Comments for The New OPSEC regulation. We're the Military and Airpower Guys of Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online + a stray we found wandering around looking lost. All original material JHD, BHD, JR, WT, and KA 2003-2007 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:04:09 Z Movable Type 4.12 en Copyright 2008 http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification The New OPSEC regulation. I'll start with my BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front): My senior PAO buddy provided for me that which is the "quotation of the rotation." The funniest quote I've seen so far is some specialist in today's Stars/Stripes who basically said, if the Army plans on enforcing this like they enforce height and weight standards, then I'm not that worried. It's problematic to discuss the regulation in detail, as the regulation itself is classified FOUO, and I hold a clearance, so I'm covered by that FOUO marking. This is true even though it's out there in the wild, since it was... http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html Fri, 04 May 2007 07:29:19 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-05-05 Owen - those comments fit the OPSEC filter if the EEFI defines morale indicators as covered OPSEC. After all, we spend a lot of effort to try to understand the morale of the enemy, no? As for the timing - no, I don't believe it's surge-timed, though I agree with you that people will think that. But, are therefore suggesting that the Army policy should be to publish no reg until the timing of it cannot be ambiguous, or publish no regulation that might insult delicate sensibilities (and here I include some bloggers who I believe are over-reacting). C'mon. This was a document that has been in staffing for a while, and now is when it came out. And it *isn't* going to affect many of the people you are trying to speak for - their message will get out, far more successfully than it did in WWII. What it will shut down are counter-vailing voices, because the disenchanted and unhappy will get their gripes out in other ways. Implementation matters. I just love your logic, sometimes Owen. On the one hand, here's the Army trying to stifle the voice of the soldier, in the same week they publish the *far* more troubling mental health survey results. Some soldiers with bad morale is chicken feed compared to what people are going to do with that report. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59695 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59695 Sat, 05 May 2007 16:27:09 -0600 Comment from OD on 2007-05-05 Does "morale is pretty low around here" breach OPSEC? Does "all the guys are p**sed at the tour extension" breach OPSEC? Are we really expected to believe the timing is pure coincidence? Surely this is a reaction to the expressions of anger at the 3-month extensions. Certainly, that's what everyone will think. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59691 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59691 Sat, 05 May 2007 13:42:39 -0600 Comment from Trias on 2007-05-04 It will be interesting to see how this pans out. There is so little broadcast positivity relating the Soldiers involvement in this war. I don't view risking snuffing one major source out as terribly wise. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59677 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59677 Fri, 04 May 2007 14:31:44 -0600 Comment from kat-missouri on 2007-05-04 “Commands have the authority to enact local regulations in addition to what AR 530-1 stipulates on this topic” (emphasis mine.) Two aspects, as someone has already noted: 1) You don't put this reg out AGAIN if it was not an issue and you do not make the blogging part a little more robust (including the family) without intending to enforce it more strictly and cause commanders to really pay attention!!! 2) That last one is the "catch all" that does, to my mind aloang with my first point, give a much bigger probability of commanders simply issueing orders that say "no blogging".]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59675 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59675 Fri, 04 May 2007 13:25:38 -0600 Comment from J.M. Heinrichs on 2007-05-04 Find the chap who invented/developed "Force Protection", and his cohort of willing collaboraters, and expunge them and their product from the military sphere. The removal of that cancer might then allow the military upper hierarchy resume developing its presumed military character and competence. Suggestion: when a general signs his annual performance evaluation, he should also attest to knowing and understanding the fate of Adm Byng. Cheers http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59674 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59674 Fri, 04 May 2007 12:47:27 -0600 Comment from David M on 2007-05-04 Web Reconnaissance for 05/04/2007 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59671 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59671 Fri, 04 May 2007 09:45:41 -0600 Comment from JimC on 2007-05-04 Well, I hate to be the one to point this out, not really, but FOUO is not a classification. FOUO is a handling instruction and almost all military publications are currently FOUO. As usual the military is trying to figure out how to control something they should have addressed years ago. [While Jim takes the chance to pay back my own pedancy, the *net effect* is the same, don't let him red herring you on that... -the Armorer] http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59670 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59670 Fri, 04 May 2007 09:15:15 -0600 Comment from Cricket on 2007-05-04 You know, I thought the same thing you did about either vetting everything or banning it. Whatever happened to straightforward common sense regarding "We are in a war. Loose lips sink ships. Be discreet and if you can't think of anything to say that WON'T help the enemy, shut up. This is being recorded for posterity." What is that going to do to trust and command climate, etc? It may not be a big deal, but disclaimers wont work anymore either. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59669 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59669 Fri, 04 May 2007 09:09:42 -0600 Comment from John of Argghhh! on 2007-05-04 With properly pompous overtones, I hope. And of course you manage to highlight the typo, too. Tough crowd 'round here. http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59667 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59667 Fri, 04 May 2007 08:52:13 -0600 Comment from Mike L on 2007-05-04 HEAR the tone of your voice in your writng.
The gun-controller's answer [is] (sic) to that question is "But it will make people feel safer. Not a great basis for policy, but a powerful incentive, nontheless, and actually a key component of British efforts at gun control. But that's a different post for a different time.
BTW - great pictures of you and SWWBO with our Rep. Cheers, ML ]]> http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59666 http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2007/05/the_new_opsec_r.html#comment-59666 Fri, 04 May 2007 08:42:18 -0600