Posted on 03/31/2003 2:36:40 PM PST by knighthawk
During military operations, there is a constant need to exchange information regarding friendly and enemy activities and capabilities on an urgent basis. During my day, before automatic encryption of radio messages, we were taught the "30-minute rule." It was pretty simple -- first of all, assume the enemy can hear your message. If you decide that he couldn't react to what you are talking about within 30 minutes, send your transmission in clear and get on with your task; otherwise, take the time to encode your message.
Modern day soldiers rarely have to worry about giving away critical information to the enemy due to their secure communications equipment. On the other hand, the embedded reporters with U.S. and U.K. forward units in Iraq have, in my opinion, frequently put their adopted units at unnecessary risk.
Months before the war commenced, it was announced that the embedded reporters would be free to send uncensored reports by video phone at intervals controlled by the military. It was planned to have a military "minder" with the reporter when any story was phoned in. In reality, the urgency of the situation when under fire, coincident with the journalist's increased desire to file "live," frequently leaves the reporter on his or her own. The following are just a few examples when reporters put their units at risk. Every example was shown live on the world's major 24-hour international news networks, which are constantly monitored by the Iraqi political and military leadership.
During the recent 48-hour sandstorm, a reporter with a forward unit of deadly U.S. Apache helicopters explained that the weather had grounded every one of them. The networks host back in the United States asked him if he was aware that 1,000 armoured vehicles had left Baghdad and were moving in his direction. (The report was false but at the time was accepted as fact.) The field reporter volunteered the information that they wouldn't be able to launch the Apaches or bring in any fast-air strikes due to the weather. At this stage, I can only deduce that someone ran up from a flank to get the reporter's attention. On camera, he looked to his right, cringed, faced the camera and explained that he was mistaken and it would be possible for the aircraft to engage the armoured vehicle column. Obviously, the last thing his unit wanted the Iraqis to know was that they were completely vulnerable to any Iraqi attack in their area.
A day later, 1,000 members of the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade flew from a location in Italy and parachuted into the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq. They secured a 2,000-metre runway capable of accepting their massive C-17 cargo aircraft, which would allow them to be reinforced by tanks, armoured fighting vehicles and artillery. This reinforcement potential was critical as the airborne soldiers had jumped in with only their personal weapons and what they could carry on their back. Following a night of digging-in, during which time they could have been reinforced with some heavier weapons, their embedded reporter was interviewed live. I came close to trashing the television I was watching when the reporter explained to the world that his unit was extremely vulnerable as they had not been reinforced overnight and only had light weapons. I mean, why not just say: "Hey Saddam, come and get us, we are very lightly armed -- is there anything else you would like to know?"
The aforementioned 1,000-vehicle convoy caused great consternation in the other direction. By that I mean a U.S.-based network told their reporter with front-line troops in Iraq that they had "heard" reports of a massive armoured column moving in their direction from Baghdad. The unit went into a defensive posture for the entire night. In the warmth and safety of the CTV studio, we did a quick calculation and concluded that there wasn't space for such a large convoy on the designated route. In addition, it would be stupid to move in such a way due to the vulnerability to U.S. air strikes -- which, thanks to high-tech radar, are not degraded by sandstorms. We declared it a bogus report. Six hours later, the U.S. network declared their information on the convoy had been based on "faulty intelligence." Meanwhile, the unit in Iraq had been on full alert all night rather than continuing the advance or getting a few hours sleep.
These violations of the "30-minute rule" were never a problem with "embedded" reporters during the Second World War due to the inherent delay in filing their stories, a delay more often measured in days rather than hours.
Exciting TV? Great human interest reports? Educational? Yes, to all the above; however, operational security takes priority in my opinion and placing soldiers lives at increased and unnecessary risk for the sake of compelling TV is not a good idea.
Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.
I only watch Fox anymore so I don't know how the reporters from the other networks have been handling this. The Fox guys are totally down with the troops and very careful what details they report.
You have my deepest sympathy!
LOL! Here that's ABC.
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.