"60 percent of Americans believe they do not get enough information about military matters to make educated decisions."

Seems to me that the poll could also be interpreted to mean that the public believe that the MSM has failed to report on military matters. I'm betting my interpretation is more accurate considering how often the MSM ignores military press releases until they see an advantage to themselves of reporting it.

Kalroy

Whole heartedly agree. Since Vietnam the MSM has had very little to report on the military that is possitive . I believe this is now institutionalized in the media. Thier bias to me is obvious as they seem unable to separate political agendas from the battle ongoing on the ground.

The day a military person can say to a media outlet, " I hate the military, it sucks, my leaders suck, the President is an idiot" I will believe MILBLOGS. But, as we all know, that is not allowed, certainly would be cause for reprisal and, for a military officer, it is actually ILLEGAL. Therefore, MILBLOGS can be nothing more than propaganda.

What amazes me is that most of you believe that the "truth" can be found in an instituation which is subject to Government censorship (MILBLOGS by Military people) yet do not believe that "truth" can be found in an institution which may have bias.

I understand there are "civilian" MILBLOGGERS and they are not subject to the censorship but most are military people (or at least the popular ones). Not only are the military but they openly say they are. This makes them subject to UCMJ and censorship and therefore make there positions not only biased but not believable.

Before everyone goes off that in "civilian life you are censored by your Company too" I say precisely! That is why, unless you want to be fired, you do not "blog" about your employer. Further, you are "censored" by the SEC for any insider information concerning public companies.

I'm not censored in any way, shape or form - other than that imposed by myself. I have more freedom to say what I want than any journalist working under an editor for a paycheck - and I don't pretend to be unbiased. And a small minority of military folks do feel exactly how you described above. I work with some, I know. Cruise through enough milblogs and you'll find others if you want. And if this site doesn't provide the most balanced look at the war on terror anywhere then I'd like to know who does. (NPR comes close - but I link them too.) Sorry we don't pander to the tinfoil hat wing of any group.

Nice try Kevin. All caps is always a nice touch too. Really emphasises your "edginess".

Hey, don't forget to link the Open Post - always a pleasure.

Its easy Kevin for those of us who've worn the uniform to believe the Blogs because we are intimately familiar with the environment. Bitching, and complaining are the second skill learned by anyone who's been there. The good leaders above knows how to filter the 'art and sport' of complaining from real information they need to make adjustments, they know when to talk to the troops to kill unfounded rumors, and understand, that since Von Stuben, that you have to explain to troops why they are being asked to perform.

What the critics don't seem to want to grasp, is that these are free willing adults who choose this as a calling. Its beyond their comprehension that there are humans who have this within them while at the same time rationalizing as just the butchery that our enemies, for most of our history, have brought upon others not just our fellow citizens. Are the American Armed Services perfect? No. However, anyone who has done a serious study of 4,000 years of recorded human history will have a damn hard time finding better in perspective of their times.

The Bush administration could conceivably reap the benefits of good PR from promoting military blogs, but it's a risky tactic. My brother served as a combat engineer in Iraq last year, and is going back again in May. He was certainly gung ho about the mission when he returned, but he did so not long after the elections, when he felt they had turned a corner in Iraq. I had talked to him the summer before the elections, and he was in an exceedingly grim mood then, not at all sure it was possible for them to succeed. As the war drags on and soldiers become disgruntled, using them to promote your agenda could come back to bite you in the ass.

I am and always have been against the war, seeing it as an immensely deceitful and foolhardy misadventure undertaken bunch of deluded fools. My brother was of course always for it, but he's a soldier and obviously has to believe in what he's doing or his job becomes impossible.

To set the record straight, I don't think the Pentagon should "use" milbloggers at all. Just leave them alone, or better yet encourage them to start then leave them alone. The troops are overwhelmingly "on board" and completely understand the mission - the folks in the 5-sided building have nothing to worry about on that account.

But the official response to milblogs in Iraq is in the hands of the local, lower-level commanders, and that's who I'm referencing in the comment "military leaders take note".

That's an interesting observation about your brother, Buck. Before I went to Iraq I had suspicions but no first hand data that things were much better than reported. Once I got there I found I was right. Having left I again hear nothing but gloom and doom from the media, and would perhaps start to lose confidence myself were it not for the fact I know they are either not capable or unwilling to give us the story.

Greyhawk:

I am assuming you are currently active duty? If that is true then, either you do not understand the UCMJ, you have decided to ignore it, or you are being disingenous. I, as a civilian, can operate an anti-Bush site. You, if what I said about your status is true, cannot. Plain and simple.

I do not want to argue over whether Bush is right or not, I think we know each other's position. What I am saying is that if you were against him, you could not publicly identify that legally and represent yourself as a military person. You could not publicly disparage him and you could not publicly fight against this war. Those are the facts and that is why you are censored.

I was in the Pentagon when Clinton was elected. It got to the point that the Military did "remind" everyone of the UCMJ rules and laws about the military publicly disparaging the President. Those laws are real.

Now, do I believe you are spouting propoganda? No, I think you believe this stuff, which is OK. The problem is that milblogs (I used caps because that is how you have branded it but I will stop since it seems to offend you)can, by definition, be only one sided and therefore we do not know what the "true" feeling is of the troops. Milblogs (not just the ones in your ring but I am using that term generically) have been shut down, in Iraq the content does need to be reviewed by the military and many others have had to hide their identity for fear of reprisal.

So, whether you like it or not, you are under censorship.

Well, I guess GEN Shoomaker closed that topic off with his newest report.