[iwar] [fc:Where's.The.Rest.Of.This.War's.Story?]

From: Fred Cohen (fc@all.net)
Date: 2002-01-07 17:03:35


Return-Path: <sentto-279987-4231-1010451785-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.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, 07 Jan 2002 17:05:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 6102 invoked by uid 510); 8 Jan 2002 01:03:31 -0000
Received: from n24.groups.yahoo.com (216.115.96.74) by all.net with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 01:03:31 -0000
X-eGroups-Return: sentto-279987-4231-1010451785-fc=all.net@returns.groups.yahoo.com
Received: from [216.115.97.187] by n24.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 08 Jan 2002 01:03:06 -0000
X-Sender: fc@red.all.net
X-Apparently-To: iwar@onelist.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 8 Jan 2002 01:03:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 44776 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 01:03:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m6.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 8 Jan 2002 01:03:04 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO red.all.net) (12.232.125.69) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 01:03:04 -0000
Received: (from fc@localhost) by red.all.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g0813Zp22904 for iwar@onelist.com; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:03:35 -0800
Message-Id: <200201080103.g0813Zp22904@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, 7 Jan 2002 17:03:35 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [iwar] [fc:Where's.The.Rest.Of.This.War's.Story?]
Reply-To: iwar@yahoogroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

USA Today
January 7, 2002
Where's The Rest Of This War's Story?
By Roger Peterson 
With the war in Afghanistan nearing an apparent end, we have every right to
cheer the courageous efforts of our troops in accomplishing their mission,
and with relatively few U.S. casualties. But how many of us really have a
true sense of what happened over there - and when?
Because of the Pentagon's tight control of information on the activities of
Americans in the war, the current generation of war correspondents did not
get the kind of up-close-and-personal stories we had in Vietnam, the ones
that brought home the heroes - and horrors - of war.
There's wide support for the war in Afghanistan. In such a popular war, the
government seldom has to justify its actions. The public seems satisfied
with the information it's getting from official briefings. But those of us
who've covered battles know there's so much more to the story.
Reporters in Vietnam were given the credit or the blame, depending on
individual opinions, for changing the public's perception of that war. With
basically unlimited access to the troops in the field and no censorship, we
were able to show the public war's ugly realities. The mud and the blood,
the wounded and the dying - all were brought into the nation's living rooms.
We saw none of that this time.
As we enter the next phase of the war on terrorism, it's worth noting where
the public has been shortchanged by Pentagon restrictions on reporters'
access to the battlefield and to our troops. Pentagon restrictions don't
just mean reporters didn't get their stories. Most of us in the "been there,
done that" generation feel that the real losers are the American public. The
concerns:
*Only one side of the story is heard, filtered through the Pentagon. 
People read about, see and hear only from generals and top officials.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John
Stufflebeem have become the war's faces and voices.
*The real heroes, the people actually fighting, don't get the credit or
recognition they deserve. 
In the war's initial days, the bombing raids seemed to have little impact.
While some reporters were allowed on aircraft carriers, they weren't allowed
to talk with pilots about their missions, even after the fact. Later, when
Special Forces teams got on the ground and marked targets for the bombers,
Air Force and Navy planes were so effective, the Taliban quickly crumbled.
But most of those brave men remain anonymous. Reporters weren't allowed near
them.
*Without on-scene reports, war becomes abstract and sanitary. The reality is
lost. 
Friends and colleagues from the Vietnam days still marvel at how much
freedom we had to cover that war. We could go almost anywhere, catching
rides on planes, helicopters, tanks or trucks, as long as space was
available. We would be briefed on upcoming operations. If there was a fight
going on and no transportation available, we could wait with the medevac
choppers. When they were called in to evacuate casualties, we'd ride with
them, jump off and help load the wounded, then go about covering the
fighting.
That was then; this is now. Ever since Vietnam, the military has kept a
tight rein on reporters' access to the troops.
We have no quarrel with reporters and camera crews being barred from
accompanying small units of Special Operations Forces into the field in
Afghanistan. Experienced reporters know that could pose unacceptable risks
to both the troops and reporters. But there are ways for reporters to get
stories without endangering anyone. If allowed access, they could get
interviews at the Special Operations base camps and check out after-action
reports. Not a perfect system - but it would give the public an idea of what
the troops did.
One of the best stories (and one of the few) that I've read that described
what it's like on the ground for the Americans in Afghanistan was filed out
of Germany. It was based on the comments of a Special Forces captain wounded
by a stray bomb that killed three Americans. Even though the captain was
obviously unable to give full details of how he operated in the weeks before
he was hit, the story gave a graphic portrayal of this different war.
My fellow former war correspondents all see the shortcomings of the current
limited-access approach. Peter Arnett, a Pulitzer Prize winner for reporting
in Vietnam, who later covered the Gulf War live from Baghdad for CNN, says,
"The GIs did what they had to do, and the generals and politicians took the
credit."
Another old friend and colleague, Don North, who has worked for ABC, NBC,
CBS, BBC and several other major news organizations, has covered 15 wars or
conflicts. North was in Afghanistan shortly after the war began, trying to
document the activities of a small humanitarian-aid group. He says, "A great
curtain was pulled down over what our military is doing. What the public is
missing is part of our history. This is an important military operation."
That curtain was raised slightly when small pools of reporters and
photographers were allowed access to Marines guarding an airstrip south of
Kandahar. The pool reporters filed stories and pictures of Marines digging
in, and stories and pictures about Marines going out on patrol. But there
was nothing of substance from those patrols themselves. Reporters also
weren't allowed to accompany the patrols. One pool report tells of a Marine
team being picked up by helicopter in the field and delivered to a motorized
Marine company. The reporter who rode along apparently was allowed only a
few minutes on the ground.
It may make sense to keep reporters away from small patrols - but a full
company of more than 200 men?
We need to keep asking one question: Does the U.S. government hide bad news
from us, or just not make it available? Videos shown at the Pentagon
briefings, for instance, made it seem that every bomb dropped hit its target
dead center. Munitions keep improving, but anyone who has ever been near a
war zone knows things go wrong, bombs still go astray, artillery rounds fall
short.
Steve Bell, ABC correspondent in Vietnam and now a professor at Ball State
University, says, "I don't agree with those who say the military always
lies. But there's no question the Pentagon is guilty of selective editing."
Without access to the troops, there's little reporters can do to check out
that selective editing or put a human face on the cold facts and figures of
official briefings. That adds up to the American public getting only part of
the story.
Roger Peterson covered the Vietnam War on various assignments for ABC News
from 1966 to 1970. He was wounded in action in 1966.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/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 : 2002-12-31 02:15:02 PST