Army: Wikis Too Risky


Categorie: Extremists, Ideas, Reporters |

They might not build $150-million F-22 stealth fighters, but in other ways insurgents and terrorists are amazingly tech savvy. For one, they’re hip to using grungy, bare-bones websites to spread tactics and ideology across the planet on the cheap, transforming once-isolated local and regional conflicts into genuine threats to global stability. Author John Robb calls this “open-source warfare,” and believes it’s the most important force shaping the 21st century.

If so, we’re screwed. Seven years after the launch of Wikipedia — the user-edited online encyclopedia that brought the “open source” concept to the masses — the U.S. Army is still playing catch-up. The Army’s idea of harnessing the ‘net is to launch isolated websites, put generals in charge and lock everything behind passwords, while banning popular open-source civilian websites. Colonel James Galvin, head of the Army’s “Battle Command Knowledge System,” openly admits that when it comes to the collaborative internet, the bad guys have a “niche advantage.”

Soldierlaptop It didn’t have to be this way. Around four years ago there was a grass-roots explosion of informal web-based tools for soldiers. Four captains at West Point founded as a forum for junior officers to swap battlefield lessons. And the 1st Cavalry Division launched CAVNET to sponge up and spread patrol tactics in Iraq. Both were victims of their own successes.

Galvin’s office, located at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, was set up to institutionalize these forums and others. To the Army, that meant hiding them all behind the password-protected Army Knowledge Online web portal, and assigning trained moderators and high-ranking “sponsors” to each site. The result is forums that are less accessible, less nimble, less innovative and less effective than their counterparts in the shadowy world of terrorists and insurgents. Oh, and there still aren’t any official Army wikis.

Besides adhering to strict security standards, Galvin stresses that the Army must also balance “both hierarchy and networking.” “If you’ve got hierarchy, you’ve got direction — and if you bring in networking, you’ve got direction and collaboration.” But limiting collaboration to AKO password-holders artificially shrinks the network, and makes the whole process perhaps too insular to be truly innovative. I’m not saying that Army forums should be totally unprotected from insurgent snoopers. But they should be expanded, and loosened, to allow students, academics, journalists and, yes, even members of the general public to participate on some level. That’s risky, sure, but worth it.

Galvin advises patience. “Our leaders are getting comfortable working in that [collaborative] environment,” he says. And that means Army wikis aren’t far off. But even if they arrived tomorrow, they’d still be seven years late.


5 Responses to “Army: Wikis Too Risky”

  1. LT Nixon says:

    The US military usually takes about 10 years to cut through the bureaucracy and get with the program on new trends. Just give it a few more years =).

  2. Jesse Wilson says:

    There are signs that the government is beginning to incorporate these web 2.0 concepts into their business practice. See here:

    By the way, there’s no need for the Army or any other government organization to create their own wiki…they should use the unclassified Intellipedia version on Intelink which is open to the entire spectrum of government.

  3. Jon says:

    This is purely anecdotal, but I also noticed a significant drop in quality after big Army took over Company Command and its spin off, Platoon Leader.

    At first I thought it was just a formatting and style issue; the Army took a web design that worked and completely redesigned it for whatever purpose. This made it much harder to colloborate with others, share knowledge, and even simply navigate it.

    I quickly stopped visiting the site although did pop my head back in occasionally from time to time. Although I didn’t stay long it did appear is if the hey days of both sides had passed.

    The Army should be recognized for wanting to invest and capitalize on innovations that occurred at the junior ranks, but unfortunately they were a bit too ham-fisted when doing so.

  4. Jon says:

    One interesting tid bit: the OCS Foundation is still independent from the uniformed services and excels in performing its mission of exposing prospective applicants to the service’s various Officer Candidate Schools. Anyone visiting the Army website will see an incredibly active board with many volunteers helping prospects navigate the recruiting process and witness networking taking place as people who will attend Basic and OCS together link up online.

    All of this done outside of official Army channels. Now granted there are security concern differences; tips for working with your recruiter or making it through OCS are less helpful to our enemies than discussion on TTP’s. But someone does have to weigh the risk between operational security vs the benefits of easier collaboration, and unfortunately simply dropping the AKO portal on top of websites does not make things easier.

  5. VA Loan Desk says:

    It’s interesting to see who is incorporating the technology. For the first time in history, our President is addressing us from youtube!

Leave a Reply