Blogging and Professionalism

Lately I've been thinking about the relationship between military professionalism and blogging. I started this blog because I like writing and because I firmly believe that the collective intelligence of the US military will rise as more and more members become engaged in the kind of robust, thoughtful conversation about war and peace that the Internet makes possible. I've learned a tremendous amount from other blogs, mailing lists, and online discussions; maybe I can give something back. I don't consider myself an expert on much of anything, but maybe I can get readers thinking about subjects and ideas that are important to me, and allow others to critique my own thinking. That's how the blogosphere works.

But a lot of officers don't agree and worry that this bottom-up empowerment is eroding standards of military professionalism. The idea a mid-level captain would publicly share his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, challenge the Air Force's Internet usage policies, and critique Air Force PME would probably horrify the generation of officers who believed they shouldn't even vote. I've read heated critiques of junior officers who stray too far outside their lane or are convinced of their own indispensability to the world. Others wonder if the military really ought to be conducting its internal debates in plain view; Bacevich touches on this issue in his famous The Petraeus Doctrine article. I've also thought a lot about what blogging can lead to years down the road. What happens when a generation of bloggers and Facebook users become general officers and civilian political leaders? What will happen when journalists troll through 20 years of the uninhibited, unedited online writing that is so common in my generation? These are serious questions.

I am sensitive to these dangers and have tried hard to maintain my professionalism as an officer, even while pursuing a high degree of openness. I am very selective about what I write online. I try to avoid discussing specific leaders and personalities, and don't usually weigh in on controversial political issues where I believe officership demands neutrality. With that said, I still believe the military will be a stronger, more creative, and more adaptive organization if it encourages a controlled level of openness and even dissent among its officer corps. Blogging is one means to accomplish that. This is a difficult tension, and I'm not sure anyone has really found the answer yet.

I also believe there is no going back. Technology and social forces have changed things forever. Corporations, universities, churches, nonprofits, and even the government have all had to reorganize to a culture that has become more networked than ever before. Organizations that adapt are succeeding; those that don't are failing. The military has learned (far too slowly) that it can't stop forces like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. It is now wrestling with hard questions about how to work with them. Openness, interconnectedness, and bottom-up empowerment are simply characteristics of the new world we live in.

This raises a question I don't know how to answer: has the definition of "military professionalism" actually changed? Does it need to change?