August 30 Time magazine published a fantastic article on their website about the use of laptops, mobile phones and social media in a warzone. I wanted to share my view on this, since this is my main research subject , and because a couple of interesting things emerge from the interviews with soldiers.
First of, the staggering increase in the availability of those devices amongst soldiers. Everyone has a laptop, an iphone or a blackberry wih them, a big change since the start of the Iraq war in 2003, when one soldier, staff sergeant Jong Fox, 32 yo, recalls that only 3 or four guys brought out laptops and the had a 10 minute phonecall home a week. That’s only eight years ago. I already know that nowadays everybody has these devices, but it sure is a steep climb, graphtechnically speaking.
Second observation: The way soldiers make their choices about what they do and what they dont share support my theory as written in my masterthesis that they think about what they share online. The are apprehensive about sharing stories about firefights and the ugly side of their job their. They know it’s on the news at home (or they think), but that kind of news keeps it more abstract for the homefront, if soldiers start sharing their own contacts with the enemy it would stress out the homefront too much, one soldier called Napoli tells the journalist.
Third observation: One soldier tells that he got really homesick from calling home every day, which made him want to call his mum even more. This triggered me!
In 2008, John Paul Eakin wrote a book about the different narratives we have in our daily lives because these narratives are based on the different identities we have: Someone is talking differently about himself at work than at home or amongst friends. this story is based on a set of norms that is commonly accepted within those groups. So, a soldier behaves a certain way and talks about himself a certain way, because he is within the military. When on a mission that identity of the soldier is something different than the identity of being a father, a son or a friend with people at home. So he talks differntly about himself as well.
What the soldier is telling in the Time article is a clear indication that the availability of social media and instant communication erodes the barriers between the battlefield and the homefront. He got homesick and kept calling his mother.Now i’m being hypothetical here; but what if the set of norms on which the soldier in afghanistan or Iraq makes his desciscions about what he shares online is infected with the norms of his narrative on the homefront? Can this change the way he decides what he can and what he can’t share online. In other words: Does social media and mobile phones take away some psychological barriers between home and the front, and can a soldier who has lots of contact with home start to make some descicions based partly on his role as a friend or a son? Ofcourse there will hardly be a 100% identitycrisis where a soldiers starts behaving like he is with his mother, but what if it is only adds one percent ‘homefrontidentity’, how does that influence his narrative ? Just a thought, but a interesting one if i may say so.
Fourth observation: Looking at the first three observations i am starting to doubt the use all those communicationpossibilities have. It is there, so people use it. But this article suggests that it can effect morale and battlefield awareness in a negative way. If someone has one foot at home all the time, how can he be one hundred percent ready when going on patrol.
Forbid it?
So, should we forbid social media, telephones and internet amongst soldiers? (bang! i said it!) Answer: NO.
I still believe, based on my research, that social media is a great tool for influencing the framing of news and the way the efforts of those soldiers are framed in the media. Surely, facebook helps adding some kind of barrier, making the contact more impersonal, but its still in realtime and very multimedia-ish. Maybe the use of social media to keep in touch with the homefront is not as great as it seems at first sight and some kind of timelag should be inserted.
But where it comes to the continious communication possibilities soldiers have with home, some restrictions can help keeping the military focused on its mission. It keeps the front and the homefront seperated. And thats not my idea alone, i quote a soldier:
For me — all this talk while I’m here — I hate it,” says Napoli about his BlackBerry. “All the talking I do while I’m here, I don’t like it. I’d rather be here the entire year and every once in a while just be like, ‘Hey, I’m O.K.’ If I didn’t have this stuff, I’d be fine with that because I like to focus on my work here and pretend like the life back home doesn’t even exist.”
The statement shows that even in this age of instant messaging and realtime information sharing, soldiers are not all happy about these technologies. The traditional letter still is the most appreciated message from home: Private first class Lopez, 20 yo, tells that the letter is so important because someone actually sat down and took the time to write it.
In short
All those communication devices break down the walls between the front and the homefront. This can cause problems in the way soldiers behave and do their work. Maybe it can also influence the way those soldiers tell about their mission since it also breaks down the mental barrier between home and battlefield.
Research should be done to see if this is the case. Maybe maintaining some kind of barrier in time and space will help morale just as well as the breaking down of barriers helps coping with the whole being away from home for a loooong time thing.
However: It should not mean that soldiers are forbidden to use social media and telephones. these technologies are not all bad for morale, so thats one reason to keep it. Second: The stories they share can counter claims by the enemy, who are very active online as well. Soldiers ability to communicatie quickly is a great asset in combatting those enemy stories. Without them, the internet will be left defended by a lone castle of public affairs officials without the proper equipment to stop the enemy attempts to conquer the hearts and minds of the local populations and attempts to spread fear at the homefront.
So let the soldier use social media for military purposes, which (should) include the battle over public opinion more freely. At the same time, think about ways that balance the freedom to communicate with home, with the possible dangers these techologies pose to morale and battlereadiness. Some kind of barrier in time and / or space should can help here.
And finally: If you want to really boost morale amongst the men and women on the front; write them a real analog letter; on paper, with a stamped envelope, in the mailbox, on a plane and deliverd by the mailman.
A great story in the Washington post today that underscores my thesis as written in publications about the way individual soldiers use social media to share their experiences online; selfconscious and conscious of their audience.
socialmediaanddmocracy.wordpress.com 