In a heavy-handed act of internal censorship, the Pentagon recently moved to ban 11 Web sites such as YouTube and MySpace from Department of Defense computers.
While soldier security was mentioned, the Army maintained that the amount of bandwidth being used was the main reason for the new policy ““ increased traffic to these sites that could threaten the network’s stability ““ which went into effect the first week of May.
However, in light of news-making military blogs and videos, it is apparent the decision was really made to limit soldier-made criticism of the war effort.
And while the new policy only affects Department of Defense computers (from the Pentagon to overseas), it reflects the government’s increasing willingness to eliminate voices of opposition.
Hushing internal dissent may be the first step on a path of diminishing free speech.
Like television for Vietnam, the Internet and Iraq have revolutionized war coverage.
Iraq is the first war in which soldiers have used blogs and YouTube videos to give their own often gritty perspectives.
Time magazine first explored the phenomenon known as “milblogging” in July, when movies filmed by soldiers took the Internet user into hauntingly honest soldier-to-soldier interviews.
The video blog-gone-documentary that received the most press coverage was “The War Tapes.”
Shot by National Guardsmen in 2004 and posted on YouTube, it eventually made its way to more than 100 cinemas in the U.S. and Canada. Another soldier, Colby Buzzell, saw his BlogSpot.com entries go under review and eventual removal when the Army decided his grim war stories were not appropriate for his readers. After returning home in December of 2005, Buzzell published two articles in Esquire magazine and a book about his experiences in Iraq.
In an effort to silence internal voices of dissent and criticism, the military may also be quieting its greatest supporters.
The Associated Press quoted Major Bruce Mumford ““ a brigade communications officer in Iraq ““ as maintaining, “The U.S. Army’s not going to pay the bill for you to get on MySpace and YouTube.”
But if money is really the issue at hand, why should the U.S. Army “pay the bill” for any non-military Web sites?
Do ESPN.com or eBay play a vital role in soldier duties?
As there was no mention of any other sites being restricted in the press conference, it appears as though soldiers are still free to use the Internet as a way to pass leisure time.
If the ban were intended to restrict the 11 most-visited sites, will it fail as soldiers direct their Internet time to other, equally “useless” corners of the Web?
It’s not that the Army can’t afford soldiers to use YouTube or MySpace; it’s that it doesn’t want them to access Web sites that offer them the opportunity to speak out against the war.
Ensuring resources don’t run dry is clearly an interest for the Pentagon. It almost seems rational that a military network stretched thin by sites such as YouTube and MTV should move to block users from wasting precious supplies on such sites.
That is, if the sites actually are using that much bandwidth. This is why YouTube’s response to the decision is so interesting; in an interview with the Canadian Press, the company “expressed doubt that soldiers’ use of YouTube could have any real effect on the military’s massive network.”
The decision was all the more baffling because it was publicized only days after the military launched its own YouTube channel.
By restricting the soldiers’ ability to share their experiences with the American public, the Pentagon shows an alarming capacity for silencing opposition instead of addressing it.
This change of policy demonstrates the army is privy to the domestic disappointment with the war, awareness reminiscent of the Nixon administration’s attempt to woo the public with inflated body counts.
As with Vietnam, the increase of unfiltered information from war to civilian is being hampered by divisive government actions.
It is clear the Pentagon has the right to block any sites from its internal network.
But by its lack of sound justification, it is also clear that it shouldn’t have.
E-mail Makarechi at kmakarechi@media.ucla.edu. General comments can be sent to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.