Social Media in Defence
Social media is a phenomenon. Social networks have made it easy to keep up with friends, organise your life, publicly express thoughts, share interests, provide news snippets and much, much more. It is growing and developing continuously and presents opportunities – and difficulties – to every outward-facing organisation, even the most traditional.
Few organisations are more traditional than those in defence but even the military are making strides to exploit the power of communication networks embraced by millions around the globe.
The childhood of social networks
The development of citizen journalism (and terrorist web propaganda) has been astonishingly rapid. The first public blog site was started only in 1999. The first social network site (Friendster – now primarily a games site) was launched in 2002. Facebook, which now has more than 750 million members, began in 2004 (the year the phrase social media was first recorded), followed by YouTube in 2005 and Twitter a year later.
The response by military authorities worldwide to the explosion in social media has, until relatively recently, been hesitant. In 2009, the Pentagon temporarily banned their use by US military personnel until they could work out a strategy to deal with the open transmission of information – and their consequent inability to control that information. In part, military worries about social media having a separate and entirely different cause – the age gap.
Psychologically and in practical terms, social media changes traditional military hierarchies by flattening them. In civilian life, social media users are equal and this attitude is, substantially, carried over into users work lives. In other words, the use of social media by all ranks could, in some ways, lead to a sharing of status and power.
From disaster to triumph
That realisation is now beginning to be used to advantage. Just how far the thinking has come can be seen in the reaction to two natural disasters a few years apart.
In 2004, the Pacific Coast tsunami led to the deaths of around 250,000 people. The only organisation capable of co-ordinating a humanitarian relief effort was the US Navy. It was the one maritime body with sufficient capacity in terms of staff, ships and, crucially, communications. But there was a problem. No major charity was willing to see its neutral position undermined by coming under the command of US armed forces. Co-ordination of relief efforts was therefore less than optimal and resources in some areas were duplicated. In other areas, relief came too late.
A beta version of what is now the All Partners Access Network (APAN: community.apan.org) was set up. By chance, the US military Southern Command tested it with a demonstration based on an earthquake in Haiti. 24 hours later, the real earthquake stuck and APAN swung into action.
Organisations such as Google provided mapping to show which parts of Haiti had been struck and how badly. As aid agencies arrived at Port au Prince, they were asked to register with APAN. More than 400 did, using the system to see existing resources and which organisations were helping where. Co-ordination meant duplication of effort was avoided, more people were helped and more areas in need were identified. As a result, more lives were saved and the operation was efficient. Military and charity organisations successfully co-operated through a neutral zone where egos were left at the door.
Open but controllable
Today, army, navy, air force and marine chiefs increasingly have their own Facebook, Twitter and YouTube accounts, which are regularly updated by their staff. Many write blogs or have them ghosted. In one sense, this use of social media is easy to adopt for those who run the military across Europe and the world.
Social media is a relatively controllable environment in which to put across messages that can be honed and refined before being posted. A YouTube video of a general officer commanding’s views can be refined until the tone is exactly right. Any critical comments left on a social media site can be responded to, showing that the services take criticism on board. If they are too offensive, they can be taken down.
Creating influence
Military bodies are also using public social networks to influence enemies and to try to stop potential enemies turning against them. In war zones, the military use social media to explain policy and persuade civilians that what is being done is being done in their best interests. This is what happens in Afghanistan, for example, where mobile social networks have become commonplace.
The military are also increasingly using closed public networks, such as invitation-only community groups, to communicate with people directly affected by military operations.
Breaking down hierarchies
Social networks within military structures are also developing fast. These bring their own problems of security and the redesigning of hierarchies.
The security problem is largely dealt with both by keeping military social networks private, behind digital moats that outsiders cannot cross, and by providing role-based access to specific elements of the networks.
NATO patrols in Afghanistan, for example, use mobile devices that allow them to see records of what should be found on any patrol, down to the known residents of any dwelling, while bomb disposal experts can send messages about, and photographs of, improvised explosive devices (IEDs) via a closed social network to get advice from colleagues.
The future
The future of social networks and the military will depend on technological developments over the next few years, which are impossible to predict. Nobody foresaw the extraordinary success of Facebook or Twitter. Many believed that YouTube would be a site for film fans. Yet all social media is currently based on relatively simple concepts and programming. As these concepts are refined and their IT becomes more complicated, more possibilities will open up.
The speed with which social networks are developed within the military will depend on the speed at which non-digital natives are able to recognise that social networks bring more opportunities than problems.
Logica
Skip to content
