OPSEC, the OOBs and the Myopic Mis-Focus of Security Personnel

By DJ Elliott, IS1(SW), USN(Ret)

What is wrong with this photo’s caption? U.S. Army Soldiers move to the UH-60 Black Hawk after searching the area for items of interest during an aerial response force mission, Iraq, March 31. Soldiers are assigned to the 1st Platoon, Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 35th Infantry Regiment, Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. U.S. Air Force photo by Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway. [Link]

Most people do not realize that Chris and I were bouncing Order of Battle [OOB] data between each other for a year before the OOBs were finally published. I started my collection of data as a hobby to see just what the real status of the Iraqi Security Forces was since the published press reports were far off base and contradictory in their own stories. My principle motivations for my involvement in publishing these OOBs are somewhat contradictory. First, I wanted to get the principle operational security [OPSEC] violators to tighten their OPSEC. Second, I want to further an understanding of the development of the Iraqi Security Forces and the Baghdad Security Plan. As a retired intelligence analyst, I could not believe that the Public Affairs Officers [PAOs] and Commanders were releasing this much operational data in a time of war.

Since we started to publish the Iraqi Security Forces OOB and the Baghdad OOB, Bill has received the occasional complaint about the reports being a violation of OPSEC. The complainers continually miss the point.

The Order of Battles we have published are not OPSEC violations, they are reports of OPSEC violations. All of the data contained within the OOBs is available with a simple word search on the Internet and any intelligence operation worthy of its name already has the data in far greater detail than what we publish in these OOBs. Most of the information used to compile the OOB comes from the PAOs and senior officer briefs. By far, these are the source of the greatest OPSEC violations in this war.

Also since we started publishing these OOBs, the reported unit IDs have dropped by more than half. Some of the previous OPSEC violators have either rethought what they were doing or been “counseled”. Good. The harder it is for the OOB to be updated the better I feel.

The worst OPSEC violator in the senior staffs is the Pentagon. I get more advance notice from a Pentagon Press Brief of US movements from Kuwait into Iraq than I get from all other sources combined. The Pentagon acts as if it is not at war, and the leaks emanating from Arlington are enormous.

The following are the in-theater organizations and their level of OPSEC for Iraq from the perspective of an open-source OOB researcher/writer:

· 10. Multinational Division-North: Shoot your Air Force photographers as enemy spies. [Statement retracted. See comment posted May 9, 2007 3:26PM.] Their captions include names, platoon level unit IDs and activities, and are released within 24-48 hours of event. OPSEC is improving and is quite good in Ninawa but, Saladin/Tirkrit/Diyala is shaky.

· 9. Multinational Division-Central: Before they even stood up I knew which Brigades were officially in their command and what area they were getting. Since then the Commanding General has told the press that 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, and 3rd Combat Aviation Brigade are also joining them, I have their full OOB and the units are not even all there yet. The elements of 6th Iraqi Army Division in their area get ID’d all the time, however the security on unit IDs of 8th Iraqi Army Division is maintained.

· 8. Multinational Division-Baghdad: The OPSEC was poor in the past, but it has improved over last three months. There is no reason to advertise unit IDs below brigade. Giving a press release that says which Company is in which Combat Outpost in which District of Baghdad is doing the enemy intelligence’s job for them.

· 7. Multinational Force-West: The Marines in Anbar are so closed mouth on Iraqi Security Forces unit IDs and locations that they might not be there. They are not so closed mouth about their own and their commanders like to expound a bit too much in their end-of-tour briefs. There is no reason to provide a battalion level location and ID of every formation in your Area of responsibility. The brigade manning percentages by brigade of the Iraqi Army is also not a good thing to advertise.

· 6. Training Teams: The teams in the field are good at talking about the Iraqi Security Forces without giving specific IDs but, the Team IDs give away which Iraqi Security Forces battalion/brigade/division they are assigned. The lack of reporting of locations and DBE battalion IDs from the BTTs put them at the Korean scale of “most closed mouth”. Most of the data comes from their bosses’ briefs and not from the teams.

· 5. Multinational Division-South East: The Brits have years of experience in talking around a subject and it shows. The occasional mention of Iraqi Army battalions activity is rare and usually after that data is already in press by other sources. However, their own forces OOB and locations are completely open.

· 4. Multinational Division-Central South: The Polish lead force occasionally provides unit IDs and locations but, normally well after the fact of the operation. Even then they tend to report Iraqi Security Forces at brigade level and not disclose the specific. My biggest source for data in this AOR is US PAOs when US units are assisting or US senior officers are visiting.

· 3. Military Bloggers: Despite the worries by the hierarchy, I have seen only five valid OPSEC violations in two years from Military Bloggers concerning ISF/Coalition forces (only 1 in the last year). MilBloggers tend to lose unit IDs and details in their writings in a way that PAOs should study and learn from.

· 2. Special Operations Forces: We have SOF? All joking aside their security is good and the Iraqi Security Forces is following their lead, except they do acknowledge that I SOF conducts operations now.

· 1. Multinational Division-North East/Zaytun Division (Republic of Korea Army): The best in-theater OPSEC. Period. The only thing I see from their AOR is what new project or jobs training is ongoing. Unit identification of coalition/Iraqi Security Forces below Division does not get released by the Koreans. I get my data on Iraqi Security Forces in that area from US PAO releases and briefs.

Look at that list again. Despite the misfocus of the OPSEC Czars in the Army [Army OPSEC Reg], the Milblogs are comparable to SOF in the quality of their OPSEC. The troops and their families are not the problem. That is probably because they are the ones most personally affected by the results of a violation. The senior officers in their briefs and PAOs in their press releases are the ones that tend to brag on their unit(s). They provide a level of detail that is unnecessary and only useful to an intel collector. I know that they are proud of their troops and want to get their story out but, think about their lives before you speak. The following are the major sources of OOB data:

· Photo Captions: There is no real reason for identifying a military unit below Brigade level in photo captions (I see Company and Platoon IDs all the time). If you wish to provide that level of unit ID, those photos of operations should have a one week delay so as not to tell the enemy where and what is next.

· Press Releases: The job of a PAO is to advertise their command. The trick is to do so without providing the enemy useful or current data. The Brigade areas of operation are already common knowledge so, use the words: “Elements of ___ Brigade conducted ____” in near real-time press releases. Giving out Platoon/Company/Battalion IDs is only useful to an intelligence collector. Most of the major media do not know the meaning of those subordinate unit IDs anyway and will drop them in editing rather than admit their ignorance. However, your press release, with all of that detail, will still show up in a simple search of the Internet long afterwards for any intel collector to exploit. One more piece of the enemy’s OPINTEL puzzle.

· Commander’s Briefs and Pentagon Briefs: Good commanders are proud of their troops, they want to get their story out, they want to brag on them. I know you want to praise your troops but, the bragging of what your Battalions are are doing (and where) to the press also tells the enemy. The press almost never uses that level of detail and those transcripts/video are available for review by anyone with an Internet connection. Keep your briefs at Brigade level IDs and do not specify locations. If you wish to give that level of detail, wait at least one week after completion of the operation. Never give future/current plans, unit assignments or areas of focus out unless you are performing OPDEC.

· Unclassified Reports to Congress. Why are an allied country’s security forces detailed to the extent of the planned locations of the new forming SOF Companies? Our own force appraisals at this level are SECRET/TOP SECRET in peacetime and we are releasing our appraisal of an allied country’s security forces capabilities and plans to the world in wartime. Fortunately, the reports from State are so inaccurate as to be OPDEC [operational deception].

The PAOs job is to advertise their unit and a good commander will want to give recognition to his troops. They both need to temper the level of detail or their unit/troops will suffer the consequences. The troops understand that well and have consistently been more cautious than their commanders in their statements and blogs. It is up to the senior officers and PAO bureaucracy to remind themselves that this is not peacetime and to punish their own violators. If the real leaks are not plugged, we will have no real OPSEC and the enemy will continue to reap the intel advantage.

(DJ Elliott is a retired US Navy Intelligence Specialist with 22 years of service and the primary author of the Iraqi Security Forces Order of Battle and co-author of the the Baghdad Security Operation Order of Battle .)

Are you a dedicated reader of FDD's Long War Journal? Has our research benefitted you or your team over the years? Support our independent reporting and analysis today by considering a one-time or monthly donation. Thanks for reading! You can make a tax-deductible donation here.



  • To paraphrase the godfather, (R. Regan)
    “Big “A” Army isn’t the solution to the problem, Big “A” Army is the problem…
    Looks like we should bring the PAO, et al. up on charges of violating their own regulations re; opsec. Just to make a point, not to go through with a career ending and publicly humiliating trial.
    Not that sunlight is such a bad disinfectant, however.

  • Dadmanly says:

    Amazing, excellent work DJ!
    I’m with Chuck, who says he is properly “credentialed” as an Army journalist based on his reading of the US Constitution. Ironic that in the end, it’s higher level commands and the PAO who are the ones who need to “button up” on OPSEC, not MILBLOGGERS.

  • Great post and insight that is helpful to all.
    I’ve been tackling the milblogger issue on my site.
    My point is not to champion unfettered blogging from the troops, but that the information they send back often counters the doom and gloom of the media folks reporting from a Green Zone Hotel, while being careful not to divulge too much.
    I’m going to link to this post.
    Thanks for the great info.

  • David M says:

    Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – OPSEC and the Violators
    To think that our enemies aren’t reading our stuff is assinine, case in point: if AlQaida’s paying close enough attention to Harry Reid’s declarations of defeat to cite them in their communiques, they’re paying close enough attention to know what units are in theatre simply by reading the CentCom and Pentagon webpages let alone the NYT and press releases.

  • @thepointyend says:

    DJ – Great analysis on the current state of OPSEC issues in theater.

    Big Army efforts on OPSEC over the last two years have focused primarily on moving more and more info, especially tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) behind protected .mil domains, and on figuring out how to deal with the latest info tech. A couple of years a go, and to a limited degree today, you could find all sorts of info on how a unit would space itself out to secure and IED site, etc. So we’re doing a better job at catching the big stuff, but as noted, all those seemingly innocuous pieces of info are still being slung about quite liberally by those in the building and elsewhere.

    I too have only seen a couple of eyebrow raisers when combing through the milblogs, although most of my reading is done on the bigger blogs. Glad to see that as a community, the risk is perhaps lower than the new reg might lead one to believe.
    The measures that have been instituted to address TTP OPSEC – improving infrastructure (moving more and more sensitive info behind .mil domains), enhancing procedures (such as developing and publishing essential elements of friendly info (EEFI), what needs to be protected), education (ensuring people know the what and why of the EEFI), and assessment (checking and rechecking for compliance from the ‘outside’) – seem like appropriate steps for OPSEC overall. It is a shame that this isn’t the approach applied in the new OPSEC manual. Instead, we’re going to jam all four parts of the effort on to a handful, and expect them to screen info before it goes out.

  • Patrick Coyle says:

    My buddy and I did the same OOB thing with the USAEUR order of battle using the Stars and Stripes as our source when I was stationed in Berlin in the late 70s. The S-2 came into our room one drunken Friday afternoon to ask us to turn our stereo down. He saw our OOB map on the wall and freaked out. Fortunately, our OOB book had all of our souces.

  • Counter-propaganda by non-PSYOP soldier bloggers on their own time, telling it like it is, unfiltered, uncensored and unapproved, has a credibility with the American people that no official government product ever will, and, while exercising their First Amendment rights as citizens, the domestic target audience is not off-limits to them. Let milbloggers police themselves and keep officialdom out of it.
    Fighting the War of Ideas Lie a Real War

  • LIKE a Real War. The k didn’t make it last time.
    Army IO IS PSYOP

  • bullnav says:

    I am curious as to where you would put the Submarine Force on your ranking of OPSEC? Or the Navy’s CSGs/ESGs.

  • Doug says:

    You guys are over reacting. This is dumb, it is not like we are invading a country. We need positive press now more than ever. I think the PAO’s need to release more of whats going on. Who cares what unit and whose in what area? I mean it isn’t like the insurgents give a dam about who they are going to kill. They are trying to kill everyone! When I was over there they started to throw fits about pictures of bombs. OK lemmie get this straight what are we protecting here, the enemy already knows how to make bombs. Not to mention anywhere on the net you can find books about it. I think everyone needs to chill out.

  • Beth says:

    Doug, it’s a shame you didn’t get better OPSEC training. You may not understand it, but I assure you, the enemy does. And if it truly doesn’t matter who they kill, then why would they even bother going for Americans at all? They could just take out their next-door neighbors!
    I think the PAO’s need to release more of whats going on.
    There’s nothing wrong with, and nobody’s objecting to, PAOs doing their jobs and getting information out to the public. It’s a matter of DETAIL. Does it really matter to Joe Schmoe sitting on the couch watching the teevee or reading the paper what SGT Somebody’s name and unit location are? Hell no. Again, see the milblog comparison, specifically this:
    MilBloggers tend to lose unit IDs and details in their writings in a way that PAOs should study and learn from.
    The milblogs are conveying a more positive (not to mention interesting) message WITHOUT giving details. Public Affairs should do the same.
    The article certainly isn’t “dumb,” anyway. Maybe you missed it, but the Army did float that idea of stopping blogging by soldiers BECAUSE of OPSEC. Obviously, General Casey was barking up the wrong tree.

  • DJ Elliott says:

    Doug meet Beth
    Thank you.
    You posted a far more polite version of a response than this retired squid was restraining himself from doing.
    Abiding by comment’s policy can be difficult when dealing with someone who didn’t get enough wall-to-wall counciling…
    And you are right on the money as to the intent of this article.
    Look up the OOB on left sidebar. That is provided in less detail than is available in press releases (etc) due to intentional sanitization in editing prior to publishing…

  • DJ Elliott says:

    Bubbleheads are good at disappearing except when the bosses want to advertise that a Tomahawk shooter (or 2, etc) is in the neighborhood and pull them into a port. I would prefer they use CG/DDG for that role as the sub’s principle defense is stealth.
    The big-decks can be located to within 200nm on most days. But, when they are serious, they can turn off the comms pipe and move.
    The big problem is that the five-sided rubber-room likes to advertise the big-sticks as a deterent…

  • Bill Smith says:

    Another reason to lose the detailed unit IDs is that makes for absolutely DEADLY reading. They are verbal speed bumps from hell. They are just like those idiotic blurbs on the back of DVDs which name every movie the actors have appeared in (in parentheses) in the last decade.
    Note to PAOs, and Hollywood publicists: WE DON’T CARE! Now QUIT IT!

  • madconductor says:

    Avery fine post DJ. I’m certainly glad you and Bill do this. Your exposure of OPSEC frailties was actually acknowledged in several blog posts I read about a month ago whining that “Roggio is giving away OPSEC info”. Glad to see you you set the record straight. My son is there. He tells me far less than I can find and won’t even suggest details. When I tell him what I’ve read sometimes, he’s shocked – “How did you hear that?!”
    I hope your post helps the PAO’s and Pentagon re-evaluate. Punishing the milblogs is kinda like trying to cover your ass by blaming someone else. And the Army is the worst offender.

  • DJ Elliott says:

    The following e-mail exchange is forwarded for ALCON. E-mail addresses omited for privacy.
    Note: E-mail addresses of MSgts’ were official military accounts.
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    I am an Air Force Combat Cameraman. Mr. Elliots remark in your OOB was stupid and misplaced. Our photos and video are cleared by Public Affairs and Information Operations before they are released. We do not have authorization to release anything. This remark can cause my people serious problems on future deployments. You should get all the facts before you print idiotic statements. My troops have been shot and blown up on the front lines along side other Soldiers and Marines. They deserve the utmost of respect for their service to this great country.
    Remark from OOB
    (10. Multinational Division-North: Shoot your Air Force photographers as enemy spies. Their captions include names, platoon level unit IDs and activities, and are released within 24-48 hours of event. OPSEC is improving and is quite good in Ninawa but, Saladin/Tirkrit/Diyala is shaky.)
    Chris Nolan, MSgt, USAF
    Aerial Combat Videographer
    C Element NCOIC
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    MSgt Nolan,
    What purpose does it serve to provide Platoon level unit IDs, Location, Activity and release it less than 48 hours later? While the Ops are still ongoing? Other than providing intelligence to the enemy?
    I see that on USAF Photo captions all the time in MND-N. I do not normally see lower than Bn IDs in USA/USMC captioning or in captioning outside of MND-N. The practice of releasing that level of detail and that soon is localized and service specific. Not a general policy for PAOs in Iraq.
    There is a serious policy review that needs to occur in OPSEC practices by officialdom and USAF in MND-N are the sloppest in OPSEC in the theater.
    A Milblogger would be facing charges for what they are regularly publishing. And rightfully so.
    I spent 22 years in Naval Intelligence. Quite a bit in HUMINT. I would have loved having an enemy/potential enemy that made my job so easy to arrange for someone to kill them.
    Bouncing the fault to the reviewer just makes the review system accessories after the fact. The photographer put that level of detail in to begin with. Garbage In-Garbage Out.
    That they might be killed because of their own mistakes does not excuse them or those that should have trained them right. That would be you, among others, MASTER SERGANT.
    I notice you did not chose to publish this in the comments. Could it be that you recognize your own culpability? Policy of this Blog is to ask before publishing an e-mail. Are you willing to state this publicly? To have this e-mail quoted verbatim in entirety with your e-mail address removed?
    (omited intentionally)
    Dorlon Jay Elliott, IS1 (SW), USN (Ret)
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    Mr. Elliot,
    I agree with you that this information shouldn’t be released. The media
    could be the largest cause of our people being killed. My problem with
    what you wrote was you put the fault on the wrong people. Public
    Affairs and Information operations are the people who release the
    photo’s and information. Our main purpose of documenting the war is to
    provide imagery to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We do not shoot for the
    public media, although the footage does get released. For historical
    purposes we need who, what, when, where, and why. With out this
    information the photos are useless.
    I didn’t send this through the public forum because I haven’t cleared
    this through the Commander. This is my opinion.
    If I get this cleared I will let you put it in the forum.
    MSgt Nolan
    ———- Forwarded message ———-
    MSgt Nolan
    I may have got the wrong target but, someone in that chain needs some serious wall-to-wall counciling.
    The name and service on the photo is the photographers. Not the nameless id10t that is releasing this. Maybe the name of releaser should become manditory?
    As I pointed out, this level of detail is only coming out of USAF in MND-N, That should narrow the target list. If you could tell me which office does the release, I will adjust fire accordingly…
    Note: I understand the Historical needs, my BA is in History. It just needs a tactical time delay or initial release with less detail.
    DJ Elliott
    —– Original Message —–
    Mr. Elliot,
    I was in Iraq last summer for the 4th time. I worked with teams from
    Army, Navy and Air Force. All the photos go through a single imagery
    management center. You will find the same photographers from each branch
    within each section of Iraq releasing the same kind of photos.
    Information Operations policy is the photos are For Official Use Only or
    Secret until the mission or operation is complete.
    I think we are on the same page about stuff being released to soon with
    to much info. I have put my 2 cents in before on this subject.
    I understand where you are coming from, I just would appreciate a
    retraction on killing Air Force Photographers and treating them as
    spies. I have over 100 people that were ready to lynch you after that
    My people work very hard in Iraq and you could have made their job
    harder because of that remark.
    Thanks for your time
    MSgt Nolan
    —–Original Message—–
    I still want to lynch the [deleted] because I have run into attitudes like
    his in the field. They are seemingly ignorant of the fact that we are
    sent there to do a very important job. WE ARE NOT THE MEDIA, our imagery
    goes directly to the Pentagon for review by the Joint Staff. Once this
    war is over and we
    Need to look back at lessons learned or just for historical purposes,
    our imagery will help tell the whole story. If I’m in theater and some
    bastard shoots at me, he better make certain I am unable to return fire,
    because I don’t care what uniform he’s wearing, I’m returning fire.
    Not so respectfully yours,
    MSgt M. E. Best
    —–Original Message—–
    Release your e-mails with full attribution or not?
    So far I have an individual that may or may not be legit, demanding a change in a published article, that is unwilling to state his case publically.
    I also notice you are avoiding naming the decision point on these releases.
    The only Names and Services I have at this point are your photographers and, as I have stated, I am not seeing this occur from USA/USMC and I am not seeing it outside of MND-N. That set of factors indicate that statement is in error…
    If I am going to change anything, I want a named source to attribute to. I am not CNN, I do not do unnamed sources. If I did, the OOB would be more accurate than it already is.
    DJ Elliott
    —– Original Message —–
    Mr. Elliot
    As I said before, I have to clear this before I can have it released to
    the public.
    The Public Affairs officers (PAO) that release the photos are part of
    the Army division the soldiers belong to. Every team will have a
    different PAO. The imagery Management team is located in Baghdad. The
    Joint Combat Camera Center web site will show photo’s from all over
    I am legit. The email address should show that. I have been a team
    lead and worked with the PAO’s and IO’s for the last 4 years. Google
    Combat Camera and you can see photos and information that I am providing
    to you.
    MSgt Nolan
    —–Original Message—–
    Heads up for future reference:
    The policy of “The Fourth Rail” on e-mails is an exception to the rule.
    Under US law the sender of an e-mail has no right to privacy if the recipient chooses to publish.
    Your e-mail and the responses would already be published at 99% of the sites.
    If you are not authorized to send the e-mail, then you had no business sending it.
    I await your command’s decision(s)…
    DJ Elliott
    —– Original Message —–
    Mr. Elliot.
    If you retract the statement against my Photographers You can publish
    our communications.
    This is all my opinion and I will always stand behind what I say.
    My Chief Master Sergeant E-9 CMSgt Hallmon would like to call you about
    the article.
    Are you willing to give a contact number? He will not pass the number
    on to anyone else.
    MSgt Nolan
    —–Original Message—–
    I do not give my phone number to members of my own family. You have my e-mail.
    Your e-mails and responses will be in comments within the hour.
    The thing you need to remember for future references is:
    1. “The Fourth Rail” is acredited press.
    2. Your e-mails are legaly considered to be the equivalent of letters to the editor and can be published.
    3. Sending an e-mail from your command account makes you a spokesman for the command. It is a violation of regs otherwise.
    4. “The Fourth Rail” policy on e-mails is not normal in the press. You would already be published by most, including an Army Colonel in Iraq at this time…
    (The hard part of this is being lumped in with the press but, that is the legal status.)
    DJ Elliott

  • madconductor says:

    “(The hard part of this is being lumped in with the press but, that is the legal status.)”
    HAha! How ironic DJ. Damn, that hurts.
    Well, just think of it as “change from within”.
    You’re doing damn good.
    Thanks. 🙂

  • Deborah Aylward says:

    Re: Doug’s post—If Troops’ ID/Unit locations/names were revealed, doesn’t it stand to reason that the bad guys would also discover this information? Wouldn’t that also be one more burden for the families of our Troops to bear? I very much thank you for your service and the many sacrifices which you must have made, Doug, but no one needs that much detail to consider themselves as having a true picture of what’s happening.

  • Michael says:

    From a civilian pov, good job. Milblogs are to important of a service. If it were not for them, we would not be getting some important feedback from the front, hope for one, reality for two, a human quality of courage for three, and finally just plain truth for four.
    Half the time I read regular media, or watch we get hyped up overreaction, or 1 minute blurbs that frankly are biased and against our military and soldiers. The military needs to understand there are two fronts in this war unfortunately and the milblogs perform a valuable service in stunting tons of propaganda by some very uninformed and panicked people.
    And your point regarding official releases is spot on. Every military site I look at is full of movements of battalion levels and sometimes as a civilian I just don’t get the release of so much movement.
    Whatever happened to keeping the enemy guessing? Much of the detail we do not need. Like a brigade of Iraqis moving to a specific spot after training, before they arrive. Why?
    It would’ve been enough to treat the story as a success of the training. Tell where they’re moving after they’re already in battle. Now the enemy knows they have a well trained brigade coming into theatre on specific dates.
    What I assumed by all of this is our military wants to project that force on purpose to scare them out ahead of time.
    Never having served, I thought sometimes, these type of movements would be great finding out after the fact, as in after they engaged the enemy.
    Thanks for all you do guys. And your correct. You publish nothing here that I have not seen online from any military site.

  • Op For says:

    On OPSEC

    …come two must-reads. The first from Phil Carter at Slate: Soldiers’ voices may also help our military machine function better, as well. To be sure, militaries require discipline, and they work most efficiently as ordered societies in which individua…

  • Michael says:

    I noticed MNF has stopped all release of extraneous data. Good job. No reason, you don’t quote the soldiers, that’s fine, give them credit, and even after the fact, follow up stories are great for morale I am sure.
    And yes, for civilians, it makes for much easier reading. I myself however copied material and posted it in blogs, not thinking anything of it, assuming it was OK since it was public.
    All the best up and down the line. Disagreements like this happen, but God Bless all of you.

  • Michael says:

    One more quick comment. I use MNF-I daily to post successes on other blogs. I noticed since the OPSEC announcement, they not only cleared lower level information, but have grounded to a halt altogther it seems. Hops this is only coincidental and they speed back up. Getting out as much information as possible about any successful operations, city, village improvements and Iraqis good news is crucial for victory back here at home.

  • Michael, I don’t think that was the reason. MNF-I tends to telegraph being busy by NOT releasing press releases. In this case, I believe it was because the VP was coming. Last time it was Secretary Rice, I think.
    As of the moment I write this, you can still find pics on DVIDS identifying the soldier down to the company level.

  • DJ Elliott says:

    Chuck Simmins
    Still seeing plenty of very current unit IDs.
    And DVIDS was invented as a repository for the press.


Islamic state



Al shabaab

Boko Haram