Pentagon plans for media involvement with war units is definitely a sound move.

We can only hope that the U.S. Department of Defense will follow through on early plans to deploy hundreds of print reporters, photographers and television journalists with front-line American units if there is war in Iraq.

The Pentagon is taking the approach that Iraq’s Saddam Hussein will have a massive media campaign to depict alleged victimization of his people and himself and use friendly outlets to his advantage. The feeling in Washington is that our media people on the scene will be more credible witnesses to what is going on than the Saddam-sponsored media.

It makes good sense and, at the same time, is important to America and its people. In times past, such on-the-scene journalists as Ernie Pyle, Bill Mauldin,Edward R. Murrow and Peter Arnett served the nation well. After a long period of conflict between the media and officialdom, including the blackouts in Desert Storm, this could do a lot of good.

Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke will not say how often, for how long and with which units reporters might be deployed. She says the Pentagon is contemplating attaching them to air as well as ground troops in the “first wave” should an attack occur.

“We are absolutely convinced the more news and information that comes out of Iraq ” if there is military action ” the better off we will all be. It’s fine for Torie Clarke to stand up there and say we went to extraordinary lengths to avoid hitting civilians. It is a far better thing for a bona fide, credible source of information – the news media – to be saying that based on experience.”

The tightly controlled pool-reporter plans of past conflicts have not worked well. This is a step in the right direction, toward the kind of coverage that was allowed in World War II.

Much of the scene may not be pretty. With today’s instant transmissions of messages and photos and film, there are going to be distasteful happenings, such as we witnessed in the Vietnam War. There are critics who wonder whether America could have handled its World War II challenges as well, or at all, if it had been subjected to modern television scrutiny.

There is much to be done and there are bound to be serious complications. But capable and qualified media people on a given scene will serve a good purpose. When Saddam and his compatriots try to convince the world their milk factories, orphans’ homes, senior citizen establishments and innocent communities were victimized, there is a chance for “the other side” to be presented. Our might may not always mean right, but we will have data to decide for ourselves.

Jon B. Alterman, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes the information war is the only one available to the Iraqi president.

“He (Saddam) can’t win militarily, although he can try to make it painful for us, and he can’t win diplomatically, because even his friends distrust him. What he has done reasonably well for 12 years is to create images – images of starving children.”

What we will see and hear and read about in case of war will be terribly painful and excruciating from time to time. But we also will have a chance to get closer to the truth and gain respect for the people we send to handle the job.