Soldiers Face Punishment Over Blogs

That's the headline this morning.

Funny timing, obviously, but then, this war has been about abusing the troops from the git-go.

You might remember that Bush, Cheney et al swore up and down how much they loved the troops, and got a big vote out of them, and have, ever since, screwed them in every possible way.

Here's what REUTERS says:

... Soldiers in war zones are already subject to restrictions on blogging and public posts. But the Army's new regulation could affect service members who have returned from war zones and started blogs about their combat experiences.

Under a new directive issued in April, soldiers must consult with their immediate supervisor and an officer responsible for what's known within the military as operational security, or OPSEC, for a review of planned publications.

Reviews will be needed for Web site postings, blog postings, discussions on Internet information forums and discussions on Internet message boards, according to the Army directive.

E-mail that will be published in a public forum is also subject to review under the regulation....

But here is what the Associated Press says, in the Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle, etc. etc. etc.

The tag reads:

By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer

(Is it just me, or is there something WEIRD about AP writers' names? They all sound fake, and way too often, they sound like porn pseudonyms. "Lolita"? Who the heck names their daughter Lolita? These phony-sounding names seem to be showing up with disquieting frequency.)

Army Stresses Consequences of Soldiers' Loose Lips on the Internet
(NOTE: not the best headline the WAPO ever ran, but onward. HW)

... Some Web logs, also called blogs, raised alarms this week, suggesting the Army was cracking down anew on soldiers who have blogs. But the bulk of the regulations released April 19 mirror rules published in 2005 that required soldiers to consult with commanders before "publishing or posting information" in a public forum.

The regulation is not as explicit as the one issued by commanders in Iraq two years ago that requires soldiers in war zones to register their blogs with the military.

See? Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.

After reading the AP story, you'd wonder why they even bothered writing it, if, in fact, there was no actual news in the story, as REPORTED BY the news story.

As we all know, the top secret operational battle plans of our troops in Iraq are a matter of extreme national security, and, loose lips sink ships of the desert. (Huh? Really?)

On second thought, you don't suppose that this censorious reminder (the first to be explicitly extended to troops back home) might just be about keeping the troops from talking about their serial abuse at the hands of this administration, about the futility of this quagmire in the sand, and about the fact that the troops (in direct contradiction to John McCain's outrageously B.S. statement to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show last week) DON'T believe in "the mission" anymore.

With apologies to Neil Young:

Hey there, quagmire in the sand
is this conflict at your command?

I mean, if THAT got out, the last shreds of rationalization about this lunatic war and its grisly odometer of death and maiming might be swept away by the truth told by military bloggers.

And we certainly can't be having THAT, can we?

Courage.