[iwar] [fc:Censorship.Of.War.News.Undermines.Public.Trust]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2001-10-23 08:11:30
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Senior.U.S..Official:.Terror.Groups.That.Target.Israel.Will.Be.At.Risk]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Wolfowitz,.Calling.For.'Great.Caution,'.Limits.DOD.Employees'.Discussions]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Message-Id: <200110231511.f9NFBUZ21030@red.all.net>
To: iwar@onelist.com (Information Warfare Mailing List)
Organization: I'm not allowed to say
From: Fred Cohen <fc@all.net>
Mailing-List: list iwar@yahoogroups.com; contact iwar-owner@yahoogroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 08:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Censorship.Of.War.News.Undermines.Public.Trust]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

USA Today
October 23, 2001
Censorship Of War News Undermines Public Trust
By Amitai Etzioni 

A friend who works as a high-ranking public-information (that is,
publicity) officer for the U.S.  Army told me that he does not expect to
be sent any place near Afghanistan, because "we plan to release as
little information as possible, or less."

Although the Pentagon did allow a few reporters on aircraft carriers, it
has been tight-lipped so far.  The military is closely controlling what
information the media get on the success of the bombing raids, choosing
which few, selected photos to release.  We do not even have limited
opportunities now for independent verification of either side's claims. 
We instead are subject to the spin of both sides: The Pentagon tells us
this past weekend's actions were great successes; the Taliban claims
they weren't.  The truth? Who knows?

The real test will come during the U.S.  ground operations.  In World
War II, Korea and Vietnam, reporters accompanied frontline troops.  My
friend's comment about keeping a tight lid on news recalls the lesson
the Pentagon learned from the first war fought on television, the war in
Vietnam.  The sight of our military men attacking villages and slogging
through mosquito-infested rice paddies and, above all, the long rows of
body bags, did in popular support for American intervention.  Since
then, the Pentagon, never anxious to expose its warmaking ways to public
scrutiny (which it considers unprofessional meddling by civilians), has
been keen to curb access to battlefields. 

When the United States invaded Grenada in 1983, it did not permit the
media near the place during the critical first 2 days, and only a small
pool of reporters was admitted thereafter.  The media were hence forced
to rely almost completely on accounts provided by the Pentagon.  These
described a smooth, successful operation, although in actuality
intelligence was poor, supplies were fouled up, and confusion was
rampant - all in the face of tiny, Third World opposition. 

During the Gulf War, the military greatly limited access to its
operations and even detained journalists who evaded roadblocks set up to
limit their reporting. 

This time around, there are strong reasons for keeping the media at
arm's length.  The war against terrorism must take place in the shadows
in which terrorists lurk.  We cannot have our CIA agents named and
subsequently killed.  Richard S.  Welch, CIA station chief in Athens,
Greece, was killed in 1975 after he was named in Counterspy magazine. 
We cannot allow the movements of Special Forces to be broadcast live on
the evening news, because their ability to strike greatly depends on
surprise.  (Larger forces can overwhelm their opponent simply by their
size and firepower.) And disinformation - although it also misleads the
folks at home - is very useful to the military.  Every West Point cadet
learns how pretending that the Normandy beach invasion was not the real
thing was one of the major reasons it succeeded. 

The public understands this.  Viewers have been flooding TV stations
with complaints that they are disclosing too much about this war rather
than complaining about the paucity of information. 

All of this might suggest that we are better off if the military keeps a
tight lid on all information about the worldwide war against terrorism. 
But this is a dangerous thought - first for the military itself.  The
disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion would have been aborted if the media had
published reports they had on that operation, which depended largely on
surprise.  If the public had known about the ways President Carter was
micromanaging military strikes in the attempt to rescue our hostages in
Iran, it might not have ended up a total disaster. 

Second, information is essential for democratic oversight.  During the
Gulf War and in Kosovo, the Air Force claimed great successes, as it
does now.  However, we found out later that numerous Scud launchers in
Iraq were missed and that many of the tanks obliterated in Kosovo were
cardboard decoys.  Only Americans, not the enemy, were fooled. 

When you read we are making progress because "terrorist training camps"
have been blown away, this may mean as little as the elimination of some
huts or training areas.  And officials have a hard time keeping a
straight face when they suggest we are gaining ground because we have
frozen $24 million of the terrorists' money since Sept.  11.  Osama bin
Laden will just have to dig a bit deeper into his hundreds of millions
of dollars, or divert a bit more to terrorism from his worldwide
"charities."

Such phony optimism will encourage public support in the short run, just
as false low assessments of the enemy's size did early in the war in
Vietnam.  But it undermines support in the longer run, along with the
precious trust in government. 

Still more is at stake.  Military operations involve moral decisions in
which the public and its elected officials ought to participate.  The
American people long have been told it is against our policy to
assassinate foreign leaders; that it is terrorists who engage in such
vile actions as killing Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and attempting to
assassinate the first President Bush. 

However, we now seem to be targeting Taliban leaders as well as bin
Laden.  I personally hold that it is more ethical to take out these
tyrants than to starve their people through economic sanctions or to
cause considerable civil "collateral" damage.  But whatever course we
follow, it should not be a decision made in secrecy.  The same holds for
the call to bring in terrorists "dead or alive" rather than try to
deliver them to our courts. 

In the longer run, keeping the American people in the dark will
undermine support or the war, make it too easy to cover up foolish
operations and make the war even dirtier than it needs to be. 

Amitai Etzioni teaches at George Washington University.  He is the
author of Limits of Privacy and a member of the USA TODAY's board of
contributors. 


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Pinpoint the right security solution for your company- Learn how to add 128- bit encryption and to authenticate your web site with VeriSign's FREE guide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/yQix2C/33_CAA/yigFAA/kgFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

------------------
http://all.net/ 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Next message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Senior.U.S..Official:.Terror.Groups.That.Target.Israel.Will.Be.At.Risk]"
Previous message: Fred Cohen: "[iwar] [fc:Wolfowitz,.Calling.For.'Great.Caution,'.Limits.DOD.Employees'.Discussions]"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 2001-12-31 20:59:56 PST