The Media Aren't the Enemy in Iraq

[Rob Thornton]

Funny thing happened the other day, a reporter came out with a GO. She was a nice enough sort - English working for a French news agency. She took notes as the GO talked to our team, then took more notes as the GO talked to the IA BDE CDR and IA BN CDR. On the way out she asked if we lived here with our counterparts. I told her we did and she lamented that more time could not have been spent discussing it. I gave her my email and invited her to send some questions we could look over.

In about 2 days I get an email that asks me questions about Baghdad and how I thought troops here would perform there. She even offered to quote me a US training officer from here. I wrote her a nice note back explaining that Baghdad was not my patch, but I'd be happy o tell her about how the IA perform here, and the risks they take, and what its like to live here. I also explained that I don't much care to be quoted as anything but my name - to me that seems more like somthing a politician or a journalist would do.

It was pretty clear to me that her interests were about selling her story. It had little to do with reporting the news. They may not be the enemy, but they're not on anybody's team but their own - there is no honor amongst thieves. If you have the chance to use the media/press as a tool toward an IO end, then bang away; but I'd be wary of them otherwise. They are 2nd on my not so favorite occupation list - followed closely by an ever increasing list of war profiteering contractors.

[Steve Blair]

The media has always been interested in making a "splash," from the Spanish-American War on (and most likely before that). They may not be the enemy, but I'd sure as hell not list them as disinterested observers.

To his credit, Boot goes on to list a fair number of reputable correspondents, among them Ricks and Naylor. But I would tend to question how much their analysis is lost in the flurry of bandwagon reporting and "features" that dominate the MSM. And the blogsphere has its own agendas as well, but at least the majority of them make those agendas pretty clear. MSM still insists that it's "impartial," whatever that may mean these days.

[Tom Odom]

As a spook on the ground I generally operated on the premise there was nothing positive that could come out of media contacts. i did, however, make certain exceptions when the reporter was willing to stick around for more than a 15 second sound bite. I actively promoted UNAMIR Radio access with my Rwandan military counterparts and the results were generally positive. I talked in depth with Philip Gourevitch as he did the research for his book as well as Reuters stringer who routinely worked the area.

My 15 seconds of unwanted fame came with a series of articles about me in the Wash Post over a dog; in that case, the media never talked to me. And a French friend also told me that I was on Belgian television as an "advisor and planner" for the Iwawa Island clreaing op in late 95.

All of that aside, I still contend that we have to treat the media as the battlefield as we do any other factor addressed in METT-T. We cannot change the hills but we do have to consider their effects on our operations, good and bad, You have to do the same with the media.

Best
Tom

[120mm]

For the golfers among us:

The media is part of the course. Whining about them doesn't advance "the game" one iota.

While I detest them in my heart, I think I'd rather have them close then allow them to operate at a distance.

[Culpeper]

This goes without stating but basic rule of thumb is that the media is a detriment in a democratic society fighting a counterinsurgency war. It comes with the playing field. Nevertheless, in other wars the U.S.A. has fought, such things as the Sedition Act of 1918 were very useful for censoring the press. This is where I think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. Under the radar sedition needs to stop and it should start within Washington D.C. Given enough rope, any politician, on any given day, in front of any given media, will hang himself or herself. The problem is is there isn't a rope to be found within The Beltway. Go figure. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice would have received great press had she simply told Barbara Boxer, "Why don't you just go piss on a rope?" Well, I guess she did in her own more professional way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Wonderful thing; a free press.

Rice criticizes Boxer's comment

"In retrospect, gee, I thought single women had come further than that, that the only question is are you making good decisions because you have kids," Rice said in an interview Friday on Fox News

[Bill Moore]

Of course we're losing in Iraq because of the media, not because we had a bad strategy. Of course all the negative news they reported simply wasn't true, or if it was I would prefer as a free citizen to simply bury my head in the sand and not hold my government accountable. That's how a democracy is supposed to work right?

Of course if our media didn't discuss the gross misconduct at Abu Ghrab the enemy never would have been aware of it. Al Jazer (sp?) and the internet and rumors on the street don't exist. We should line up all reporters and execute them if they don't report what we tell them to report. How can we have a democracy with a free media telling the people that the government is flawed?

It was the media that made a big deal out of Clinton and Monica also. What right did they have to undermine our President? Nixon of course had the right to break the law, and the American people never should have heard about it.

The only thing the media should be reporting in Iraq is the number of schools we build, wells we dig, and evil terrorists we killed. If they did we would win.

Come on guys, the media is part and parcel of a democracy. If it wasn't for the media we would be staying the course with a flawed policy. Maybe the media is actually having a positive effect?

Fortunately I am going TDY now, so I won't see your hard hitting counterattacks for a few days :-). I work on stiffening my spine while I'm gone.

Bill

[Tom Odom]

Bill


Thank you. Got your back.

best

Tom

[Tom Odom]

This goes without stating but basic rule of thumb is that the media is a detriment in a democratic society fighting a counterinsurgency war. It comes with the playing field. Nevertheless, in other wars the U.S.A. has fought, such things as the Sedition Act of 1918 were very useful for censoring the press. This is where I think the Patriot Act doesn't go far enough. Under the radar sedition needs to stop and it should start within Washington D.C. Given enough rope, any politician, on any given day, in front of any given media, will hang himself or herself. The problem is is there isn't a rope to be found within The Beltway. Go figure. Nevertheless, Condoleezza Rice would have received great press had she simply told Barbara Boxer, "Why don't you just go piss on a rope?" Well, I guess she did in her own more professional way. There is more than one way to skin a cat. Wonderful thing; a free press.

Rice criticizes Boxer's comment

To the contrary, I would thank Boxer. The question was in full:

Who pays the price?" Boxer asked Rice, who is unmarried and doesn't have children. "I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family.

"So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

I believe that question needs to be asked repeatedly and in a loud voice; certainly it is one I would put in front of every neo-conservative and I would keep asking it until each one finally answered, "Someone besides me."

Best

Tom

[Culpeper]

Aw, come on, Tom. The questioning was tacky and unprofessional. It was hype and made Boxer look like an idiot. We all know who is paying the ultimate price in this war. Using herself and the Secretary of State as examples takes us back to the America First crowd before WWII when Charles Lindbergh came back from Nazi Germany and stated the rivers flowed with chocolate and women were stay at home moms. The Secretary of State herself has sacrificed more of her life than Boxer has where this war is concerned. Boxer is a pimple on an elephant's ass. She has absolutely nothing to offer in the way of solutions. Just plays the "sedition is patriotic" game by labeling it as dissent. It's pandering and provides aid and comfort to the bad guys. Boxer wants to save the lives of those that are making the ultimate sacrifice? She should bring up such rhetoric in the right time and place. What we need is another George Creel. Some of you guys act like any good news is suspicious and soak up "unidentified sources" and "requested to remain anonymous because the person is not required to speak to the press" as gospel and just. The media is the last place I'm going to look for any facts. And I'm certainly not going to compliment any politician, of any stripe, that is pandering to the press no matter what their position may be. Let's not forget that this is an all volunteer military that is meeting enlistment goals. There is no draft. Boxer needs to ask the volunteers why they are enlisting in the military knowing we are at war. Why are some of these men and women, adults, joining to make the sacrifice? You can't blame the economy or lack of educational opportunities. It is easier to get an equally paying governmental civil job or go to college than it is to enter into today's military. So, the question is, why are these people joining the military during this time of armed conflict? Not whether the Secretary of State, a woman, can make good decisions concerning war because she doesn't have any children. I'm surprised that you seem to condone this sort of political showboating.