Embedding and the Big Picture

Summary

In hopes of both maintaining good relations with the media and maintaining some semblance of operational secrecy in a 24-hour a day multi-media environment, the U.S. military made the major news networks an offer they could not refuse. By embedding journalists in combat units, the military provided the media with unprecedented access and images, while at the same time focusing media attention on a very small portion of the total evolving war plan.

Analysis

In planning for the current war on Iraq, the U.S. military faced a major problem. Given the magnitude of the necessary buildup and its accompanying political travails, there was no hope of strategic surprise. However, unless it could gain some control over reporting on the buildup and the unfolding battle, it would have no hope of operational surprise either.

In 1991, the famous "left hook" sweep through the Iraqi desert, enveloping Iraqi troops north of Kuwait, caught the Iraqi army by surprise. U.S. forces were even able to establish forward logistics bases and staging areas inside Iraqi territory before the ground war officially began.

At the time, CNN was the only 24-hour news source. It not only made its reputation in Desert Storm, it made the case for 24-hour news services in the marketplace, and they have flourished. There are now multiple 24-hour television news services, both global and regional.

The military approached the war with the prospect of unprecedented round-the-clock coverage. War plans and preparations would have been naked before the world, and operational surprise impossible. One option would have been to try to restrict media access to the battlefield, but this is not easy, and politically unacceptable. Neither the military nor the Bush administration wanted to make enemies of the press at the outset of the war. Therefore, the issue was how to maintain operational and tactical surprise in the face of overwhelming coverage.

The 24-hour news outlets have a weak spot: a center of gravity. They are commercial entities. They compete intensely with one another and with traditional network news programs, a competition grown fiercer with the proliferation of Internet-based outlets (such as Stratfor). They also need the sort of news that works well in the medium of television -- images, graphics and commentary suited for a mass audience. Above all, television needs action. The Defense Department decided to provide the networks with intense action.

The Defense Department offered the media unprecedented access to military units. It offered to embed journalists in units, just as journalists accompanied combat teams in World War II and Vietnam. However, there was a fundamental difference. Unlike in World War II, the journalists were able to take cameras with them. And unlike Vietnam, the feed went live, direct to the public, unedited by producers back in the states. Journalists could show themselves riding in armored vehicles. They could don MOPSS gear and dive into trenches at the sound of gunfire. And they could craft stories about the hearts, minds and souls of the American fighting man and woman. In short, they could fill a lot of airtime with intense -- and quite real -- action.

There was some fear that the military would control what embedded journalists reported. But except for minimal and evidently reasonable security constraints -- which serve only to increase the dramatic authenticity of the coverage -- the media have been free to report at will. But the key, as far as the military is concerned, is that the media have been free to report what is within range of their cameras. Since the military decided which units to embed the reporters in -- and since the military new where those units were going, at least according to the plans -- the military could to some extent define what the audience would see and what television would talk about.

Journalists are embedded with the 3rd Infantry Division, 101st Airborne Division, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, on aircraft carriers, in headquarters, and on Kuwaiti air bases. They are notably absent from key high-mobility units, near strategic bombers, or anywhere in western Iraq. Aside from a few lonely journalists languishing on the Jordanian border and in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and those with front-row seats in Baghdad, the bulk of the press corps is driving around in the desert, south of the Euphrates.

The action is indeed riveting. The scenes from Baghdad combined with the extraordinary footage from the battlefield give viewers an extraordinary sense of the immediacy of bombardment and maneuver. Two things are achieved. First, the military cannot in any way be faulted for stifling the media, as it has been seen as doing in wars since Vietnam. Second, the 24-hour networks are immensely pleased, each having extraordinary, real-time images to display.

Two other things have been achieved. The power of editors and producers has been cut dramatically. With a real-time feed, there is no possibility of editing the images. Second, commentary about the war really becomes secondary. The tyranny of the experts is contained. Third, since all units do not have embedded reporters -- and television is focused entirely on those -- the activity of other units is not carefully scrutinized, opening the possibility for surprise. Therefore, fourth, in elevating the tactical over the strategic and the covered units over the uncovered, the military both can accommodate television and retain the possibility of operational surprise.

While the cameras are focused on the south, events can develop in the more politically complex north and the potentially strategic west out of sight of TV cameras.

And misunderestimates George W. Bush.

The World has under estimated President Bush. I believe that he will spend the next 6 years attacking terrorist around the World. This is the type of long-term approach which the problem requires. Thank God an attention deficit President is not in power as before.

Two other things have been achieved. The power of editors and producers has been cut dramatically. With a real-time feed, there is no possibility of editing the images. Second, commentary about the war really becomes secondary. The tyranny of the experts is contained.

I would amplify this by pointing out that Bush and company have correctly estimated that 'pool' reporting is bad.

With pool reporting, one reporter (a liberal) goes in to 'get the story' and then all the other reporters (liberals) use that video and put their own spin on it. With the media still fixated on having lost in 2000 this would have made an untenable situation for the military.

Instead, they've chosen to divide and conquer.

In essence, every embedded reporter is in competition with every other embedded reporter and is forced- have mercy! - to actually report.

I'd also suggest that any panty waist reporter who tries to slant the news would have to answer for it in a foxhole some night.

This is a good thing.

I knew Clinton was a loser before he was elected, and I predicted bookstores would be full of books against him. However, he was even worse than I imagined or feared. Bush is far better than I could have hoped. This war against Islamic terrorism and its culture of death should take 20 years. We should be prepared for a long battle. If we can vanquish them sooner, fine.

Sheesh...Stratfor....Katie Couric, what's the difference. Sure some or all of the things mentioned in that article are accurate. But sit back for a moment and ask yourself one other very big question....IS THAT ALL?

Don't you think Bush and the military complex want Saddam to see the hellfire this group is causing? Don't you think they want him to see how we are moving unabated through his countryside? What about Kim in Korea? Don't you think they want him to see our might? Stupid, Stupid media...they still don't get it...hehehe

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.