[KantianBurke]

Didn't they do this during the Vietnam War? If so, this is a terrible idea as we all know the eventual repercussions of that policy were.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Nope, because things are different this time. First off, most paleocons have been rooted from the armed forces, so there will be a disinclination to hear talk along the lines of "raghead" (the near constant reference to "gooks" or "slopes" in Vietnam was not a good indication to civilians that the conflict was anything but imperialism). Second, these guys seem to be attached to smaller units, and spend all their time with the unit, as opposed to sniffing up a regimental or division commander - they're living with the troops. Inevitably, they'll be a lot more sympathetic.

[af_vet_rr]

Didn't they do this during the Vietnam War? If so, this is a terrible idea as we all know the eventual repercussions of that policy were.

At first, I would have agreed with you, but this is not even close to Vietnam, the two can't even be remotely compared (other than the 7th Cavalry is involved)

I'm trying to figure out reasons why all of the reporters traveling with allied troops are so positive. It's got to be one or more of the following :

The reporters realize they have to rely on the soldiers if something happens and therefore have more of an appreciation for what they are doing.
Because they are living among the soldiers, they see them in a different light than in times past when they demonized the military. It's hard to demonize somebody when you live with them.
Last, and probably most important - they have what they always wanted (except under extreme circumstances) - complete and total access to the events as they are happening. The military is not hiding anything from them, and so there isn't a helluva lot of spin that can be put on those events.