GMontag's Journal: Milbloggers silenced?

Not sure to me that this really counts as "censorship" at least to the extent of the examples given by Wired .

One soldier took down pictures of how well armor stood up to improvised bombs; a military spouse erased personal information from her site -- including "dates of deployment, photos of the family, the date their next child is expected, the date of the baby shower and where the family lives," said Army spokesman Gordon Van Fleet.

Let's see here . . . This guy actually thought that armor capabilities were just fine to broadcast to anybody? They weren't when I was a 'kid'. Same with effectiveness of our munitions.

They really thought that deployment dates were fine for any Joe-blow to publish rather than only being announced through official channels? When did that ignorance creep in as being okay?

As for all of that other info, it is usually bad to toss that all over the place and if the reasons are not obvious then I am not bright enough to begin explaining it here.

Perhaps if the military adopted the B. Hussein Obama method of information control the folks aw Wired would be a little happier?

Hat tip to reason online.

disclosing classified info...

[capoccia]

disclosing classified info is already illegal. these new restrictions are more about maintaining the military public relations machine. any negative information must be controlled. the military itself is under assault, and silence is the best defense.

Re:

[capoccia]

if every posting on any public forum (as in 2-1(2)g) must first be approved by the immediate supervisor and the OPSEC officer, there will be a silencing effect because of the bureaucracy. commanders could reasonably issue a blanket order prohibiting any public posting to prevent significant time being occupied with approving posts.