‘Embedded’ news media offer new perspective on warfare

Controversial issues surround the war in Iraq, and one of the most unusual, actually unique, facets is the decision of Pentagon and White House officials to allow news media representatives to accompany troops and report action on a real-time, uncensored basis.

This was a bold, gutsy decision because reporters never had been given so much freedom in covering a war.

In World War II, and about every other conflict in which U.S. troops have been involved, there has been media coverage from “war correspondents” following the action. In past wars, however, reports of these correspondents often were delayed by technical limitations and were subject to censorship by military officials.

In World War II and other wars, there were live radio reports and delayed film reports of the action, but no war has been covered to the extent of the current Iraqi war.

Lawrence residents can sit in front of their television sets and watch men in their tanks and armored vehicles moving across the desert at the same instant that action is taking place thousands of miles away. They can watch, in real time, a howitzer or mortar barrage on an enemy position, watch foot soldiers advance against entrenched enemy troops and exchange rifle fire. They can watch injured soldiers being carried into medical units and see doctors performing surgery in an effort to save lives. All of this is in real time and without censorship by U.S. military officials.

It was a big gamble by Pentagon officials. It appears, however, to be a winning effort for all parties. There was an agreement prior to implementing the new policy that reporters would abide by certain limitations such as not divulging specific locations and not giving advance information on troop movements or plans of action that would further endanger the lives of coalition troops.

So far, the experiment has worked, probably far better than either those in the media or those in the military had hoped.

The public has gained a truer view of what war is all about with reporters and television camera crews on the scene, or “embedded” in most military units. They report the actions of allied forces, and there is far less opportunity to cover up any of the questionable military actions that usually occur in war.

The military wins by having the public see the excellent performance and courage of the soldiers and the sound reasoning of commanding officers. The public also sees the terrible price of war and fighting — the loss of life and destruction of property.

The only reservation this writer had about the revolutionary policy was whether the presence of reporters and television cameras might cause a commanding officer to hesitate, even for a fraction of a second, in calling for fire on an enemy position for fear the television report might portray him as being trigger happy. Could the awareness of a television camera looking over his shoulder cause a commander to wait too long to make a critical decision?

In a live firefight, seconds count, and, by delaying decisions, an officer can place his own troops in a more vulnerable, dangerous position. On the other hand, there could be situations in which such a second thought could save lives and prevent an incident like the My Lai disaster in Vietnam.

Some people probably are sick and tired of the 24-hour, live reports, but such openness removes much of the mystery or suspicion that usually surrounds warfare. That’s particularly important when the conflict is so controversial on the home front and when the war is sure to play a role in future political developments here in the United States, as well as in other countries.

So far, the war, as well as the news coverage, seems to have gone about as well as anyone had hoped.

There always will be second-guessers and those who refuse to give a passing grade to anything President Bush has planned or approved. There will be those who continue to find fault and accuse Bush of all kinds of sinister motives, but, so far, the war and what troops have discovered seems to verify the concerns about the dangers and intent of Saddam Hussein.

There are those who are highly critical of an “overkill” in media coverage of the war, but no war has been so well reported. The coverage hides nothing, the good or the bad.

Both the media and the military have performed in an excellent manner in giving the public a ringside seat to the realities of war.