I read a story this morning - which is currently linked through this link to a site for military blogs - in which it was mentioned that almost all the West Point undergrads asked about whether they would support soldiers blogging answered "no".

Well I agree with that small minority of brave future officers who said "yes" - in fact I say "Hell yell".

What could better define the difference between our culture and those who hate it than freedom of speech on the field? Of course reasonable restrictions should be in place. No one wants soldiers blogging while fighting any more than civilians should be blogging while driving. And those involved in specific special operations should be restricted for a time before and after that operation.

But I would think that given the responsibility to protect the important specifics of operations that might, if revealed, endanger themselves and their comrades, the vast majority of soldiers would make the right decision due to peer pressure if not personal responsibility. Hell, Alexander the Great gave political speeches before critical battles to boost morale and to determine the morale of his soldiers.

The fact that many of the Greeks probably slept with each other of necessity should only be more inspiration for our "straight" soldiers to be inspired to show equivalent commitment and responsibility toward each other. Besides, as the article mentioned, banning the internet on the field could destroy morale.

Gotta love this quote:



Yep! Now it's time for the "socialist liberal media" to start a campaign against this since this is America, after all, & not a communist country like Cuba where the govt is in complete control of what its populace can & cannot read.

This long post from one military blogger linked through a "liberal" website suggests that the Obama administration is trying to fight with its heart as well as it's head - admittedly not an easy thing to do under the gun.

But it is absolutely necessary if any progress is to be made in this war which, it should never be forgotten, is against those who really have demonstrated intent to commit terror by their actions and not just their words.

Policing the world is an inherently messy process, and should rightfully be done by internationally elected policing bodies. Until such a realistic international military force exists (for financial institutions as well as your garden variety molotov cocktail tosser) the current patchwork of alliances will prevail.

I find especially interesting the initial poster's discussion of COIN (counterinsurgency - which he unfortunately does not spell out) doctrine and another poster's response:Would it that such an intelligent discussion were taking place in the halls of Congress here in the USA concerning anything.