Milblog as counter-insurgency − 7 May, 2007
So I was driving around today running errands and listening to the radio in the car when I heard on PRI a segment on recent attempts by the military to create essentially an acceptable use policy for active military. The segment included a conversation with the operator of the Milblog "Badgers Forward" who keeps a husband-wife blog with their candid interpretations of the war. Good stuff - highly worth bookmarking and revisiting from time to time. Last week we saw a certain amount of buzz in the blogosphere about the implications of the military's new policy concerning soldier's blogging. The analysis done at Badgers Forward suffices as a response to that. (N.B. I don't see much that concerns me in their new policy. Even though it could easily be used to censor soldiers, there is no outright ban on Milblogging per se, which is as it should be.)
Anyway, that's not why I'm inspired to write about Milblogging today. What inspired me was that as a long-time blogger - and as someone who's tried to build a better blogging service, even - is that I have a natural tendency to think that Blogging is a panacea, which of course it is not. Nevertheless, in a war where opinion matters more than fact - indeed, one could argue that the war began under these circumstances even in the White house - it seems obvious to me that blogging itself is essential to the war effort no matter which side your allegiances fall. For the anti-war side: blogging speaks truth to power. For the pro-war side: blogging allows soldiers voices to be heard. For the government: blogging could be used as a PR tool to help create many-to-many communication channel (although sadly, it does not) not unlike a town meeting environment where citizens have easy and direct access to decision-makers and their staffs. Lastly, for the insurgents: where currently they use bombs to get their messages out, they could much more effectively use words. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all.
What occurred to me today as I was driving, was another way that blogging could help: counter-insurgency. Psy-ops has long been involved in winning the hearts and minds of countries we've invaded. (BTW, in case you're wondering what side I'm on - as if it matters - it really pains me to acknowledge that I live such an aggressive country. I have friends in the military and I think they would be better off serving within our borders during times of disaster and in places of dire poverty and insecurity at home.) However psy-ops has always opted for a more heavy-handed approach - officially-sanctioned fliers and leaflets, radio programs, and relief aid - all of which are probably effective if used wisely. But in order to temper that approach with something a little more genuine, a little human-to-human blogging would probably be more effective, don't you think? Isn't it great that we live in a country where soldiers can blog? Isn't that the essential message that undermines the insurgency? Again, we have no business being there in the first place, so a million blogs won't undo the damage we've done to our credibility. But blogging could go a long way to collectively coming to peace with what's done. It even begs the questions if our exit strategy in some way needs to include more front-line transparency in the form of blogging. That's panacea-thinking, I know, but we need manna for the soul.
Anyway, that's not why I'm inspired to write about Milblogging today. What inspired me was that as a long-time blogger - and as someone who's tried to build a better blogging service, even - is that I have a natural tendency to think that Blogging is a panacea, which of course it is not. Nevertheless, in a war where opinion matters more than fact - indeed, one could argue that the war began under these circumstances even in the White house - it seems obvious to me that blogging itself is essential to the war effort no matter which side your allegiances fall. For the anti-war side: blogging speaks truth to power. For the pro-war side: blogging allows soldiers voices to be heard. For the government: blogging could be used as a PR tool to help create many-to-many communication channel (although sadly, it does not) not unlike a town meeting environment where citizens have easy and direct access to decision-makers and their staffs. Lastly, for the insurgents: where currently they use bombs to get their messages out, they could much more effectively use words. The pen is mightier than the sword, after all.
What occurred to me today as I was driving, was another way that blogging could help: counter-insurgency. Psy-ops has long been involved in winning the hearts and minds of countries we've invaded. (BTW, in case you're wondering what side I'm on - as if it matters - it really pains me to acknowledge that I live such an aggressive country. I have friends in the military and I think they would be better off serving within our borders during times of disaster and in places of dire poverty and insecurity at home.) However psy-ops has always opted for a more heavy-handed approach - officially-sanctioned fliers and leaflets, radio programs, and relief aid - all of which are probably effective if used wisely. But in order to temper that approach with something a little more genuine, a little human-to-human blogging would probably be more effective, don't you think? Isn't it great that we live in a country where soldiers can blog? Isn't that the essential message that undermines the insurgency? Again, we have no business being there in the first place, so a million blogs won't undo the damage we've done to our credibility. But blogging could go a long way to collectively coming to peace with what's done. It even begs the questions if our exit strategy in some way needs to include more front-line transparency in the form of blogging. That's panacea-thinking, I know, but we need manna for the soul.
