Admiral, Do You Tweet Sir?

The Small Wars Journal is highlighting an article in the Christian Science Monitor discussing new media and the military. It is a really good article, but there is an idea in this story that jumped off the page for me.

But it’s more than just a barrage of his thoughts in daily bytes and pieces. Some senior officers like Allen want to see the military harness social media like blogs and Facebook to help shape the public debate about national security policy by providing more information to those with a vested interest in a given topic.

In this way, the military could take a page from Wikipedia, the user-based, online encyclopedia that has redefined the way the public thinks about reference sources. Wikipedia allows anyone to contribute or modify entries on any of its millions of subjects, and those lacking factual grounding are flagged by other users.

In no small part due to a comment in the article by John Nagl, the Small Wars Journal gets an honorable mention in this article as an example where new media is having influence in the national security debate. While it is possible other areas of new media are having a similar effect, I would argue the Small Wars Journal is the exception, not the rule, and is the only place this is happening. What makes the Small Wars Journal unique?

Because it is where active and retired members of the military want to debate their ideas, want their opinions in the open source on any given topic, and Dave has tapped into a community that has become comfortable with their ideas debated in an open forum. The Small Wars Journal has the capacity to "help shape the public debate about national security policy" primarily because those involved in the debate have found value participating in the public debate.

As I have noted in the past, each military service has taken a unique approach to new media. The article highlights unique examples where our military leadership has found utility within new media to introduce and discuss their message. I follow all of these discussions, and they have all met the same challenge: the discussion is still one way and while there is a network, it is yet to become a truly interactive network of idea sharing, or just as relevant, idea shaping.

That is why I don't believe any of the services have a real new media strategy, and I include the Coast Guard who is the most proactive in their new media engagement. While I would love to be proven incorrect, I have not seen evidence that the military services believe public discussion can "help shape the public debate about national security policy" with new media. That is too bad, because if true the services fail to realize it already is by reaching Congress, the research communities, and the industry.

What is the role of new media in the national security debate? I have asked this question on the blog since I began blogging, and have seen some brilliant answers in my email and in the comments. This CSM article added another slide to a brief I am building that answers this question. I think it is a really good brief, but the question I still haven't answered is whether the better audience for the brief is the military services, or the think tanks. That John Nagl hasn't suggested CNAS buy the Small Wars Journal from Dave suggests to me that the think tanks somehow believe the Web 1.0 model they all currently use will somehow stay relevant in the rapidly evolving information age.

Update: Why it matters.