MAJ Brou,

Your arguments are compelling.  Can you trace the regulatory requirements to law?  If so, can you trace the legal arguments behind the law (how did Congress debate this, and so on)?  

Perhaps these restrictions are related to the restriction on public affairs spelled out in FM 3-0:  "...public affairs is unique. It has a statutory responsibility to factually and accurately inform various publics without intent to propagandize or manipulate public opinion."

I highlight "statutory responsibility."  I would wager that JAG officers reviewed the CGSC policy to blog.  Nevertheless, that is what makes our system of laws adaptable (there are opposing ways to argue and give legal opinions).  Another opinion may be more compelling (which I see your as having that quality).

I wonder if the JAG officer(s) on staff at CAC would be willing to share their legal opinion on the policy in a transparent, collegial way?  That could add real depth in understanding this method and why the decision was seen as supportable.

MAJ Brou,

I want to prevent this blog entry from dropping off the home page list of recent entries so I again enter the conversation.

I also wanted to link this page with three other related conversations on the CAC blog library:

1.  A multifaceted argument against (framed by leadership, academic, and political supporting points at usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/.../strategic-communications-strutting-rooster-or-quiet-professional.aspx).  Included here is the CAC Director of Strategic Communications argument for the policy.

2.  A student's support for enlarging the CAC policy effort to have students engage and influence public opinion (and examples of KC Star opinion editorial blogs and a new report at usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/.../bloggin-opportunities-over-and-above-the-requirement.aspx).

3.  The Information Proponency Office (IPO), Information Engagement Planner,  call for expanding the (implying understaffed) capability in the Army to conduct IO.  Here I asked the IPO to respond to an ethics question on having leaders and Soldiers engage and influence the American Public where Public Affairs officers are prohibited from engaging (usacac.army.mil/.../how-do-we-assist-non-fa30-forces-in-effectively-persuading-the-overwhelming-majority.aspx).

This issue seems more complicated than I originally fathomed.  We should not lose the paradoxical and ironic nature of these conversations -- all happening on the CAC blog library and open to the public domain on the internet.  A Pandora's Box or a refreshingly new and transparent way the Army changes from what would have been considered taboo:  questioning a decision already made?

From a military discipline oriented, authoritative Army hierarchy perspective perhaps this method is a Pandora's Box.  

From a paradigm-shifting, "design" oriented Army that promotes reflexive dialogue and professional discursive means toward appreciating complexity -- the latter may be true.

This does seem paradoxical: on the one hand this seems to be a legal opinion on a CG's policy expressed in public that could be in violation of the strategic communication requirement in and of itself (the requirement to withhold comment on policies), and a statement that the Stratcom requirement itself is in violation of a regulation.  Is the assumption by the author that the CAC JAG didn't have a different opinion?

I wonder why this wouldn't be something better taken up between the CAC lawyers and others having different legal opinions in a more private forum?  For example, if I disagreed with another policy of the CG's- I probably wouldn't voice the opinion here, but would take it up through proper channels.  Now- I could see posting a discussion of the EFFECT of the STRATCOM requirement- and whether it is a valid assumption about effects or not- but questioning publicly the legality of the policy is interesting.

I would also like to hear from the CAC legal folks on this topic.

I see your point made earlier, though, Chris- there is a fine line sometimes between posting opinions and questioning policy.

- Grant Martin

MAJ, US Army

SAMS, Seminar 8

Mr. Paparone,

 The regulatory requirements/authority for DoDD 5230.29, DoDI 5230.29, and AR 530-1 are found in the following statutes and executive orders:

1)  10 USC 113b and 10 USC 3013, which give the SECDEF and SECARMY, respectively, the authority to "manage" the DoD and Army, within the limits of the existing statutes.  Therefore, unless a statute is "on-point," the SECDEF and SECARMY have the discretion to implement policies they deem appropriate to manage the DoD/Army.

2)  44 USC 3506(g), which provides that:

"With respect to privacy and security, each [federal] agency shall—

   (1) implement and enforce applicable policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines on privacy, confidentiality, security, disclosure and sharing of information collected or maintained by or for the agency; and

   (2) assume responsibility and accountability for compliance with and coordinated management of sections 552 and 552a of title 5, subchapter II of this chapter, [which are the Fredom of Information Act and Privacy Act, respectively] and related information management laws."

 This statute basically directs each agency head to implement policies that preserve security, privacy, etc. interests.

3)  E.O. 12356, National Security Information (1982); E.O 12958, Classified National Security Information (1995); E.O.13292, Further Amendment to Executive Order 12958, Classified National Security Information (2003)

 As for 10 USC 130b, which permits the SECDEF to withhold personally identifying information from FOIA disclosures, Congress passed this statute as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.  

 There may have been some discussion of the above mentioned statutes during committee hearings, conference hearings, or in the House/Senate.  I do not have access to the Congressional Record at the moment, and I could find nothing on thomas.gov, so I am not sure what Congressional intent can be discerned from the Congressional Record.

 Finally, AR 360-1, The Army Public Affairs Program (2000), also provides that DoD "policy requires any official information intended for public release that pertains to military matters, national security issues, or subjects of significant concern to the DoD be cleared by appropriate security review and PA [Privacy Act] offices prior to release."  See para. 5-1, AR 360-1.

 The prior review requirements found in DoDD 5230.09, AR 530-1, and AR 360-1, appear to be designed to prevent disclosure of sensitive, critical, or classified information.  AR 360-1 defines these types of classifications in paragraph 1-5.  It is significant to note that sensitive information includes FOIA and Privacy Act protected information as well FOUO information.  

 Without a prior review of the ILE students' blogs, students may innocently discuss sensitive information--and, perhaps, critical or classified information.  

 Thank-you for your comments on my post,

Major Deirdre G. Brou,student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Brou,

I will freely admit I understand very little of your post right up until this part-

If the ILE blog requirement remains, all blog submissions should be reviewed prior to publication, in accordance with AR 530-1, and students should be permitted to blog anonymously or with a pseudonym.

Are all Army ILE students qualified to officially represent the United States Army in a public forum?

Do we, as a group, posess the necessary "polish" to accurately depict the image of the United States Army and tell its story to not only the United States but the entire world?  Speaking for just myself I would say certainly not.

In fact I would have to say out of all ILE students in the United States Army today there would appear to be a large probability that something harmful does come out of this policy.

I would have to ask is the risk worth the reward?

Do we think that there are that many people out there asking themselves "What is going on in the Army today?" Maybe they are more interested in what is going on with America and we are just a small part of the whole?  I do not posess the talent to answer those questions unfortunately.

Major Derek Burt,student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Derek-

My own thinking about Strat Com is to first replace the term "stratcom" with "shoot a rifle".

Are all soldiers qualified to officially "use armed force" in public?  Do we, as a group, posess the necessary "polish" to accurately place steel on target to best represent the U.S.'s interests and strategic endstate?

I would submit that there are varying degrees of marksmanship in the US Military- which is sad- you'd think that since that is one of our main activities everyone would be the best at it.  For a variety of reasons that is just not the case.  But that doesn't keep us from deploying around the world and charged with conducting combat operations.

I view Strategic Communication as much more than just blogging or officially communicating.  To me- everytime you shoot your weapon- regardless if you intend to communicate or not- you are communicating.  In fact, as a representative of the US Government- you are communicating for the President and the people everytime you do anything in uniform, especially in today's age of 24 hour media coverage, cell-phone cameras, and the Internet.

If you choose to ignore the media and the other various forms of communication available to you today, I think you are ceding territory to the enemy.  It would be the same, in my opinion, as if you declined to train with your pistol because you aren't good at it already.

As field grade officers we have to look past the traditional ways of conducting warfare and the stove-piped mentality of what is in our lane and what isn't.  Regardless, at this time our Commanding Officer has required us to do strategic communication.  Hopefully we take advantage of this opportunity to practice and learn.  It is in our professional tradition to do so to the best of our ability- and, indeed, to become the best "expert shots" at communicating strategically.  If we fail to do so we will still communicate- but it won't be strategic and it won't be very effective.

v/r,

Grant Martin

MAJ, US Army

SAMS, Seminar 8

This is a fascinating blog.  I think we need to address this topic from a different position – is the information environment going to be more important in the future?  I think the answer to that question is “yes”.  Given that assumption, are we ready to operate in this environment?  I think no, we are getting better, but have a long way to go – which is why we have these education requirements.  GEN Chiarelli, argues that “history shows that nations often make the mistake of preparing for the last war fought, with minimal regard for changes that have occurred in the security environment since.”  If we don’t adapt to the environment, we are susceptible to making the same mistake.  

Many OSD and Army policies have not yet caught up with these changes, but the intent of these same senior leaders is clear.  Develop a culture of engagement; encourage communication; master the use of information.  We did not just implement these education requirements without informing our chain of command -- we have operated in a clear transparent manner all the up through the Department of Defense.  If there are policies that need to change based on changing conditions and environment, then we have an obligation as leaders, to work to change those policies that do not reflect the intent of our senior leaders.  

Gone are the days of centralized communication – both the environment and recent experience has taught us that waiting for high level centralized approval undermines the potency of the information and often delays critical information engagements beyond the point of any utility.  We now work in parallel – we execute and keep our higher headquarters informed.  What we have not done well is educate how to leverage information, and that is why we have these requirements.  This involves numerous cognitive thinking skills such as communication skills, judgment, and logic.  

This “shift” marks recognition that military leaders not only need awareness of the many methods of information engagement – including blogging – but must also immerse themselves in order to gain competencies and ultimately master the necessary skills.  Within the Army and among our sister services, schools and colleges have begun to follow our lead.  

Recognizing and embracing a new information engagement culture offers tremendous opportunities while at the same time presenting many risks.  Major Brou has highlighted some of these challenges.  I think many, if not all, of the pitfalls are avoidable through careful selection of the right venue and subject material for each blog….exactly the approach needed for effective communication.    Every leader has the responsibility to analyze and evaluate information through their own internalized ethics, values, and morals while considering the audience.  When in doubt on compliance with regulations and policies, ask the right questions and explain what you are trying to accomplish.  This responsibility for Army leaders is neither new nor isolated to blogging or other strategic engagements.  

Through education and practice we learn what our left and right limits are, how to focus our discussions on pertinent facts, and keep them within our individual level of responsibility.  What we do not do is violate transparency with anonymous blogs, or pseudonyms – that goes directly against what is expected of an officer.  Major Brou’s blog is an excellent example of a blog based upon well thought and well researched material.  

Major Brou,

    Having spoken with you on this topic, I don’t think the title of this Blog does any justice to the point you are conveying in your statement.  Maybe the web master took a little liberty in the titling.  However, I’m glad to see through the information provided that you have done an outstanding job on the research and make a compelling argument.  You could also say by doing so, you have demonstrated the great capacity and talents as a Military Officer that the leadership is trying to get recognized.

    I do agree that there should be some system of vetting Blogs prior to being published.  We know now that whatever gets published in an open forum forever becomes a historical document associated to the publisher.  What happens if a Soldier or Officer publishes comments that are not in line with the US Army Command message?

  Although I have great expectations of my peers and others to make a statement in a blog that has value to the Army, and can convey what a great organization the US Army is to the public.  A review of information being put out in the open for all to read and opine would seem prudent.  Better yet, if we are trying to embrace this new medium of information sharing I would like to see an informative class that precedes the requirement in order to understand better how this medium works and the value inherent in it. Ill admit that I had not thought of Blog’s as a tool for the Military until this requirement.

By adding a disclaimer at the end it still leaves subjectivity in the intent by the reader.  

   At the very least, this will be a Blog I can revisit in the next few months on my next deployment to see how many people add comments to it pro and con, and see if anything comes of your informative review.

     The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

“Always Forward”

MAJ John Guyette

SG 30B

As someone that embraces technology and the use of new media, I am concerned by any prospects of introducing oversight, review and approval into this informal communication cycle.  Our adversaries are nimble and agile in the use of all aspects of cyberspace and various forms of communication. We can't afford risk-adverse policies that cede the initiative to our enemy.

For example, on multiple occasions such policies have resulted in Al Qaeda or the Taliban getting their story out first, while the official policy juggernaut attempted to clear stories, or release combat camera footage. We would have failed if we had not engaged the Axis the "air domain" in World War II.   Although the percentages vary, many have estimated that nearly 50% of our current fight - the battled for ideas - is in the "cyberspace domain."

Just last week hundreds of participants converged on Johns Hopkins APL for Phoenix Challenge 2009. The conference theme was "Executing Information Operations in Cyberspace."  See usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/.../confronting-the-challenges-of-the-cyber-domain.aspx and blog.wired.com/.../info-war-pentag.html for more information.

Our policies and regulations are woefully lagging the technological innovations. All of the points MAJ Brou raised should be addressed.  However, her conclusion failed to include the most appropriate and desperately needed solution - a complete reform of directives and regulations to bring THEM into line with the operational needs for flexible and non-centralized communications.

We should be more cautious.

I do not believe the influence (metaphysical) war is analogous to the physical war.  When you deal in valuations and ideas, you are dealing in a political form of competition.  While I concur we need to fight overseas in ideological ways, we have to be careful in waging a persuasive military info campaign (call it what you will) with our own public.  Adaptation is important, but not at the expense of the ideal of a democratically-rooted, professional, apolitical Army.  The role of the military in and of a democracy is different from those militaries who have other forms of government.  It's pretty hard to teach those other militaries' officers (some enrolled in our PME programs as international fellows) about that role when we have our own officers engage their public expressing what is likely seen as participation in domestic politics.

While I agree that information technology has sped up the flow of stories from many sides, I do not subscribe that the world is more uncertain than it has been in the past.  Every generation seems to think their world is more volatile than any in history.  

There is still a theory of causality at work with this idea to have our officers "master the use of information" that will have crippling side effects on the ethos of our Army-in-a-democracy.  I think the jury is out on this issue and it is a matter of time before legislators and other political leaders take notice and will have to reign-in the Army, particularly on the domestic side.  

BG Cardon's and Bob King's notes above claims that operational need should take precedence over established rues and law... I disagree.  The law and these rules attempt to restrain domestic political activity of Army officers for good reasons.

I think this is not going to be a politically neutral episode in the Army's history.  I have a feeling we'll have to learn the hard way.  

I would argue that it is our responsibility to work through appropriate channels to change the policies to reflect the intent of our senior leaders prior to issuing educational requirements that conflict with current policies.  

BG Cardon and Bob King raise important points in the discussion of the blog requirement adhering to DoD and Army policy.  It appears from BG Cardon’s comments that it is known that the blog requirement is not in adherence with DoD and Army policies.  

BG Cardon states “Many OSD and Army policies have not yet caught up with these changes, but the intent of these same senior leaders is clear.  Develop a culture of engagement; encourage communication; master the use of information.  We did not just implement these education requirements without informing our chain of command -- we have operated in a clear transparent manner all the up through the Department of Defense.  If there are policies that need to change based on changing conditions and environment, then we have an obligation as leaders, to work to change those policies that do not reflect the intent of our senior leaders.”

I agree that as leaders in the Army, it is our duty and responsibility to work to change policies that do not reflect the intent of our senior leaders.  Does this mean that we ignore DoD and Army policies that have not “caught up” with the changes that are desired?  

The argument of operating “in a clear transparent manner” up the chain of command seems to be a case of the ends justifying the means. This rationale can lead down a slippery slope in ethical decision making.  Does it mean as long as the boss knows we are violating policy that it is permitted?  When your subordinates observe the policy violations, do they understand the “clear transparent manner” of approval granted from the senior leaders?

I agree with Bob King in that the solution is “a complete reform of directives and regulations to bring THEM into line with the operational needs for flexible and non-centralized communications.”  In the interim, exceptions to policy signed by the appropriate officials should be in place while a complete reform is conducted.  

Major Kirk Liddle, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

I facilitate S3-XO Net, a CAC-K Battle Command Knowledge System forum, behind AKO. S3-XO Net is an FOUO site, an online professional forum restricted to past, current, and future S3s and XOs.

I have been interested in developing a Professional Writing topic for field grades on S3-XO Net, much like the Pro Reading topic. The CompanyCommand.mil team currently partners with Army Magazine, to format and publish one of their online threaded discussions from their restricted peer to peer community. The article is called "To Company Commanders from Company Commanders," and it is published each month.

I would suggest one way the CGSC ILE students could meet the publishing requirement, is to participate in an online discussion on an FOUO site such as S3-XO Net, where they have access to peers and mentors, current and past S3s and XOs. We could then collaborate with an Army publication, such as Military Review, and format and publish the discussion thread in an article each month. If a participant in the threaded discussion wants to remain anonymous in the published article, she can. I can email the discussion link to the CGSC instructor from inside S3-XO Net, so the ILE students receive credit for the requirement without having to disclose their identity in a public forum.

I taught writing at Johnson County Community College for seven years, and my undergraduate degree is in English. I love to write. I view writing as a process, with steps (prewriting, drafting, peer review, revising, editing, and publishing).

Publishing is an important part of the writing process, and something every writer should experience. You could also publish your work in a CGSC ILE class yearbook, a “lessons learned” type format, another idea from the CompanyCommand team.

There are numerous ideas to help CGSC ILE students meet the media engagement and publishing requirement, without violating any current DoD policies.

michele.costanza@us.army.mil

Most of the points raised in this blog are well worth reading.  I'll recommend this blog and Chris Paparone's (older) but related one to my staff group.  However, I think some of the points are wrong or misinformed.

First of all, CAC has an exception to policy from TRADOC and the Army Chief of Public Affairs that allows students, faculty, directors, and program managers to blog.  Why the Chief of PA?  Because he is responsible for the Army's Public Information Security Review Program and the Army's implementation of DoDDs covering public release of information.

Second, I think we're discussing exceptions to policies and regulations rather than laws.  In addition, I haven't heard or read anything that tells me to make my students blog in direct violation of any of the above.  No one provides a mandated command message.  As far as I've seen, my students are free to blog about their Army experiences as long as they don't violate CAC Command Policy 19-08 and CGSS Policy Memo #8.

I do wonder about strengthening our review process.  As currently written, CAC and CGSS policies do not require students to get their blog submissions reviewed by anyone before they post them.  I've asked my students to let me see them beforehand but have not rigidly enforced this.  This may not be necessary for blogs submitted on this site since those submissions are reviewed before we see them on the webpages.

I also wonder whether we should set up more faculty training on these info engagement requirements.  Right now I'm in favor of doing so, but I'm a first year SGA.  The more experienced SGA's may feel fully comfortable with the knowledge they have already.

The constructive criticism of privacy concerns, a review process, politicalization of officers, reforms or the absence thereof, and the significance of info engagements across the spectrum of media is useful for me.  I can incorporate some of it into my SG brief for my new students in the Fall.  I hope to see more posts here or even new blogs on these subjects but not about whether the CAC has a green light for student blogging.  Given the exception to policy, the latter argument is pointless.

LTC JB Byrn, SGA 16C, G5 Cell

Michele,

I liked the way you reframed here...i.e. the possibility of educating to "master the use of information" by doing that in a military professional forum, not designed to influence the public.

I think that would in effect "dissolve" the problems-of-political-discourse I am trying to articulate and make them into problems-of-professional-discourse.  The venue you suggest would then "accomplish the mission."

LTC Byrn,

Ahhh, but you must not subscribe yet to CACD/"Design" features of approaching "wicked problems" that encourage reframing and even questioning guidance received from higher.  According to impending Army doctrine (FMI 5-2), it is not considerde pointless.  On the contrary, arguably, mindless acceptance is helped get us into issues in the wars we are in.   I would suggest the information environment is a "wicked problem."  (www.tradoc.army.mil/.../p525-5-500.pdf)

You also state, "my students are free to blog about their Army experiences as long as they don't violate CAC Command Policy 19-08 and CGSS Policy Memo #8."  Well, that is arguably a pretty big caveat.  

I read the policy, "Blog entries will not contain derogatory information that will serve to embarrass Fort Leavenworth, the US Army or the United States Government" as pointing the blogger to only "good news stories."  The requirement to put their name on the blog serves to reinforce (and subsequently enforce) this restriction.  

Other professions (such as medical) would encourage the reporting of failures as part of the professional discourse to ensure professional knowledge gains from both ends of the spectrum.  If this were about professionalization of officer's communication ability ("mastery"), why would this restriction be necesssary?  If the answer is we only want to tell good news stories (i.e. that will not embarrass), is the institution being more political than professional?

I like Michele's idea (above), where successes and failures (and, yes, even embarassments) can be discussed openly (but not to the public, especially not to the public for purposes of persuasion).

Chris,

I consider it pointless to argue that CAC doesn't have authorization for students to blog.  All of the other points of concern raised on this blog are more useful for me.  There is value in debating - as MAJ Brou did - in whether we should have such an authorization though I see that argument as less useful than discussions of privacy concerns, the value of educating officers on information engagement, and the new point that Michele made about internal debate with BCKS forums.  I'd like to see a lot more professional debate at sites like S3-XO net.

I can't speak for an entire student body.  Based on just my SG, I'd say the majors aren't too handicapped by the CAC and CGSS policies.  I would like to see a lot more majors' opinions on this instead of you and I jousting within their blog space.

From my perspective the Army often encourages open discussion of failures.  I'm thinking of AARs, professional journals, BCKS forums, a lot of networking methods, and sometimes just honest answers to blunt questions from our more senior leaders.  I've long gone past the point of hiding uncomfortable "truths" and based on my conversation with students, a lot of them are very candid with their points.  Perhaps it's different in my branch (EN) or just my generation than from your perspective?

LTC JB Byrn  SGA 16C, G5 Cell

MAJ Brou's original posting questioned the authority of CGSC to require its students to BLOG in a public forum while identifying themselves using name and rank.  This conversation has evolved into whether or not we should conduct blogging in an effort to better understand the current information environment.  I think it's important to return to her original issue.  MAJ Brou cites DoD and DA regulation that appear contrary to the ILE requirement.  This is unfortunate, because the CAC requirement could be modified to support regulations and still meet the leadership’s intent.  

I agree with BG Cardon’s position that the information environment will become more important and we need to be better able to leverage it in the future.  I do not advocate that the Army should ignore the issue.  I do believe that CAC should ensure that all requirements are established so they support current regulations and protect students.  The current waiver, referred to by LTC Byrn, may still be inadequate to guard against all possible OPSEC violations.  

The regulations are not only in place to guard against malicious OPSEC leaks, but against inadvertent ones also.  I’m referring to the possibility that a student could inadvertently BLOG in violation of CAC Command Policy #19-08 Para 7, C or Para 7, D.  Just as there is no such thing as “friendly fire” there is no such thing as innocent OPSEC leaks.  The fact that DA and DoD have established regulations implies that we are not authorized to conduct self-review, regardless of our rank.  CAC is not only endangering the Army by possibly causing OPSEC leaks, but they are also endangering each student to possible UCMJ action (Ref AR 530-1 Paragraph 2-1 b. (2)).  

I concur with MAJ Brou that the current ILE requirement for all students to BLOG should be modified to support DoD and DA regulations.  One possibility could be to restrict postings to the CAC BLOG site in order to comply with the “academic environment” exception.  If the school’s desire is to engage the public, a second possible modification would be to remove the officer’s rank and screen all postings prior to being released in order to comply with the “private capacity” exception.  

Major Matthew D. Tatman, student, small group 30C, Command and General Staff Course, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

I agree that the information environment will continue to play a significant role in our military operations and that, as such, officers must learn to operate in this environment.  We must also recognize that this is a new and developing environment.  What we post on the internet will likely endure forever, and people may malevolently use what we post to harm us both individually and collectively.  

1.  DoD and CAC Policies.

 As discussed in my initial blog, DoD policies require a review of official DoD information prior to publishing.  Absent a delegation of authority to each Service (which I have not found, but may have overlooked), the DoD is liekly the appropriate exception to policy authority.  The prior review requirement is also important because one cannot assume that ILE students understand what they can and cannot blog about.  Not every student possesses the critical thinking skills and judgment to understand the left and right limits of blogging.  Additionally, these limits are not terribly intuitive.  For example, the CAC blog policy clearly provides that blogs will not contain political bias or appear to advocate for a political party, will not discuss classified information or vulnerabilities, will not discuss military operations planned or being executed, and will not contain TTPs that have not been publicly released.  According to AR 530-1, blogs cannot discuss sensitive and critical information, which is a much broader prohibition than the CAC blog policy.  See para. 2-1b, AR 530-1.  Chapter 5, AR 360-1 also provides more detailed guidance on acceptable blog topics.   For example, "matters in litigation or with the potential for litigation will not be discussed unless the information is a matter of public record."  See para. 5-28, AR 360-1.  Additionally, the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act also govern what can and cannot be discussed on blogs.  See generally chapter 5, AR 360-1.  This category of information is a more difficult area of information to identify.  

 A cursory Google search for ILE blogs revealed that students may be violating the CAC blog policy, as well as Army and DoD policies on blogging.  For example, a student blogged about the surge on my.barackobama.com, whose home page states "Join My.BarackObama, our online community with over a million members. Get access to the tools you need to effectively organize for Barack Obama and build this movement for change."  Blogging about the surge, which is a politically charged issue on Capitol Hill, on a political website appears to violate the CAC and Army policy on political blogs.  Similarly, another student blogged on blog.reagansgop.com, a website that states "Keeping the record of Ronald Reagan alive in the modern Republican Party."  Although the student's blog is about military wounded and appears to be neutral, it is on a political website and, thus, may violate the CAC blog policy on political blogs.  Yet another student commented on Anderson Cooper's blog entitled "What's the chance of Sarah Palin Becoming President?"  Finally, a student discussed his support for the DoD's stop loss policy in a blog.  Stop loss is not only a politically charged issue, it is also an issue that is the subject of recent and current litigation.

 This cursory review of ILE blogs suggests that a prior review of the blogs is needed.  Students have blogged on political websites about politically and legally sensitive issues.  A review could prevent such issues.

2.  Privacy Interests.

 As I alluded to in my original post, Soldiers have privacy interests that should be protected.  Some student may have an important privacy interest in limiting the internet information about them.  The Privacy Act shields Soldiers' personnel records and medical status from disclosure to third parties.  Forcing ILE students to make public statements in the form of a blog forces students to doff their privacy interests.  For example, as a trial counsel, I prosecuted several violent criminals, one of which was a drug dealer and gang member.  Witnesses in this Soldier's court martial were threatened and assaulted, and my co-counsel's young wife received several threatening calls while we were preparing for trial.  I would prefer not to share my Army story on the internet, and, thus perhaps, with this particular Soldier.  Additionally, when I was a trial counsel, at least one of the Soldiers in my jurisdiction had a restraining order against his/her spouse.  After the divorce was final, the Soldier kept a low profile, hiding from the ex-spouse.  This Soldier clearly had a safety interest in limiting the amount of information about him/her on the internet.  Some ILE students may have similar concerns and, thus, may wish to keep a low profile on the internet.  Blogging openly and disclosing one's location and status as an ILE student runs counter to this privacy and safety interest.

3.  Finally, the earlier post with a rifle analogy is a curious one.  The rifle is a tactical weapon,  the use of which rules of engagement control.  Soldiers cannot indiscriminately fire their rifles.  The internet and "blogosphere," on the other hand, is a strategic tool.  But, similar to the rifle, certain policies and regulations govern the publication of official DoD information on the internet.  These policies and regulations are designed to allow DoD personnel to blog, while also protecting the DoD's security interests.

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Good points.  I think the tradeoffs for having this policy are not yet clear (i.e. the "side effects" of the policy).  Based on the info you have presented, I think we may be trading off a merit-based, professional ethos that has called for an apolitical an officer corps (as humanly possible).  

By not only encouraging, but demanding that the students in CGSC present their stories publically and with name and rank, even with the disclaimer, we seem to be making it an official act of the government.

MAJ Brou -- Do you think the disclaimer at the end is sufficient to make the communications personal rather than official (when you consider they have to use their name, rank and unit)?  Seems like the institution has created an ethical (or even legal) dilemma of sorts.

Second question -- the policy demands truth telling, based in verifiable facts.  Do you see ethical or legal issues with interpreting this requirement?

I believe that MAJ Brou's observations are well-reasoned and insightful. Regardless of the good judgment or lack thereof of our officers or the political flavoring of their blog choices, I believe it to be a trifling requirement for an officer to indelibly post his Army story to a public forum, risking personal and military information, just to familiarize him with the capabilities of the blogosphere.

Isn't it a touted capability of Information Operations that we can gain valuable information about adversaries by gathering and compiling seemingly innocuous information such as these blog entries and "connecting the dots" into useful intelligence? It is an interesting exercise to use a search engine to find examples of the student disclaimer that is required at the end of each blog entry. Ask yourself if there is anything potentially damaging in information you gather and if the completion of an academic requirement is worth any risk inherent in these postings.

I believe that Dr. Costanza's suggestion for the use of a FOUO forum would adequately suffice for the written requirement; perhaps supplemented by a student requirement to read, review, and discuss the reliability, value, and inherent risks in some of the public blogs.

I think we all need to remember that the tracks we leave on the internet cannot be expunged. There is no camouflage, concealment, or interlocking fields of fire in cyberspace once information is launched.

Hi Zippy,

Hence, information as a "logical line of operation" (the info-as-a-weapon metaphor) does not hold up well to critical reasoning.  

Hence the very idea of information as part of "fires" may be quite absurd.  Maybe it doesn't belong there.  Maybe it's a convenient metaphor that has not been subject to more scrutiny in its "underlap" of meaning.

Communications is a metaphysical process, not a physical one.  Pairing these ideas together as "fires" may serve as a façade of meaning (hence the whole idea of "truthfulness" and the mask of objectivity espoused in the proposed FM 3-13 is fundamentally absurd).

Mr. Paparone,

 I am not sure whether the disclaimer at the end is sufficient to make the communications personal rather than official--with most everything legal, it is a gray area.  Students are using their military ranks and indicating their affiliations with the military--this suggests that students are making comments in their official capacities.  The disclaimer, on the other hand, indicates that the student is not speaking for the Army/DoD.  Perhaps the proponent of DoDD 5230.09 could provide an opinion as to the sufficiency of the disclaimer.  

 If a Soldier blogged in a manner that violated the UCMJ (i.e. made a political statement, said something disparaging about his commanders, revealed sensitive or classified information, etc.), a disclaimer like the one ILE students use would not shield him from criminal prosecution.  The current ILE blog requirement and policy, however, would make it highly problematic, but not impossible, to prosecute a student who blogged inappropriately--and, of course, adverse administrative options are always an option.

 Not to beat a dead horse, but Zippy Jr. made the point about privacy that I have been trying to make.  As a trial counsel, I always used the internet to track down an accused Soldier's past--former spouses, girlfriends, neighbors, and victims were often a font of information--especially in child molestation cases.  I would use Google, Dogpile, Zabasearch, Yahoo People Find, and Lexis-Nexis, among other websites, to "connect the dots" on the Soldier--that is, to find people from a Soldier's past and to contact them.  No single website provided me with the information I needed, but a few websites combined together gave me the information I needed to secure several convictions.  These search engines can also be used by those who wish us harm.  They can gather information on us that, taken alone, is innocent and harmless, but, when combined with information from other websites, can harm us.

Thanks again for the blog comments,

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Brou

I've often wondered about something that is tangentially related to your original post.  Have any of the polices on DoD or government employees and political activities and speech been challenged Constitutionally?  (i.e. the Hatch Act)

Although I understand the concerns behind the regulations and laws, it was always difficult for me to accept that a soldier (or government employee) would have their first amendment rights abridged 24/7 because of their chosen profession.

Perhaps some of these directives and regulations referenced in your original post would not survive Constitutional scrutiny.  It certainly would not be the first time we had laws on the books that were struck down.

I find it a stretch to say that because someone blogged on a political website, they are in violation of a policy to not blog on political subjects.  Which websites aren't connected in some way to politics?  If you don't think this website is "political"- then maybe I've missed something in Clausewitz's connection between military and politics.  We even have politicians blogging on this website.

I am reminded of taking graduate-level classes.  Everyone in my class knew I was military and they enjoyed hearing my opinion on different things.  If I had been restricted because of the public knowledge of my public service, then the class would have not gotten the benefit of a usually-divergent point of view and I wouldn't have gotten practice articulating ideas.  

I think the same can be said of the blogosphere- and I think most of the "apolitical" worries are those of senior officers (mostly retired) who grew up in a tradition of non-engagement.  I think there is a huge difference between honest discussion of issues and active advancement of a certain platform.  I would think honest talk on issues from military officers would be something to encourage- and could easily be differentiated from political positions.

The statement that referred to subjects being "politically charged" is interesting to me also.  I'd argue any topic can be termed political and one day can be "politically charged".  That in this forum we are couching the discussion as a JAG-type opinion and no attempt at a pro-con weighing of the argument is interesting.  We tried to learn to be more open to ideas when we had lessons on "learning organizations" at CGSC.  I'd submit some who have posted have already made up their minds this is bad and will fit all incoming information through that lens.

I, for one, am open to this being a possible good thing.  It may turn out not to be.  I am willing to entertain that possibility.  I am also willing to admit there are risks we are taking.  To me that is in keeping with a learning organization-type atmosphere: open to new ideas while mindful they might not be right and cognizant of the risks.

Lastly, I don't think separating blogging from other types of communication in this context is productive.  Firing a rifle is different from blogging- yes- but I'd submit that "communication" and "armed force" are similar, sub and overlapping concepts.  

I would submit that blogging, writing letters, appearing in front of cameras, and appearing in front of crowds all make a person more experienced in communication.  When taken as a whole, I think they offer soldiers more tools in their kit with respect to their mission- just like firing a rifle, pistol, and throwing a grenade do.  If you don't practice- you won't be good.  Do you think only Americans read and post blogs?  Why are we assuming there is no tactical value in practicing StratCom?  

v/r,

Grant Martin

MAJ, US Army

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

I do not question the value of sharing information, opinions, and observations in public, academic, and electronic media. I agree that it is an individual's right to do so within the legal, professional and ethical, guidelines established by that individual's community; the military community in this case.

I do, however question on several levels, the validity and advisability of this academic requirement to "Post your own personal Army Story" to a blog of your choice:

1. Redundancy. The student audience is probably much more familiar and comfortable with the capabilities and use of internet media of all sorts than Generals Cardon or LTG Caldwell are; certainly moreso than am I, who finished the "best year of my life" in 1985. I have been teaching advanced Joint ADP applications, and I have had to significantly revise our lesson plans over the past 7 years to avoid wasting student time with automation skills they already had (but earlier students did not). Time saved was devoted to higher-order skills and analytical processes. Don't you think it's about time to review the blogging skills of your incoming students and revise the curriculum if they already understand this?

2. Security. Whatever is posted on internet public forums is there forever. While a single blog posting may be inconsequential, the aggregation of many information from many open sources can lead a reasonably intelligent adversary to some pretty valid intelligence about our capabilities, dispositions and intentions as a US defense establishment.

3. Privacy. As in #2 above, requiring a student to post his name, rank, place of assignment and some personal Army story based on previous experiences/assignments, could be a dangerous divulging of information that should remain private.

4. Risk/Return ratio. It appears to me that the risks stated in #2-3 above are not worth the questionable return of having a student know how to make a posting to a blog, a skill that I believe the majority of the students already know how to do.

Wouldn't the time be better spent in discussion of the legal, ethical, professional, operational, and security advantages and disadvantages of sharing information in open forums on the internet and other media?

If you find there is a deficit of familiarity with blogs or other media, couldn't you achieve the training objectives by reviewing and discussing blogs in class, or by having the students post to a firewall-protected FOUO blog?

Mr. King,

 I have not completed a case law search on "free speech" and the military in a couple years.  I would have to look that up on Lexis Nexis to get a 100% accurate answer.  But, Soldiers can face prosecution for statements they make--this would be a highly fact-specific analysis and vary from case to case.  One authority on political speech is the Joint Ethics Regulation (Chapter 6, section 3, Political Activities of Military Members), which cites to DoD Directive 1344.10, "Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty," June 15, 1990.

 The Hatch Act, on the other hand, has been modified over the years, but it is still good law.  It applies to federal civilian employees, not members of the uniformed services, and it limits the political activities of federal employees.  The following is a helpful link to information on the Hatch Act: www.osc.gov/hatchact.htm  Chapter 6, Section 2 of the Joint Ethics Regulation (Political Activities of Civilian DoD Employees) is derived from the Hatch Act.  

The following is a link to the JER:

www.dod.mil/.../jer1-6.doc

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Martin,

 Before engaging in a pro-con analysis of any policy, one must first determine whether the policy is legal--that is, does it comport with the existing statutes, policies, and regulations?  I would submit that DoDD 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release (August 22, 2008) and DoDI 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release (January 8, 2009) govern this blog policy issue.  Both publications are recent and the DoD likely considered the pros and cons of permitting service members more flexibility in making public statements--to safeguard sensitive information and DoD interests, the publications set forth conditions that would trigger the prior review requirement.  For the reasons discussed in my original post, the ILE blog requirement/policy does not appear to comply with the applicable DoD publications.

 Even if it does comply with the applicable DoD regulations, I believe, for the reasons discussed in my initial post, that requiring students to blog runs counter to students' privacy interests.  If a student elects to write a blog and have it reviewed prior to posting, I do not see a problem.  If, however, a student does not wish to publicly post a blog, I do not believe he should be compelled to do so.  There are other ways he can learn about the blogosphere.

 As for determining what is/is not political, one must look to the JER, DoD/Army guidance, statutes, and caselaw--not to Clausewitz.  I would advise against asserting Clausewitz as a defense or an authority when facing trial by court martial or adverse administrative action for make political statements in violation of the JER, DoD/Army policies, statutes, etc.  

 I, too attended graduate level courses--law school--as an active duty Army officer and sometimes brought my military experiences into classroom discussions.  I would submit to you that the DoD and Army guidance on publication of official information does not apply to such academic situations.  

 Finally, I have not assumed that practicing StratCom has no tactical value.  Rather, I acknowledge that it can have tactical value, but more significantly for us as we progress in our careers, it has significant strategic value--hence, the DoD's policies on the issue.  Allowing students to "practice" blogging on the internet, when it can have significant strategic implications, may not be adviseable.

 Thank you for your comments,

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Major Deirdre G. Brou,

Well done. This one of the most thought provoking discussions on social media identity I have read in a long time. A lot of social media marketing folks could learn a lot from this conversation. A few thoughts.

Information warfare through social media is often described as asymmetric warfare. Identity is information, a shaping operation for information context, so when you give your identity in cyberspace you do so for the tactical purposes of shaping information. By saying you are US Army, you have taken a symmetric warfare tactical approach in information shaping operations for your strategic communications.

Has this been evaluated as part of the Army Policy?

Content that is published consistency in social media (including comments) is considered branding. In this case, the disclaimer is the brand. If you want to build your online brand you have to know how all your activities work together. You need a consistency and congruency. Each part of the social media puzzle builds into a picture people have of you, how they imagine you to be relates to how you really are to the degree you get this stuff right. From an organizational perspective, the complexities extend to how the Army brand comes together when multiple individuals are posting all with the same disclaimer. The impact of this on any information will have a shaping effect.

Has this been evaluated as part of the Army Policy?

An exercise would be to have the students of this institution engage a serious topic at a milblog with a lot of traffic, and have each student mark themselves with their disclaimer when making comments. I think seeing how it shapes the discussion, and reactions, will give everyone something to think about. If one of the professors would like to write an article for the debate, I'll post it, and lets see how my regular audience which is generally professional reacts. Then try the same thing on a blog like Danger Room, because I bet Noah would go for it if the article was good. The contrast in how the communities react to the real names of Army personnel and the disclaimer WILL be interesting.

I do this type of marketing exercise when teaching large enterprises how social media works. The results will challenge the way the Army looks at identity and branding, and require the Army to take both seriously as tactics on the cyber battlefield of information and ideas. Knowing how to use both is critical to successful social media, and a criticism I have long had with the DoD approach to social media is that they are not taking a serious look at the tactics and strategies.

V/r,

Raymond Pritchett

The views expressed in this blog post are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of Pritchett Technologies, Inc., or clients of Pritchett Technologies, Inc.

This is a great discussion. I urge those participating to keep the conversation intelligent and respectful.

Since my previous comment was apparently deemed unintelligent, or disrespectful by the administrator, I'll tone down my response.

Item 1.  Personally identifiable information.

I personally believe that if you aren't willing to put your name on a comment, a post, or a blog, you shouldn't make it.  If you fear retribution for your comments more than you wish to comment, then you have every right to remain silent.

On that note, you are required to write about your CAC experience.  In the months spent at CAC, there has to be one positive, if not innocuous experience you can share, and be willing to identify your comment.

I think, however, that the policy currently in place does violate the aforementioned PII policy, and should be reviewed on that basis.  A further issue is whether forcing user identification stifles dissent.  At some level, despite best efforts, we all know that we run the risk of making comments that run afoul of our peers or our superiors.  Despite agreements to make all commentary "personal, non-official" opinion, some will still hold those comments against us, even if they don't realize they are doing so.

Item II.  Opinion vs. Official statements.  You post your name, because the policy says you do.  You are an officer 24/7/365.  Therefore, your opinion will always be viewed by some as you representing the entire US Military.  You can't divorce the uniform, the job, and yourself from that simple fact.  Every time a soldier puts their face in front of a camera or a keyboard, we risk them speaking their mind and even if they don't specifically mention that what they say is their opinion, and not official policy, people will see that one interview and draw their conclusions on the entire force from that single interview.  Like it or not, that is the modern information highway world we live in.  

The first rule of blogging:  Remember that everything you write will be read by your Mom, Your Boss, Your Priest, The Media, and Your Enemy.

The second rule:  You have the right to remain silent, if you give up that right, anything you write can be used against you.

The third rule:  You represent everyone who wears a uniform, past present, and even future, because you wear a uniform.  Don't do them a disservice.

I admit my previous comment was a bit scattered and written in a rage of anger about the conflicting policies and guidance, I was angry that the policy was seemingly forcing officers to write and say things, and post their PII against their will.  Please accept my apologies if my commentary was out of line or unprofessional.  After nearly four years of blogging, and tens of thousands of comments and commentary, I tend to be snarky and abrupt when I get excited.  

Major Charles Ziegenfuss

Operations officer and MS III instructor, APMS

Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana PA

IUP Army ROTC

Charles,

I think this topic should draw emotion from our officers.  I argue the policy is (unintentionally) unravelling the profession (and the unpoliticized value of expert military advice), threaded entry-by-threaded entry.

MAJ Ziegenfuss,

Thanks for reengaging. Your rules for blogging are excellent.

I am alarmed at the pace that the Army senior leaders are taking the organization -- to act as could

All,

MAJ Brou’s comments are well researched and her analysis is excellent.  I agree with her position.

I am writing to address a tangential issue implicated by her argument and more specifically raised by BG Cardon.  The operational environment changes much faster than the evolution of corresponding laws and implementing regulations.  This changing environment threatens the role of Judge Advocates and the adherence to the Rule of Law by the military.  This problem is particularly prevalent in the modern age of stability missions, where Army operations are impacted by many more laws than just the Rules of Engagement and the Geneva Convention.

In the present case BG Cardon and other contributors argue that the applicable regulations and laws have not evolved sufficiently to account for the current information environment and the need to train Army officers to use that information environment as a tool.  Thus, instead of changing the blogging policy, we should work to change the laws and regulations.  In response, MAJ Brou rightly points out that the military published DoDD 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release (August 22, 2008) and DoDI 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release (January 8, 2009) within the last year.  Still, this does not completely destroy the validity of BG Cardon’s argument.  Publishing new regulations of any kind is a cumbersome process and the updated publications in question may have been in the works for some time.  Even more likely, the proponents of these regulations were likely operating under a different paradigm and did not balance the need to train in the information environment with the concerns the regulations address.  Either way, the regulations do not address valid concerns of the CAC and TRADOC commanders.  

Although not the case here, in most cases, commanders must address changing paradigms promptly and do not have the luxury of going through the lengthy process of changing a regulation or the even more arduous process of changing a law.  This is particularly true in the operational environment.  I was deployed to Iraq in 2007 and 2008 and witnessed the growth of the Sunni Awakening and the development of the Concerned Local Citizen (CLC) program (later called the Son’s of Iraq (SOI)).  Ultimately, Coalition Forces financed the CLC program using money from the Commander’s Emergency Response Program (CERP).  See “The U.S. Financial Crisis – In Iraq,” Time, (January 22, 2008), available at www.time.com/.../0,8599,1705939,00.html.  One of the basic tenets of fiscal law is that a specific authorization must exist to expend government funds.  In the absence of such an authorization, we must conclude that the expenditure is not permissible.  This rule flows from Congress’ constitutional funding authority.  If any government agency expends funds on issues not addressed by Congress, it is usurping Congress’ power of the purse.  

I submit to you that no reasonable interpretation of the CERP law or the implementing regulations that existed at the time could have concluded that Congress intended for the military to use CERP funds to pay armed Iraqi citizens to guard street corners.  See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 1202(a), 119 Stat. 3136, 3455-56.  Yet, this is exactly what the Judge Advocates at MNF-I, MNC-I and below did.  They took a very expansive view of the CERP law and regulations and found that spending funds in this manner was legal.  The program blossomed into a multi-million dollar monthly expenditure.  From an operational perspective, it was the right thing to do.  The CLC program is arguably the single most important factor that has produced U.S. success in Iraq over the last two years.  I cannot begin to fathom the consequences had military Judge Advocates concluded that this CERP expenditure was impermissible.  

The problem is that this type of “stretching” degrades the sanctity of the law and the ability of Judge Advocates to properly advise the command.  If we can broadly interpret this law, then we can broadly interpret any other law or regulation.  Furthermore, Judge Advocates lose the ability to advise the command on the meaning of laws and regulations with any fidelity that their interpretation is accurate or consistent with others.  Ultimately, we destroy our own credibility with Army commanders.  I believe that this is already happening on some level.  I cannot count the number of times I have heard from a commander or staff officer that another Judge Advocate or another legal office gave a different opinion on a legal issue.  This is particularly true in the fiscal law, administrative law, and operational law areas.  

The solution to this problem is two pronged.  Judge Advocates are continually trained that we must find a way “to get to ‘yes’” for the commander.  First, we need to temper this sentiment with a renewed respect for the letter of the law.  Secondly, Congress and the proponents of military regulations need to provide commanders broad latitude in the operational setting to account for the realities of an ever-changing environment.  This is particularly true in the area of fiscal law.  This is not a perfect solution because regardless of how wide the latitude, situations that were not anticipated will arise.  Although imperfect, it is better than the alternative, which is to create an environment where commanders cannot rely on legal advice and the meaning of laws and regulations are continually degraded.  

Major Ward Narramore, student, small group 31D, Command and General Staff College, FT Gordon, GA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Major Brou’s point about her efforts to find information pertinent to individuals subject to prosecution is a valid one.  However, the privacy concerns of blogging go even farther.  These implications also cross into the sensitive area of employment law.  Employers have used information from potential employee’s blogs, web pages, and social networking sites to screen recruits.  I have personally seen a private employer refuse to hire a candidate, in part, due to the content of this individual’s personal web page.  The content would not have seemed too extreme to a casual observer.  Yet his opinions did not necessarily sit well with his potential employer, and he was not hired.

There is some current debate about whether employers should be permitted to use the information from Internet searches to screen potential candidates.  Some commentators believe such a practice can lead to discrimination lawsuits.  Yet, the law is unclear.  What does appear to be clear is that, once sued, an employer can use all of these sites to find information that might help the employer defend itself in a lawsuit.

As Major Brou points out, she used the information available to her through the Internet to put together cases against criminals.  Civilian employers are doing the same to defend themselves against civilian lawsuits, and, in some cases, they are using this information to screen potential employees.

All officers will, at some point, leave the Army, and most of those officers will seek employment after leaving the Army.  Blogs, web pages, and social networking sites will leave a relatively permanent record for any potential employer to review.  I think most officers would be happy to stand behind anything they did in their official capacity as an officer.  The Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act protects us from discrimination by employers based on our service in the military.  Yet, these blogs will probably not fall under any such protection.  As such, individuals would be wise to be cautious in what they say and do on the Internet.

As Major Brou points out, the information could be used in a courts martial.  Moreover, it can be used in a civil suit such as a product liability action, divorce proceeding, child custody or support action, employment discrimination action, and so on.  I believe that none of those contributing to these blogs wants to admit that any of them have said anything on a blog that would subject them to any legal action, and hopefully they have not.  However, the question remains as to whether mandatory blogging is a wise requirement if we are looking out for the best interests of the officers involved.

Major Michael D. Mierau, Student, Small Group 30C Command and General Staff College, Fort Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

 As recently as February 2009, the Army issued new guidance on personally identifiable information incident (PII) reporting and notification procedures.  See www.rmda.army.mil/.../ALARACT_050_2009_1.pdf.

 This guidance states, in part that, "the Army continues to implement policies and practices to safeguard the PII of its personnel and their families.  Part of this process is to properly report the suspected or actual loss of this information and to notify those impacted so they can properly safeguard against identity theft."  The guidance defines PII as "any information about an individual which can be used to distinguish or trace an individual's identity such as name, social security number, date and place of birth, mother's maiden name, and biometric records."  Pursuant to the new guidance, "a breach/compromise incident occurs when it is suspects or confirmed that PII is lost, stolen, or otherwise available to individuals without a duty related official need to know.  This includes, but is not limited to, posting PII on public-facing websites;"

 As this guidance demonstrates, the Army has, as recently as last month, recognized the privacy interest that a Soldier has in limiting the amount of his PII available on the internet.  A Soldier's name is PII, and, if it is released to the public, the Army must take steps to notify the Soldier of a PII release and to ensure the Soldier can protect his identity.  

 The CAC requirement to blog publicly and to post one's name, which is PII, to the blog runs counter to the Army guidance's recent recognition of the identity theft threat Soldiers face.  As a result of the CAC blog requirement, my name has already appeared on blogs on other websites--something I would prefer, for personal and professional reasons, not happen.  See soldierblogging.blogspot.com/.../blogging-to-increase-armys-credibility.html

 Again, I advise against ignoring students' interests in protecting their privacy and identity.  Therefore, I urge a change in the blog policy to allow an alternative for students who do not wish to publicly blog.

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

I cannot even attempt to add any greater perspectives of legal, regulatory, or policy analysis compared to the previous posts, but I can express my personal thoughts and frustrations with this mandatory event (and I'll try to include some relevant logic). Please forgive me if I tangent from the very high quality content already written, but perhaps I should re-title this entry as “Why I prefer not to blog.”

I obviously have little experience in the "blogosphere," but I do generally associate my experiences within two categories. The first is typified by this forum - strong, referenced discourse about legitimate topics intended to benefit the subject. The second and far more proliferate is the un-vetted rant page intended to allow people to "express themselves."

I will summarize my opinions as tacitly supporting the first model, and absolutely despising the second one.

In today's highly-touted "information age," blogging model #1 provides obvious benefit to extended professional circles, including the professional Soldier and officer corps. I will argue, however, that these circles are, and should remain, somewhat exclusive and favor moderate privacy and voluntary participation for the benefits and protection of their members. It is with that hope that I reluctantly post my "official" opinions regarding this exercise, primarily because I don't enjoy voicing my opinions and rhetoric outside of circles of my choosing. I am not afraid of attribution or professional rebuttal, as mentioned above; I simply prefer to debate collegially through less time-consuming methods. Additionally, if I am spending considerable time online participating in well-researched, peer-reviewed, policy-compliant blogs, just how much time can I be spending out of my office leading-by-walking-around? I simply do not need another reason to spend more time away from (insert priority here) – therefore my less-than-eager participation in valid forums.

With regards to the second model of blogging, I have very little positive feedback - it simply provides a forum for people to voice their (often ignorant) opinions. (I may typify this model in this entry...) My experience with the pop culture (or "information age") blogosphere exposes me to people who, if met in real life, would likely be ignored because of their inability to grasp reality. These blogs provide an unaccountable forum for people to argue without critical discourse. There is no method of vetting, as mentioned above, the content or factual/logic basis of the argument. These rants often tend to become "tribal lore" through internet archiving, and as such carry far more weight than their authors warrant. One could engage such authors and apply critical thought to the situation, but come on - we all know how those discussions end up... So my next logical answer is to avoid them altogether.

Again, please forgive my “feeling” rather than “thinking” participation in this thread. I did find it attractive by content, and the previous authors were very clear and articulate in the discussed points. I do agree with an earlier posting about accepting our duty and remaining accountable for our statements 24/7/365 – in this case participating in a blog – but in the end, I am happy this requirement is over. I tend to agree with MAJ Ziegenfuss’ second rule: “You have the right to remain silent, if you give up that right, anything you write can be used against you.”

Major Thad Fineran, student, small group 32A, Command and General Staff College, FT Lee, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Hello Sir,

Thanks for posting such a nice blog post. Blogging is something that everyone should do. I wonder why this and its better, between the CAC and other attorneys have differing legal opinions as to other private forum? For example, if I disagree with a policy of CG's Maybe its voice an opinion, but it will take until the proper channels.

Now I could see the broadcast the debate about the impact on the demand and STRATCOM, whether the assumption on the impact, or no question, but the legitimacy of public policy is interesting. Their arguments are convincing. You can meet the legal requirements of the law? If yes, you can use the legal arguments for the law (such as the Congress debates, etc.)?

This question seems to be more complicated than I initially fathomed. We should not use the ironic and paradoxical nature of these discussions - everything happens on the blog CAC Library and open to the public on the Internet domain. A Pandora's Box or a refreshingly new and transparent way the Army changes, what is considered taboo: the decision has already been achieved?

Best Regards

Abhishek

MAJ Brou,

You state: "Before engaging in a pro-con analysis of any policy, one must first determine whether the policy is legal".

I'm not following you- is that a logical position, or a requirement?  I don't follow the logic- that might be one way of approaching a problem, but surely you CAN do a pro-con analysis of something prior to determining if you think it is legal or not, can't you?  

You state some of these, from what I read, opinions- as if they are undisputed, backed-by-precedent, legal positions.  I find it hard to believe that the blog policy is so obviously illegal- as you seem to imply.  Have you addressed any of these concerns with the CAC JAG?  What did he/she say?  Are there any alternative legal opinions?  What of the TRADOC exception to the policy?  If there is a policy, and yet we have an exception- what's the problem?

You state:  "...I would submit that DoDD 5230.09, Clearance of DoD Information for Public Release (August 22, 2008) and DoDI 5230.29, Security and Policy Review of DoD Information for Public Release (January 8, 2009) govern this blog policy issue.  For the reasons discussed in my original post, the ILE blog requirement/policy does not appear to comply with the applicable DoD publications..."

I would usually expect to hear legal opinions/arguments on both sides of the issue in order to allow the commander options.  "Do not appear" sounds like a legal opinion.  Is there a contrasting view?

You state: "...Even if it does comply with the applicable DoD regulations, I believe, for the reasons discussed in my initial post, that requiring students to blog runs counter to students' privacy interests..."

Your continued blogging after the requirement has been met seems to conflict with this concern.

You state: "...As for determining what is/is not political, one must look to the JER, DoD/Army guidance, statutes, and caselaw--not to Clausewitz.  I would advise against asserting Clausewitz as a defense or an authority when facing trial by court martial or adverse administrative action for make political statements in violation of the JER, DoD/Army policies, statutes, etc..."

I think the subtle hint that I should be scared of being prosecuted by court martial for blogging is an interesting tactic.  If officers are to be ruled by fear of court action, I would submit that being in the military is probably not the place for them.  We do a lot more risky things than blog.  

You stated that simply blogging on a political website goes against the policy.  I submitted that I disagree with that statement.  When was the last time someone was court martialed for blogging?  Has anyone EVER been court-martialed for posting a comment about injuries to a "political website"?   I find it incredible that you seem to assert that someone would be prosecuted for posting a blog comment about soldier injuries on any website.  To state such a legal opinion without references seems to be a bit presumptive.

You state: "...Allowing students to "practice" blogging on the internet, when it can have significant strategic implications, may not be adviseable..."

Again, are there any possible opinions/arguments for the opposing view?  Why does TRADOC and CAC seem to disagree with you?  If you were opposing counsel, what would you argue?  What part does an exception to policy play?

Thank you for your comments,

Major Grant Martin

SAMS

MAJ Martin,

 Sure, you can do a pro-con analysis of anything without first determining whether or not it is legal.  Before implementing a policy, however, one should first determine if it is legal.  If the proposed policy does not comply with existing regulations or statutes, the proponent of the policy should request an exception to policy from the appropriate authorities or request a change in the law or regulation prior to promulgating the policy.

 I have not consulted with the CAC OSJA and have not seen any TRADOC exception to policy.  If there is a TRADOC exception to policy, the DoD and DA, as the proponents of the policies on point, should have approved the exception to policy.

 You wrote that “I would usually expect to hear legal opinions/arguments on both sides of the issue in order to allow the commander options.  ‘Do not appear’ sounds like a legal opinion.  Is there a contrasting view?”  Having submitted hundreds of legal opinions to commanders at many levels, the words “do not appear” are not typically used in legal reviews--this is a blog and not a legal review.  I chose these words because I recognize that there are other ways to look at this policy—I have tried to carefully select my words so that they leave open the possibility for other interpretations of the regulations.

 You wrote, “Your continued blogging after the requirement has been met seems to conflict with this concern.”  This irony has not been lost on me, too.  Yes, I would prefer not to blog.  But, I complied with the mandatory blog requirement.  I posted my opinion, and then you and others have raised interesting points.  I felt compelled to respond to some of the points.  This does not diminish the privacy concerns the CAC blog requirement raises.

 I suggest re-reading my posting on 5 March 2009 before mischaracterizing it.  I never stated “that simply blogging on a political website goes against the policy.”  Rather, I wrote: “A cursory Google search for ILE blogs revealed that students may (emphasis added) be violating the CAC blog policy, as well as Army and DoD policies on blogging.”  I further wrote, “Although the student's blog is about military wounded and appears to be neutral, it is on a political website and, thus, may (emphasis added) violate the CAC blog policy on political blogs.”  I have used the term “may” because I recognize that this is a gray area and these posts are not clearly in violation of or in compliance with the CAC blog policy.  You can peruse some of the posts:

my.barackobama.com/.../gGxBcz

my.barackobama.com/.../gG5XVG

ac360.blogs.cnn.com/.../whats-the-chance-of-gov-palin-becoming-president

stop-lossisthewaytogo.blogspot.com/.../stop-loss-is-way-to-go.html

blog.reagansgop.com

 I never hinted that anyone should fear trial by court-martial for blogging.  Rather, I believe it would be legal malpractice for a defense attorney to rely primarily, or even tangentially, on Clausewitz under such circumstances.  Clausewitz’s writings have withstood the test of time; they are not, however, solid legal authority upon which one should rest a legal defense.  Similarly, supporting an argument with “Clausewitz’s connection between military and politics” is flawed.   The Joint Ethics Regulation, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and applicable case law form the basis of a contemporary analysis of whether or not a blog is political in nature.

 You ask, “When was the last time someone was court martialed for blogging?  Has anyone EVER been court-martialed for posting a comment about injuries to a ‘political website’?  I find it incredible that you seem to assert that someone would be prosecuted for posting a blog comment about soldier injuries on any website.  To state such a legal opinion without references seems to be a bit presumptive.”

 A Lexis-Nexis search of published opinions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and of the appeals courts for each of the services reveals several service members have faced trial by court-martial for posting extremist comments on the internet.  See United States v. Wilcox, 66 M.J. 442 (CAAF 2008) (accusing the Soldier of posting extremist comments on the internet); United States v. Dornon, 2008 CCA LEXIS 209 (AFCCA 2008) (accusing an Airman of posting extremist comments on the internet).  The Lexis-Nexis search is of appellate cases.  Not all courts-martial become published appellate opinions.  There are probably more courts-martial involving blogging, internet comments, or Soldiers’ public comments (see Sanders, Eli, "A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada," Time, February 8, 2007 available at www.time.com/.../0,8599,1587056,00.html).  Soldiers are also involuntarily separated from the Army for statements they have made on the internet.  

 Thank-you for the comments,

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

MAJ Brou-

Since this is a blog conversation I felt safe in bringing up Clausewitz's definition of warfare with respect to politics.  You must think I'm not too bright if you think I'd submit it as evidence in a court martial.

I find it interesting that you state "if there is an exception".  Officers have stated there is- you seem to call into question their integrity.

I disagree that your continued posting doesn't diminish your stated privacy concerns- they seem to oppose each other.

I re-read your posting.  Regardless if you say "may" or not- it still puzzles me that your opinion on the policy would hold that someone has violated the policy simply by posting on a politically-oriented site.  I would submit that that is not a widely held opinion- legal or otherwise.

Unless I'm mistaken, none of your references give examples of the "possible" violations you have identified wrt CGSC students.  Blogging on an extremist site isn't even close to any of the examples you provided of students' blogs.  Only one student blog came even close to commenting on a policy- and even that is a stretch in my opinion- but surely not comparable to the cases you cite.

Since this is a blog and you are calling into question a policy on legal grounds, it would only seem fair to me that you would offer legal opinions on both sides, so that non-JAG officers can educate themselves and make an objective decision on the issue- especially if one assumes that other JAG officers have signed off on this policy and/or exception to policy.

- Grant

I admit I am asking from a position of ignorance here, but is it policy that posts for the CAC blog must present positions for both sides of an argument?

Greg, in your last comment, you seem to be taking Deirdre to task for not offering the legal opinions of both sides of the argument.  Is this required?

In the blogosphere I have come to know and understand, the majority of blogs out there (including my own) generally don't do this.  Most emphatically state their opinions, their politics, their worldview.  Of course, those sites are generally the ones who are truly posting their own opinions, not their opinions with non-attribution to the CAC.  

On the surface, it seems that policies are seldom put in place because leaders go off the deep end and execute knee-jerk reactions to crisis, and most (if not all) are reviewed for legal sufficiency.  I'm pretty sure that is one of the functions of the SJA.  As leaders, we leave the knee-jerking to our Lieutenants, who eventually realize that it generally makes for lots of motion, but no progress.  (Of course, I hope you'll not point out the flaws in my theory, with regard to the recent 100% Suicide and Sexual Harassment Awareness training I sat through last month.)

An opinion, as Deirdre stated in her first and subsequent posts, is exactly what she presented, not the official policy, etc.  

An opinion does not have the requirement to mention any side other than the writer's own.  For instance, "Bacon is the most perfect food." is an opinion.  I don't have to consult the AMA, PETA, the USFDA, or even the local 4-H club for their side of the story.  By design, the CAC blog is supposed to represent opinions of the student.  That's what Deirdre did, presented her opinion that she feels policy "a" and policy "b" conflict.  

She is under no onus to resolve the matter further, it is her opinion, and that's that.

MAJ Charles Ziegenfuss

IUP ARMY ROTC

S3/APMS

MAJ Z-

You're right, she does not have that obligation as a blogger, nor is it a requirement to do so under the CAC blog policy.

I would submit, however, that many people expect a professional and a SME to inform them of both sides of an issue so that they can make proper judgments.  More so if the audience are non-SMEs in the same profession.

For instance, if I passed myself off as a SME on SOF operations in RC-East in Afghanistan and only gave you one Battalion's point of view of their strategic effects- -instead of covering all sides of the issue (other SOF battalions, other SOF branches, conventional side, Afghan side, etc.) and letting you make an informed conclusion- then I would be doing a disservice to you.

MAJ Brou obviously knows regulations and law- most non-JAG officers are not as informed in those subjects.  I would assume the JAG officers above her (CAC, TRADOC, etc.) have to have arrived at different conclusions- so it must not be as cut and dry as this one JAG officer has presented it.

MAJ Grant Martin

SAMS

MAJ Martin,

 I never "passed myself off as an SME."  In fact, I did not state my JA affiliation in my initial post.  Additionally, I believe you have mischaracterized the definition of a SME.  A SME is a person who is an expert in a certain area, such as structural engineering, epidemiology, psychology, etc.  Attorneys leverage SMEs at trial to prove/disprove a case (i.e. calling a psychiatrist to testify about the accused's state of mind at the time of a crime).  Attorneys are trained to research the law and are not experts in any single field of law.

 I have not hidden any keys of knowledge--I found all the sources to which I cited on the internet via Google and provided links to those sources.  Prior to becoming a JA, I would regularly read regulations to ensure that I was complying with them.  On one occasion, based on reading a regulation, I pointed out a flaw in legal advice a JA provided to my BDE CDR and me.  Regulations are generally tailored for the non-attorney, so that the end user may consult the regulation for guidance.  A J.D. is not required to read and understand the regulations.  You are free to read the sources and provide a different opinion, based on those sources, Clausewitz, your experiences, etc.  

 As for the issue of Soldiers facing courts martial for making political statements--there have been many since at least the 60s and 70s.  I also provided a current example in the link to the Time article in my prior post.  (see Sanders, Eli, "A Mistrial for Lieut. Watada," Time, February 8, 2007 available at www.time.com/.../0,8599,1587056,00.html).  Soldiers who make political statements also can face GOMORs or other adverse administrative action--actions of which there is little or no public record.

 Your failure to recognize that some Soldiers may have privacy concerns about the mandatory blog requirement is troubling.  I previously wrote about a Soldier whose spouse stalked and harrassed her--she was a company commander who could very well attend ILE one day.  Her husband maintains a website about the Army's efforts to ensure his wife divorced him.  ( see armydivorceunconstitutional.bravehost.com/page2.html)  On his blog site, he rails against and tracks the leadership and the legal advisor, me.  I will not provide my "Army story" or other personal information on the internet for this company commander's husband to find.  Similarly, I will not provide such information on the internet to better enable Soldiers I have prosecuted to find me.  

 Finally, I and other attorneys in my office represent the US Government and Army in federal courts when the Government is sued for the Army's policies, decisions, or actions.  We speak for the US Army in court and represent its interests on topics such as stop loss, medical malpractice, civilian labor law, the military's homosexual policy, Soldiers' habeus corpus suits related to courts martial, etc.  Plaintiffs in some of my cases have Googled my name and attached internet entries about me to court filings.  Should my Army story include discussions of my current cases?  Absolutely not.  Should it include information about the victims and accused Soldiers in the courts martial I have tried?  Probably not.  Should it address issues on which I provided legal advice as a trial counsel or administrative law attorney?  No.  Should it include my opinions about military health care, maintenance at the PX or Commissary, or stop loss?  No.   In sum, I would prefer to refrain from casually blogging, which could, rightly or wrongly, be attributed to the US Government/Army in federal court, and I would rather submit my papers to the Army for review and publication in professional journals.

The bottom line is that attorneys (and some Soldiers) interact with certain elements of our Army and society with whom you may never have to interact--elements of society which may wish us harm.  The privacy interests of these personnel should be honored, and they should not be required to blog, telling their Army stories on the internet for anyone to read.

Major Deirdre G. Brou, student, small group 30B, Command and General Staff College, FT Belvoir, VA

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Personally from my experience In my ARMY carrear, The ARMY should always be a step backward regarding internet technology. Today soldiers are getting orders in mails when they sit 2 rooms away from the sender, this kind of behaviour weakens the army. The Army should somewhat preserve its oldschool behavior, else, we will see the results.

http://www.freemoviefairy.com

Having just read this NYT story by David Barstow, I wonder if this reopened DOD IG investigation will have ripple effects into the Army "strat comms" policies?

www.nytimes.com/.../06generals.html

At a minimum, this story perhaps will rekindle the debate here.

MAJ Brou:

I don't know if you realized it but by participating in this blog so vigorously you have done exactly what the U.S. Army wants its officer to do with this blogging 'requirement--to show the public the Army officer corps.  

The discussion below would show the layman Army officer are not the automatons many would assume you to be.  

Is that a bad thing?  Like any good lawyer you can bury the layman in a snowstorm of favorable legal and regulatory cites but is your argument strong enough to overcome the strong policy considerations cited above by Army leaders?