New Media Rules of Engagement post McChrystal

[Waitone]

It had to happen.  The media has been put on a shorter leash.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/speak-no-evil-a-post-mcchrystal-press-clampdown/?src=twt&twt=nytimesworld

Speak No Evil: A Post-McChrystal Press Clampdown
By TIM ARANGO
Baghdad Bureau

BAGHDAD – On Tuesday night at an air base in Baghdad a unit of soldiers from the Second Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division waited for a flight that would take them first to Anbar Province, then to Germany, then to Fort Drum in upstate New York.

The soldiers were going home, this time for good.

Reporters were invited to visit, to speak to soldiers and take pictures of packed rucksacks and troops boarding the plane, images that would convey the military’s message that the United States is leaving Iraq. The press was told that the waiting area was theirs to work in.

So I started to chat up soldiers. Just as I had finished the formalities of name, age, rank and hometown with a young private from Michigan, I was interrupted by an officer who explained that a handful of soldiers had been chosen to speak to the press, and that the remainder of the group was off limits.

He pointed to a group of four or five soldiers, who awaited media interviews.

The Pentagon’s new dictum to control news coverage, issued in the wake of the controversy over a Rolling Stone article that resulted in the dismissal of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal as the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, seems to have reached the lower levels of the chain of command in Iraq.

The United States military is drawing down its forces in Iraq and is still eager to engage with the press to show that President Obama’s promise to reach 50,000 troops by the end of August will be met. Gen. Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq, held a briefing with reporters this week. The military opened a prison transfer ceremony to reporters on Thursday. And embeds with units are still available.

But there appears to be a clamping-down on spontaneous interactions between soldiers and the news media.

Recently my colleague Steven Lee Myers visited Forward Operating Base Mahmudiya, which the Americans transferred to Iraqi control on Thursday, and was told he could not interview soldiers during his visit because the chain of command had not authorized “formal interviews” with the soldiers there, part of the First Brigade of the Third Infantry Division.

The company commander at the base explained that his superiors wanted the focus of the visit to be on the process of the transfer — principally with only photographs and video — and not on the soldiers. (An Iraqi lieutenant colonel who showed up with trucks to haul away the detritus of KBR’s operations there also declined to be interviewed or to allow photographs.)

A civilian spokesman for the brigade, Tom Conning, later apologized, saying that the visit to the troops at Mahmudiya had not been properly organized.

In June I was embedded with a unit in northern Iraq when the McChrystal news broke. The soldiers who I was encamped with in the desert, on a mission to search for insurgents, were eager to talk about most anything: the war, the vicious fighting in prior tours, buddies killed, women back home.

But a question about the Rolling Stone article that resulted in President Obama firing General McChrystal was met with silence.

“How about the World Cup?” said an officer with the Third Squadron, Seventh Cavalry Regiment of the Third Infantry Division’s Second Brigade.

The reason for the reticence: a gag order had come down from division headquarters, the soldiers said, forbidding them from speaking about General McChrystal.

[Scout26]

It had to happen.  The media has been put on a shorter leash.

And this is a surprise how ?

[longeyes]

It appears that Rule of Engagement #1 is Protect Those Poppy Fields.

[MicroBalrog]

It appears that Rule of Engagement #1 is Protect Those Poppy Fields.

Failing to see a problem with this.

[Hawkmoon]

It appears that Rule of Engagement #1 is Protect Those Poppy Fields.

What does that have to do with the totally predictable aftermath of an alleged journalist violating the rules of off-the-record conversations?

Basically, the [unmentionable] alleged journalist got HIS story, and now gets to write a book, while managing to make it about a hundred times more difficult for his fellow [alleged] journalists to do THEIR job. Frankly, when they all get Stateside they should get together and invite him to a party ... and neglext to mention that it's a blanket party, and he's the guest of [dis]honor.

[Waitone]

Basically, the [unmentionable] alleged journalist got HIS story, and now gets to write a book, while managing to make it about a hundred times more difficult for his fellow [alleged] journalists to do THEIR job.

Which is why the journalistic pack should register its dissatisfaction (the movie Full Metal Jacket comes to mind) in a meaningful manner.  Problem is the military needs the media to put out its spin.

[HankB]

I remember after the Grenada invasion Cap Weinberger (not my favorite Washington insider, by the way) was holding a press conference with the news media. I was listening to it live on my car radio at the time.

Some reporter, as a prelude to his question, mentioned that American reporters had a long history of going along with the troops - in WWII, they were with the troops when they hit the beaches on D-Day; Ernie Pyle was giving reports from the front lines in the Pacific. Reporters went ashore with the troops on Iwo Jima, etc. etc.

The reporter then got around to his question, which was (I'm paraphrasing) "With the long history of American reporters being a part of American military operations since WWII, WHY WERE WE COMPLETELY CUT OUT AND KEPT IN THE DARK ABOUT THIS GRENADA OPERATION?"

With hardly a pause, Weinberger replied "In those days, you were on our side."

That said it all. And if you didn't hear it live, you probably didn't hear it at all.

Same thing later on in Desert Storm, when Schwartzkopf figured out the best way to deceive Saddam was to call American reporters in, swear them to secrecy, and tell them we were going to do "X"  . . . when the real plan was ""Y." Of course, these American reporters fell all over themselves to “leak” Plan “X” . . . which Saddam believed.

When questioned, Schwartzkopf said words to the effect of “We figured we could count on your dishonesty when you promised to keep a lid on things, so we decided to use it. You didn’t let us down – we were right.”

By and large the American press is NOT pro-American, and hasn't been for a long time. McChrystal should have known that. Others have known that.  Maybe the rest of the military is finally catching on.

(Of course our current Commander In Chief isn't pro-American either, but that's a whole 'nother problem.)

[longeyes]

If you love the military, you want to see them given honorable missions and "rules of engagement" that protect them.  Our policies in Afghanistan are and have been a welter of political and military confusion.  This is not the fault of our military; it is, as usual, emanating from the top.