Posted on 04/07/2003 9:03:51 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate
I think you miss the point... a reporter serving with allied forces is obviously a target since our enemies have absolutely no problem with targetting reporters. The Iraqis, for example, suffer absolutely nothing in terms of the propaganda war or in their war effort at large if they hit reporters- their public doesn't care, and ours expects it to happen because the Iraqis after all, are known not to care. Dead reporters do nothing to the Iraqi side's morale or to their political efforts.
But when reporters serve among the enemy- at least an enemy which does not follow the rules of war- they are making themselves a tool of the enemy. Some alleviate this by also being as useful a tool for the good guys- us- as they are reluctantly for the enemy.
They can all be used as human shields and if they are WILLING human shields, the mere fact that they are willing makes their presence a war crime. But for the sake of practicality, since reporters on scene can occasionally be useful to our side, this aspect of some at least being willing enablers is ignored.
Another way in which reporters serve the enemy is that their presence makes it difficult to fight, and can be even worse in that they enable the enemy to put our troops in great danger. In the most innocent manifestation, their presence is an obstacle to our activities because they occupy one more area we cannot bomb and must go around; unlike civilians, reporters as individuals actively seek action and actively get in the way, and can cause a soldier to be distracted or to hesitate for a fatal second.
But in their most dangerous manifestation, reporters among the enemy can and often are used deliberately to hinder or kill our forces- something which cannot of course happen when reporters are embedded with our troops, since they aren't in the power of the enemy. The enemy can place reporters in areas to protect their buildings, facilities, and other legit targets, as Iraq has by placing its info ministry offices inside the hotel among the reporters. They and their equipment can be used as camouflage to prevent our side from dseeing a gun emplacement. This is a tactic that works against the coallition side, but does not work against Iraq because they don't have ANY "forbidden targets" and their forces are allowed to shoot anything and anyone.
An enemy which does not believe in a free press can direct the cameras of reporters and even threaten reporters with death or imprisonment so as to give false impressions and bolster their propaganda efforts. Iraq has threatened and imprisoned Newsday reporters, for example. This is something that does not happen to reporters embedded with alied forces, who are not forced to give untruthful information at gunpoint or with fear. The worst they can undergo is expulsion- but only for saying too much.
Reporters among the enemy force us to plan for their being taken hostage or for their being endangered; our enemies, meanwhile, do not have to concern themselves in the least about what happens to reporters among our troops. Iraq faced no legal or PR problems when it rocketed a command center where two journalists were, as you might notice. NO one was outraged precisely because we all know that's dangerous. Our enemy does not need to worry about reporters being taken hostage by our side.
But if we hit reporters in what has become an effective and guarded Iraqi command center- the center of their propaganda ministry- we face PR problems and everyone is outraged.
Journalists held by the enemy can have their film confiscated and equipment taken over for the use of the enemy. Journalists among allied forces are out of the enemy's reach so long as they aren't captured; and in the event of an impending capture they can destroy their communiscations equipment sdo the enemy cannot get their hands on it.
If both sides were morally equivalent and both sides fighting by the same rules, you would be correct, both sides would be equally hindered and would benefit equally from the presence of reporters. But there is no moral equivalency here.
It is not really that subtle a difference between reporters embedded with coalition troops and those in the control of the enemy, who are outside of our ability to protect them. There is a glaring difference.
Is he going to side with us in the war on terror in the future or is he going to side with the terrorists by sponsoring them on AlJazeera?
I can see them using a sabot round to minimize any collateral damage. They knew there were reporters in there.
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.