Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Nowhere, of course.

A number of disturbing trends have developed in this “new” war that are downright scary and will inevitably lead to more American casualties in this war – and in future wars.

This past weekend I popped the balloon by criticizing the strange U.S. military strategy that has allowed Iraqi TV to broadcast propaganda while ignoring more than 200 years of recorded American military doctrine. What’s the rush to have ground troops engage elite Iraqi divisions armed with chemical weapons?

Now such questions are openly discussed in Pentagon briefings and TV chat shows.

While I firmly support our president and our troops, and am confident of American victory, it is perfectly OK for me and you and the rest of America to voice our opinions about what is taking place in this new war.

For one thing, our constructive criticism may save American lives in this war and perhaps even more lives in the next war.

This is why the matter of having “embedded” journalists, who have cameras and cell phones, needs to be debated vigorously. The Pentagon needs to explain why the American public needs play-by-play coverage of combat.

Didn’t we learn anything from Vietnam, when we discovered the American press, by and large, was not working for our side?

Remember how distorted news reports grossly exaggerated American “atrocities” and turned military victories into defeat as Americans watched the nightly news in their living rooms?

This war may be much shorter than Vietnam, and won’t give the left-wing media the same opportunity to spin and distort the news. But what about the next war, now that this precedent has been set?

Rest assured, the media will be crying “censorship” if the Pentagon tries to stop members of the press from “embedding” themselves in combat units in the future.

Meanwhile, there are significant and real dangers in having embedded journalists.

I saw it two nights ago watching CNN report a live gun battle outside Umm Qasr.

As U.S. soldiers were engaged in a heated gun battle, the CNN reporter was broadcasting behind some shelter – as several combat soldiers stood by idly, watching him and the camera.

Shouldn’t these soldiers have been completely focused on the shootout taking place just yards from them?

The embedded journalist (which can mean the journalist and his cameraman) is an unnecessary burden to combat troops, which need to be worried about their own safety and focused on a single objective – victory on the battlefield. They don’t need to have the extra worry of keeping unarmed, unnecessary journalists safe.

Consider how ridiculous this embedding idea has become. The San Francisco Chronicle has sent a 69-year-old reporter to be embedded with U.S. troops.

The reporter’s editor defended the assignment, saying the reporter is "a feisty, energetic man." Have we Americans lost our senses? The battlefield is no place for an elderly man of whatever physical condition.

What’s next – embedding handicapped journalists in wheelchairs? The diversity crowd will be demanding that next.

Again, we need to be clear about our purpose. We need to allow our brave servicemen to fight without political considerations and without hangers-on toting TV cameras.

We also need to make sure decisions are made on military necessity – not for PR reasons.

What will happen if a combat unit has to make a tough decision such as taking out an enemy position surrounded by human shields? But it can’t issue such an order because the military brass knows an embedded journalist is there and they don’t want to upset folks at home.

On Monday, I saw just how low we had sunk in this new war when NBC showed one of its embedded journalists with a young Marine who had just been wounded. The embedded correspondent got on his satellite phone and called the Marine’s mother. As the soldier lay on a stretcher and still on the battlefield, he had a chat with mom.

Sure, it made great TV. The moment should be nominated for an Emmy. But there is something wrong when bleeding soldiers have become actors on national TV and are calling home to mom in the middle of battle. I can only imagine what Chesty Puller would have to say about this.

Don’t misunderstand – the embedded journalists have provided riveting coverage.

But it’s wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s a bad precedent.

Our objective is to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible while limiting casualties. I cannot see how embedded journalists with TV cameras helps in that objective.

In fact, it can only undermine it.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Saddam Hussein/Iraq

Editor's note:
Blockbuster new book "The Two Faces of Islam" exposes Saudi connection to 9/11 and terrorism - FREE offer.