Return-Path: <sentto-279987-3239-1003761807-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com> Delivered-To: fc@all.net Received: from 204.181.12.215 [204.181.12.215] by localhost with POP3 (fetchmail-5.7.4) for fc@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:45:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26722 invoked by uid 510); 22 Oct 2001 14:42:57 -0000 Received: from n30.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.80) by 204.181.12.215 with SMTP; 22 Oct 2001 14:42:57 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-3239-1003761807-fc=all.net@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.4.52] by n30.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Oct 2001 14:43:27 -0000 X-Sender: fc@red.all.net X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 22 Oct 2001 14:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 13651 invoked from network); 22 Oct 2001 14:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Oct 2001 14:43:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (65.0.156.78) by mta1 with SMTP; 22 Oct 2001 14:43:26 -0000 Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f9MEhgY05009 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:43:42 -0700 Message-Id: <200110221443.f9MEhgY05009@red.all.net> To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List) Organization: I'm not allowed to say X-Mailer: don't even ask X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3] From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net> X-Yahoo-Profile: fcallnet Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list iwar@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:iwar-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com Subject: [iwar] [fc:Military.Is.Putting.Heavier.Limits.On.Reporters'.Access] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit New York Times October 21, 2001 Military Is Putting Heavier Limits On Reporters' Access By Michael R. Gordon WASHINGTON, Oct. 20 -- The Pentagon today presented a fleeting and grainy glimpse of its commando raid in Afghanistan on the television and computer screens of the world. The footage of paratroopers floating over an airport on a dark night, shot with low-light cameras by the military's combat film teams, was reminiscent of familiar scenes from World War II. But there was a big difference. In World War II, accredited journalists from leading new organizations were on the front lines to give the public an independent description of what was happening. Even at Normandy, there were almost 30 journalists. In the new war on terrorism, journalists have had limited access to many of the United States forces that are carrying out the war. There were no reporters on the aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk when commandos jumped into their helicopters and headed toward Afghanistan. Nor were there any journalists accompanying military forces in Oman, where special forces AC-130 gunships and Army Rangers are believed to be based. The media's access to American military operations is more far more limited than in any recent conflict, including NATO's war against Yugoslavia, the American invasion of Haiti or the American intervention in Somalia. During the Persian Gulf war, reporters often chafed under the military's ground rules for covering it. But scores of them were allowed to travel with Army units during their sweep through western Iraq or to go with the marines when they pushed into Kuwait. They were taken up in Awacs surveillance planes and allowed to interview not only Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf but his top generals. Pentagon officials acknowledge the current limitations on the media, but insist that they are an inevitable result of the requirements of operational security and political sensitivities among the American partners. The Pentagon asserts its longstanding policy precludes coverage of special operations missions, a position that is intended to keep secret the military tactics used by elite soldiers. And since the ground combat phase of the war is expected to be carried out largely by commandos, that means that a main phase of the conflict will be off limits to the press. Another factor is politics. Nations like Pakistan, Oman and Uzbekistan are not eager to advertise the extent of their cooperation with the United States. So the Pentagon is not encouraging news coverage of military activities in those places either. And the British vetoed media access to Diego Garcia, the Indian Ocean island where the British government has a base that the Americans are using for flying missions to Afghanistan. The Pentagon has allowed some access. Reporters have been taken to the aircraft carriers that the Navy is using to carry out its bombing raids, and journalists have visited surface ships that fire Tomahawk cruise missiles. A New York Times reporter was been allow to fly on a C-17 plane that dropped food, an activity the Bush administration has sought to highlight, but reporters have not been taken aloft on combat-related missions. Not all of the constraints are imposed by the Pentagon. The Taliban have arrested British reporters who have ventured into their territory for an independent look. Western reporters are stationed in northwest Afghanistan in territory controlled by the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance. But so far that has not been the scene of great military action. Still, by the standards of past years, officials in the defense establishment have been far more restrictive. The head of the United States Central Command, Gen. Tommy Franks, has yet to give a news briefing or interview -- a fry cry from the voluble General Schwarzkopf, who lectured the media on military strategy during the Persian Gulf war. The Pentagon has bought all available high-resolution commercial satellite imagery that shows Afghanistan, both to supplement the coverage from its own spy satellites and to keep the satellite photos away from prying eyes. And before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld displayed a keen sensitivity to news reports on internal Pentagon disputes over budgets and programs, where security was not an issue. The brief video today showed Army paratroopers taking their gear into an aircraft at an undisclosed location. The unit was not identified, but it is believed to be one of Army Rangers who left from a base in Oman. The soldiers are shown parachuting out of a plane and landing on an airfield southwest of Kandahar. Like the Pentagon's daily briefings, replete with their maps and slides, the video was posted on the Defense Department Web site at www.defenselink.mil. A Defense Department official said the video was not only intended to fill a gap in the media's news coverage. It was also, he said, a way to put psychological pressure on the Taliban and other regimes around the world that protect terrorists. "It is a subtle message that we can come and go at a time and place of our choosing," he said. It was also a message that the Pentagon carefully controlled. No video was presented today of the Special Forces' main target: a compound of the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE VeriSign guide to security solutions for your web site: encrypting transactions, securing intranets, and more! http://us.click.yahoo.com/UnN2wB/m5_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> ------------------ http://all.net/ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:56 PST