Editing Milblog (section)

===United States===
Military blogs became accepted within a few years. Whereas Secretary of Defense [[Donald Rumsfeld]] was at first believed to be skeptical of military blogs,<ref name=dao /> by 2007 president [[George W. Bush]] lauded them as "an important voice for the cause of freedom."<ref name=schwab />

Official oversight of websites maintained by military personnel deployed to the Middle East began in 2002. The oversight mission consisted of active-duty soldiers and contractors, as well as Guard and Reserve members from Maryland, Texas and Washington state. Its remit was expanded in August 2005.<ref name=felberbaum />

In Iraq, commanding officers shut down a blog that reported on the medical response to a suicide bombing that had taken place in late 2004 in Mosul. The Army Web Risk Assessment Cell was created to monitor compliance with military regulations.<ref name=hockenberry/> In April 2005, a four-page document of regulations was issued by Multi-National Corps-Iraq,<ref name=felberbaum /> directing all military bloggers in Iraq to register with their units, and commanders to conduct quarterly reviews to make sure bloggers were not disclosing casualty numbers or violating operational security or privacy rules.<ref name=hockenberry>{{Cite magazine| volume = 13| issue = 8| last = Hockenberry| first = John| title = The Blogs of War| magazine = Wired| access-date = 2016-07-23| date = August 2005| url = http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/milblogs_pr.html| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20050813011933/http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.08/milblogs_pr.html| url-status = dead| archive-date = 2005-08-13}}</ref> Some milbloggers took down or altered their blogs for fear of violating the regulation that many of them believed to be too ambiguous.<ref name=felberbaum>{{Cite news| last = Felberbaum| first = Michael| title = Army Monitors Soldiers' Blogs, Web Sites| newspaper = Washington Post| date = 2006-10-29| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/29/AR2006102900249_pf.html}}</ref> The regulations were updated in April 2007 but, according to many bloggers in war theatres, failed to resolve their ambiguities.<ref name=schwab>{{Cite news| issn = 0190-8286| last = Schwab| first = Nikki| title = Military Bloggers Wary of New Policy| newspaper = The Washington Post| access-date = 2016-11-01| date = 2007-05-05| url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050500881.html}}</ref>

Although the [[U.S. Department of Defense]] was initially concerned about milblogs as a potential [[OPSEC]] violation,<ref name=alvarez>{{Cite news| last = Alvarez| first = Steve| title = CENTCOM Team Engages 'Bloggers'| work = Defense.gov| access-date = 2016-08-05| date = 2006-03-02| url = https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/id/15287/| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100608222440/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15287| url-status = live| archive-date = 2010-06-08}}</ref> it eventually embraced the concept and attempted to implement official versions of milblogs.<ref>{{Cite news| last = Bennett| first = Daniel| title = Tracing the first official U.S. military blogs| work = Frontline Club| access-date = 2016-08-05| date = 2010-07-07| url = http://www.frontlineclub.com/official_us_military_blogs/}}</ref>  Official milblogs did not receive the same reception or popularity of the unofficial milblogs as they were written in the same dull language as other official publications of the Defense Department.{{citation needed|date=August 2024}}