Pentagon Censors Milbloggers, Media and Self but Still Loses to Media, Blogger

“There are plenty of good reasons for the military to be concerned about inadvertent release of "intel". But the fact is the US military as a whole is as guilty of providing such "intel" to a far greater degree than any single military blogger, or indeed of all of them.”

I’m quoting myself here from a post entitled Entire Army Shoots Self In Foot , in which I took the DoD’s arguments and suppositions (as reported in NewYork Newsday ) behind their ‘crackdown’ on "security-risk” milblogs (and their authors) to task.

That was written back in January 2006. Now in August 2007 comes this from Wired.com

"For years, the military has been warning that soldiers' blogs could pose a security threat by leaking sensitive wartime information. But a series of online audits, conducted by the Army, suggests that official Defense Department websites post material far more potentially harmful than anything found on a individual's blog.

The audits, performed by the Army Web Risk Assesment Cell (AWRAC) between January 2006 and January 2007, found at least 1,813 violations of operational security policy on 878 official military websites. In contrast, the 10-man, Manassas, Virginia, unit discovered 28 breaches, at most, on 594 individual blogs during the same period.

It took a FOIA request to get this information, which is also mighty interesting because I concluded my January 2006 post with this:

“It's hard to draw any other conclusion than that the gagging of milblogs is nothing more than an exercise in political propaganda which does nothing to serve the soldier, the mission or the nation. The Pentagon itself has done far more to provide the "enemy" with the Intel it seeks, and to undermine morale in theater and at home though its incapacity to provide the troops with supplies and listen to their real-time field experience, than any milblog ever has.”

Note that the DoD was all too willing to publicly argue its case at the outset, and the fact that it took a FOIA request to publicly reveal the subsequent research that refutes their suppositions.

Now as gratified as I am at this validation of my arguments and conclusions, this doesn’t suddenly make me an expert, nor provide me with another opportunity to criticize the traditional media (which I and many other have often done and still do).

What it does show, is that an ordinary citizen with no “officially recognized” expertise and limited resources can, with a little thought thrown-in, determine actual reality on their own rather than relying solely on being spoon-fed the versions of self-perpetuating “experts” and “authorities”.

Score another one for the hate-filled, loony, lefty hippie bloggers!

(P.S. On the subject of US military meddling in the truth, here’s an old satirical post about Rumsfeld that might amuse; The Iraqi Free Press (a $100-million value!),
with the bonus of some actual Arabic phrases you can learn!

Prince Harry

It seems Prince Harry’s planned deployment to Iraq is being “reviewed”.

The recent US “surge” has had no more effect than to redistribute the violence and possibly made the situation more volatile; the British who have served in the southern region around Basra have had 11 killed so far this month.

Sir John Nott, Conservative defence secretary during the Falklands War, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One that he was opposed to [The prince’s deployment ]
"The danger is that Prince Harry will be hazarding the lives of other soldiers and young officers and I think that's not right."

Sir John said the issue of Harry's deployment was different from his uncle's [Prince Andrew] because the war in Iraq was "much more fraught".
"There was complete public support for the Falklands campaign, there certainly isn't for Iraq," he said.
"It raises political and constitutional issues. The situation in Iraq is clearly extremely difficult, particularly with armoured cars."

Despite all its faults, the majority of the British public still holds the monarchy very dear—it is part of British identity, for better or worse.

As a political issue I’d estimate the British would be extremely pissed-off if Harry, who has consistently said he wants to serve with his fellow soldiers in Iraq, wasn’t allowed to go.
They majority is against the war but they can still support an individual’s service, just as so many do here in the US.

Indeed the Royal family is not supposed to be a political institution itself, that’s one major reason why it is maintained. Another major reason is that the Monarchy is supposed to serve the nation---and serving in the Army is a way for Harry to do that, and as a good soldier he wants to serve with his troops and his mates.

His status as a prince is frankly not as significant to the fabric of British society as Sir John Nott would like to think—he’s not the direct heir to the throne (he’s third in line). If he were killed or injured he would suffer no more than others who have served, and whose deployments were never tempered by political concerns for their well-being.

It would be altogether better if the British would end their participation in this illegal occupation and save Harry and everyone else from maintaining it.

But if Harry is a competent soldier then external politics should not prevent him from doing his duty, otherwise what’s the bloody point of Prince Harry’s military service in the first place?