Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Mission.....Iraqi Soldier Blogs

(cue music from mission impossible please)

After finding out that Leonard Clark had been warned for what he was posting on his blog from Iraq I became curious. So I started reading other military blogs out there. I've read about 75 of them tonight, the majority of them were pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war category type. First for those of you not aware, like China has demanded all of it's citizens register their blogs, the US Military beat them to that requirement:

By Joseph R. Chenelly
Times staff writer

Commanders want to know who is blogging from Iraq, and a new rule says soldiers have to ‘fess up.

A policy for all service members under command of Multi-National Corps-Iraq states that anyone who owns, maintains or posts to a Web site or Web log must formally notify his chain of command.

All service members who fall under MNC-I must register their sites or blogs or risk facing punitive action, under the policy signed in April by Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, MNC-I commander.

Understandably some soliders have quit blogging because they don't feel they should have to state their names and they don't want to be reviewed by a commanding officer. They don't have to have each post approved, but commanders are supposed to regularly review their writing. Also the concern has been voiced that this makes it in the opinion of the CO as to what is acceptable and what is not. Ironic that those who are protecting the concept of our freedom, one of which is free speech don't have that right. Of course I understand the need for rules and the fact that especially classified/sensitive information should not be blogged about, but this has the potential of going to far. Yes, I do know there was a time in past wars where letters were looked at prior to mailing, so we are not at that level. This rule is also better than forbidding anyone to blog from Iraq, which also could have been easily demanded.

I found a webring of military blogs, I haven't perused the whole selection of the 255 yet and there are 41 just waiting to be approved, so there could be some of them that are not like what I have read so far however so far? I have learned several things. One of which some of these guys? Scare me. Another? Some of them must have a contest to see how many times they can write certain swear words in one paragraph.

I am noting some of those that appear to be the best ones in my opinion and yes some of them will be pro-the Iraqi war, by the same token some of the anti-Iraq war probably won't make the list, especially the ones that contain more swear words than actual content. When I complete this mission? I'll report.

There is one I found that I'd like to point out:

http://tcoverride.blogspot.com/

It is the blog of an officer who was wounded in Iraq by an IED, his wife has been posting while he is at Walter Reed. No matter how you feel about the war, her love and dedication to her husband and what her family is going thru right now is important to point out. Even with everything she is dealing with she is not only glad he is alive but was not injured as severly as others have been. It's a blog that might make you cry if you are emotional like I am.

7 comments:

Cyberseaer said...

I agree with your last comment on the previous post on this subject, that it sucks that only soldiers blogging about the good points of the Iraq War are allowed to post. I have no doubt that things are bad over there and it is a shame that the soldiers who want to speak out about it are not allowed to.

But you cannot blame the commanders who are ordered to monitor the blogs and the websites and emails. They have orders from above and the top of that command is from Mr. Bush. This is his war and he does not want the soldiers to vent their fears, fustrations, and negative opinoins to change public support of his war.

A part of me understands the ban and a smaller part favors it and I will tell you why. Like the Persian Gulf War, my fear is that this Iraq War may become another Vietnam with the American public damnning the soldiers who were ordered to fight. I do not want to see the brave men and women who serve in this war to be spit on and cursed at just because they did their job. I understand that this was was for GWB to say that he did what daddy couldn't; take Saddam down. But I do not what the people who were ordered there to have to fight a war of words and have to defend themselves everyday to the American public.

People want to curse Bush and his adminstration and call him Hitler, Nazi, Satan, that fine. Bush gets what he has put into place. But the Soldiers shouldn't be penialized for that. They served they country by going where the were ordered to go. That is a job of a soldier. Follow orders and execute them.

Freedom of speech is wonderful and it is horrible that the soldiers defending it and trying to put democracy in place are not allowed say what they want if it goes against the "postivness" of the war. But, there is little we can do since the top of the military chain doesn't want bad PR. I admire the soldiers who send out their message, even though they most likely will have to pay a price for their opinions and disobeying orders. I'm just putting a realiltic face on a bad issue.

Unknown said...

I don't think the commanders are to blame, however I do believe this does make what is acceptable very subjective as it would depend on each CO's determination. I also feel CO's have better things to do with their time than monitor soldier blogs.

I realize this is part of the larger propoganda machine and the only reason it is an issue is the internet is a new tool that was not an issue in previous wars. Before one letter home complaining might get published in a local newspaper, now it is accessible to thousands instantly. Should there be some controls and some rules? Of course.

That said to encourage and support those who are promoting the "right" message and penalizing those who do not isn't something I support. Divulging information that is against regs or in some other way breaking SOP is different than stating you don't support the reasons for being in Iraq or making some other valid personal statement.

Scott G said...

It is not so much that people saying the positive are the only ones allowed for political reasons, but it is part of stupid military tradition. Don't criticize the President, your command, or the branch. I once angered a sergeant major by saying that we spent too much time looking good fighting and not enough training to fight well. He threatened to look into punishment for insubordination or something. He never pursued it, but him and I never got along after that.

Unknown said...

Valid point me4, obey do not question is a military tradition. While I understand that I think the fact that these soldiers who are blogging on their own time sharing their thoughts both for and against gives us at times information or an insight it's hard to get here in Ohio, or anywhere stateside for that matter.

Scott G said...

I think they need to be heard too, but they need to be heard by the people who run the military. I have said on my blog many times that Army leadership as a whole is horrible and they focus on the wrong things. I say it because I saw it and think these guys should be free to speak out also. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, and Frist don't know how it is. Neither does most of Fox News, but they for some reason get to tell us about the military

Unknown said...

Which is why I value the input of those of you have been there. It's easy for me to have my opinion on it based on what I read and what I know from personal relationships but it's not the same as someone who as actually walked in these guys shoes.

While I have family that has served I understand I will never be able to fully grasp what they have seen or experienced.

Anonymous said...

That's a great story. Waiting for more. »