solve the problem? Probably not. But silence doesn’t seem to be working either.
UPDATE: A very astute reader, J, points out that the Defense Department regularly invites bloggers to roundtables about current defense issues. Here is a link to some of their recent forums. Is there more the military can do? Thoughts?
McClatchy ran a blog a while back by a man whose name escapes me. I believe he was a Captain, and did mental health triage work in Iraq. His profession in the U.S. was as an occupational therapist, I think, and he lived in the Modesto area. I believe his blog disappeared around the time that the military started putting the skids on folks using facebook and myspace.
It was a well-written and sympathetic portrayal of life--and death--in forward posts.
I believe that at least one commenter on McC's Inside Iraq blog is a current military person who clearly has a pro-occupation axe to grind. Deliberate propaganda? Well, there certainly is proof of precedent!
Posted by: Laura | May 22, 2008 at 06:06 PM
"Is there a way for the military to reap the benefits of blogging without jeopardizing its OPSEC?"
The short answer is 'no'
The more nuanced answer would be that the military could put into place a system that allowed members to blog given that they gain approval for their posts from someone in their chain of command. The problem with this is that it would tend to erode the credibility of the blogs as the responsibility for the information posted moved 'up' the chain. The default position could quickly become to disallow anything but the positive information (especially after the first time an LTC is held accountable for a critique of higher headquarters posted by a PV2).
All in all, it's a serious and complicated issue that the DoD has yet to get right. For the record, I think that hiring bloggers and trading access for positive coverage is deceitful at best and something that should be avoided at all cost.
Posted by: Cato | May 22, 2008 at 03:04 PM
Is there a way for the military to reap the benefits of blogging without jeopardizing its OPSEC?
That depends on what the
DoD's definition of "benefits" would be.
Would the DoD simply use the bloggers as another means by which to "catapult" war propaganda?
The DoD's efforts at "catapulting" war propaganda, using retired generals etal. during the months preceding the invasion of Iraq, were a huge success in achieving DoD's goals in swaying public opion in by using the main stream media.
Would military bloggers have any crediblity with their readers?
I have not seen one article here on McClatchy's site with regard to the DoD's use of retired generals to disseminate pre-war propaganda.
Does this mean McClatchy agrees with the DoD and its efforts to spread war propaganda?
Posted by: Persona non gratra | May 22, 2008 at 01:06 PM
Cato: That is an interesting study. It suddenly links blogging to issues like combat stress and PTSD. Thanks for passing it along. Is there a way for the military to reap the benefits of blogging without jeopardizing its OPSEC?
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | May 22, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Good points, with regards to OPSEC, etc, BUT blogging can also do good for the soldiers that write about their experiences. This Scientific American article talks about the benefits of blogging.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-healthy-type&sc=rss
There are a number of great military blogs from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of my favorites is Kaboom.
http://kaboomwarjournal.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Cato | May 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM
J: You are absolutely right. The Defense roundtable for bloggers is one of the best things the Pentagon does to reach out to bloggers. And I am so glad you mentioned it. I have read some of the transcripts and always find them interesting. I will post a link to the site.
Thanks again for reminding of that program!
Nancy
Posted by: Nancy Youssef | May 22, 2008 at 10:57 AM
You may or may not be familiar with the DOD Bloggers Roundtable program (see www.defenselink.mil). I think this represents a much more successful effort where interested bloggers can participate over the phone with military spokespersons on a number of issues to include the "War on Terrorism." Better yet, no funds are exchanged, everything is relatively open and clear.
There are lots of pro-military blogs out there. Problem is, many are insular and can't compete with the big ones, but hiring bloggers won't help that any. If DOD continues the Bloggers Roundtable and is successful in getting more blogger participation there, it will be more successful than if it did hire bloggers.
Posted by: J. | May 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM
There was a running story on that issue on Harper's Magazine website last summer.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000587
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000627
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/07/hbc-90000647
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000876
It should be remembered previous attempts by the Pentagon to plant stories in foreign papers and how it was torn down by a leak in the press. If one of the staffer feels at odds with his superiors about a project that involves propaganda, you can be sure that he will give a call to any reporter he knows to get the story out, which will eventually force the Pentagon to close the program.
Posted by: Vivien | May 21, 2008 at 08:05 PM
One of the problems facing the pro-war side of things today that the WW II generation didn’t have to deal with, are the 24 hour movie channels that play popular flicks from a variety of generations. Recently I saw “Braveheart”, the story of William Wallace in his insurgent battles against the occupying English in Scotland in the 13th century. Seeing that now I could have a different interpretation of it. The William Wallace character uses the battle cry of “Freedom!” to get his highlander compatriots to fight with him. No one decries “Braveheart” as being an anti-American movie, but if that movie were released today, the political right would get overly sensitive and assume Hollywood was interjecting anti-Iraq war sentiments, because the hero is fighting against an occupying force. The occupiers are seen as brutish, raping, corrupted and abusive thugs, while the Scots are pastoral, and who are only fighting because they’ve been pushed too far.
The pro-war bloggers and movie makers have a tough time restricting the viewing of popular movies from other eras or contemporary blogs that don’t support their present politics. Maybe because we have so much we are exposed to now it is harder for the propagandists to sell into their storyline. They’re only successful when they have complete control of the message. Since the invasion of Iraq they have lost control and will not likely regain that control of the message until the next invasion.
Posted by: Alex | May 21, 2008 at 06:31 PM