A Failure of Intelligence
Thanks to Greg for his book and his work, and to TPM for making this forum a possibility.
I've read Spencer and my old roomie Bob Bateman's posts with interest. Considering that the military is the largest institution in our nation it is amazing how few in the reporting business know anything about it. That was true and obvious during the Gulf War and ever since.
In the post-Gulf War period Gen.Gordon Sullivan became Army chief of staff. He honestly wanted to do something about educating a new class of military correspondents and called a couple of us in to discuss it. He offered to sponsor an ongoing program to educate and familiarize reporters/camera folk nominated by their editors. It would take about a week a month or a week every six weeks as the correspondents were flown to spend time visiting everything from basic training to the War College and being briefed and taught. And mixing with and talking to soldiers from private to 4 stars. We took the offer back to our editors and spread the word. There wasn't a single taker, and newspapers were a good deal healthier at that time. The general attitude by those in authority was they did not have the manpower or time to invest in such a venture when the payoff might be years coming.
It is inevitable then that at the beginning of each of our wars the editors will pick out a good shoe leather reporter from whatever beat and get him a week of get-rich-quick familiarization, a kevlar helmet and armored vest and throw him into the fray.
With luck he will fall into the hands of a good battalion commander who will instantly recognize the danger inherent in someone totally ignorant of all things military who is equipped with a satellite phone, laptop and camera and can talk to the world around the clock. He will put the reporter with a smart lieutenant or captain and tell that officer to teach/guide/mentor the reporter and keep him from getting killed.
It's the purest form of OJT and it usually works. It happened to me on my first tour in Vietnam in 1965-66. I fell into the hands of the U.S. Marine Corps and spent my first seven or eight months covering every operation they mounted. I was mentored by veteran reporters like Dickie Chappelle and Jim Lucas and Jack Foisie.
In some ways I count myself lucky that I sort of came of age covering combat because the experience made me a very careful reporter. When I went in the field I usually traveled with a company, whether for 3 hours or 3 days. I knew that whatever I wrote and shot was likely to be played in Stars & Stripes, a military newspaper that circulated widely among the troops. They would read what I wrote about them in Stripes or their mama would mail them a clipping from the hometown paper. I also knew chances were very good that in a few weeks I would be back marching with them again. It's very bad form to misspell the name or get the hometown wrong about a man who is armed and dangerous and you are going to meet again. It will either make you a better reporter or subject you to a Darwinian cleansing experience.
Along the way something else happens: You fall in love with the soldiers and Marines who welcome you and share what little they have with you because you are willing to share the danger and risks with them. That too makes you a better reporter, a fiercer reporter, because from that point forward you question everything that has an impact on your friends. This is not a matter of being co-opted. This sensitizes you to the soldier's environment and makes you examine closely the rationale for sending him to fight and die. It makes you examine and judge the commanders who issue the orders that put him at risk. Do they love him as much as you do? Are they good and careful and smart as they prepare their plans? Or are they interested only in their own advancement, their own careers?
It takes more than one tour in one war to create a reporter who knows what he is seeing, can sort the good from the bad, above all is trusted by an institution that is inherently suspicious of everyone outside the fence.
War is too important to be left to the ignorant. Ignorant political leaders, ignorant military leaders and ignorant reporters can combine on occasion to create a perfect disaster where good soldiers and Marines are sent to fight and die on the flimsiest of excuses and for the poorest of reasons.
If you have seen such a disaster before, you sure recognize the warning signs when another is approaching.
Comments (24)
You fall in love with the soldiers and Marines
Exactly. That's why the American public gets one-sided reporting which parrots the government propaganda line.
Did you ever spend any time in the hooches that were under US bombardment, or with the people who who resisting US aggression? You did learn to speak and understand Vietnamese, right?
March 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please re-read Joe's last two paragraphs. If your opinion is still the same, I have nothing more to say to you.
It is a horrible mistake to blame soldiers and Marines for the crimes of politicians.
March 20, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ask Joe Galloway:
"You did learn to speak and understand Vietnamese, right?"
You ask that question as if everything he says can be discredited unless he spoke the language.
Let me answer for him.
I did learn to speak and understand Vietnamese, and I spent most of my time in Vietnam as a Civil Affairs interpreter working with Vietnamese villagers and Montagnard tribesmen. I never fired a shot in anger, and I was a member of GIs for Peace.
So... I hope my credentials are sufficient.
Because what I want to say to you is that Americans have reason to treasure Joe Galloway for not only sticking up for the rights of service people and veterans, but also for crusading against just the kind of political recklessness that got us into Iraq.
Reading his book "We Were Soldiers Once, and Young" was a life changing event for me, more than 35 years after I returned from the war.
Joe Galloway knows more than you will ever know, and feels it more deeply than you will ever appreciate.
Richard Galli
http://www.gallireport.com
March 21, 2008 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straight. Joe Galloway has had the backs of servicemen and women for decades. I really don't appreciate someone, who's either too lazy or too misinformed to know Joe's work, coming on these boards with snide, craptastic arguments and tyring to discount what Joe has done.
Thanks for all you've done, Richard. My experiences (Gulf War) were nowhere near as protracted and complicated as yours, but I guess GWB has fixed that on this second go-round. There's going to be a lot of work to be done long after our guys and gals come back from this latest one, and I know Joe Galloway will still be there fighting that good fight long after others have gone on to the next shiny cause.
March 21, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard,
It's obvious from the above that Joe Galloway sought acceptance and even love from the US troops he served with. But what the US public needs is somebody to report the facts, good and bad, and in war most of the facts are bad. The is particularly true in a situation like Iraq, which isn't really a war any longer, and hasn't been for some time. It is a resisted occupation. It isn't an insurgency, with people rebelling against their government. It is people resisting a brutal foreign military occupation, and their story needs to be told by someone who is not emotionally attached to the occupying troops. Sticking up for the rights of service people and veterans is a good thing, but it is irrelevant to the subject under discussion -- "A Failure of Intelligence."
March 22, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You fall in love with the soldiers and Marines
Exactly. That's why the American public gets one-sided reporting which parrots the government propaganda line.
Did you ever spend any time in the hooches that were under US bombardment, or with the people who were resisting US aggression? You did learn to speak and understand Vietnamese, right?
March 20, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Galloway,
Thanks for a thoughtful post. It's too bad there were no takers, but it is telling that even then newsrooms were too strapped for cash to spend the time and manpower on developing a military beat. Although, perhaps they were right and there really wasn't much to report on that wasn't already being covered by the Military Media.
Of course once combat operations begin, there is a scramble to develop sources and an effort to get up to speed on the lay of the land. Presumably this is what they teach in journalism school.
The problem wasn't primarily one of inexperience, but of a failure of basic journalistic principles exacerbated, in my mind, by corporate ownership.
March 20, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don, I'm sorry for my harsh words. I believe you care deeply about people, including our soldiers and Marines.
It would be good for everyone if more reporters had better perspective on the military. Then the reporters could help all of us gain better perspective, especially if a good percentage of the reporters were honest enough to tell it the way they see it rather than reporting the way Washington wants them to.
If everyone understood the realities of war, there would be less war.
March 20, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
WRoss,
Not a problem. One feature of a renegade government is that it excels not only in dividing its enemies but also its citizens, even when we're on the same side! Divide and conquer.
To see where I come from see my website:
http://www.warisaracket.org/index.html
The problem isn't loving the troops. They, more than most, deserve to be loved. The government has put them in hell. But the discussion here is truth in reporting, and that can't be done when emotions get in the way. When they do get in the way we can literally love our troops to death, by not reporting the truth and thereby prolonging their agony. All the reporting is from our side, the side of the good guys. The other guys aren't freedom fighters, they're terrorists. US atrocities? Only by a few renegades, and they've been punished. Hah.
What I'm suggesting is that reporters get co-opted by the embedding process, which is why the Pentagon does it, and why the real reporting coming out of the war is by reporters who are not embedded. Patrick Cockburn, for example.
March 20, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don,
Not only do I disagree, but I think Cockburn is an asshat, and what is worse (because being an asshat is not technically a sin) he's a lousy reporter.
Granted, I mostly read Le Monde, Der Spiegal, The Times (of London), Al Jazeera, and Dawn (the last heavily biased), but I'd sooner trust my little sister to be watched over by the serial rapist four blocks over than I would take Cockburn at his word.
Uhhh, did I say that out loud?
Bateman
March 20, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Galloway,
I wonder if you could share some thoughts with us as to how to interpret the seemingly extraordinary level of criticism coming from former high ranking military commanders.
Every now then one, or usually several, will weigh in on an issues that seem to leave no doubt they disagree with their former CiC on a number of critical issues.
I wonder if your background suggests any unique take aways from this that non-military savy people are missing.
On the one hand, it seems damning and indicative of substantial institutional resistance to CiC policy, but, on the other, I have no perspective in which to place it.
Any thoughts?
March 20, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope all Americans will get in touch with at least one Iraq/Afghanistan/Desert Storm/Vietnam vet and get together for coffee or beer, to attempt the near-impossible task of trying to understand war. Maybe the vets will talk about their experiences and maybe they won't, but let's give them a chance to talk if they want to, and at least show them some respect and hospitality.
Let's love our soldiers and Marines. They've been through things that most of us haven't. We can learn from the vets, and then maybe we can all be reporters by sharing what we've learned with our families and friends.
March 20, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Galloway,
Good to see you around again. It's unfortunate that not everyone seems to be familiar with your body of work, or know to what extent you've criticized the various military institutions and the top brass when they've done things that aren't in the best interests of the grunts that go into harm's way.
But as a vet, let me say thanks again for all you've done for us, and please drop by again anytime that retirement thing is getting just a bit too boring.
Off to the fridge for a beer (here's to you)...
March 20, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don,
My bad. When I see an American citing a Cockburn it's usually Alexander. He's the one I have heartburn with. Patrick and Andrew not so much. I still, however, have problems with British reporting in general, especially in the six "national" papers.
For all the problems here in the states with our journalism, at least our journalists try hard to report facts seperately from their own opinions. That is a tradition, and an ethic, that came in the wake of Pulitzer and "Yellow Journalism" (not to mention jingoism). Such a division never took root in the UK, and so in every story you cannot tell which statements are facts, and which are personal assertions/opinion on the part of the journalists. I also don't like the idea that you literally choose your paper based upon your politics. That's wrong with Fox News and the Washington Times, and it's wrong six times over in the UK.
(What is it with these families anyway? Three journalist/commentator brothers there. There are two Hitchens brothers, one writing in the UK. There are two Kagan brothers. Cripes. Half the commenteriat seems to have been raised under just three roofs.)
Bob Bateman
March 21, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bob
They are not trying hard enough, which is why we have Iraq. What they have tried hard to do is push the administration line, and in that they have succeeded.
March 22, 2008 12:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Galloway says:
"We took the offer back to our editors and spread the word. There wasn't a single taker, and newspapers were a good deal healthier at that time. The general attitude by those in authority was they did not have the manpower or time to invest in such a venture when the payoff might be years coming."
Well gee, Joe, you can't expect us to take reporters away from the Britanny Spears story, or the murdered blonde woman in the Caribbean can you?
Hey Joe, its cheaper to hire a few bobble heads and have them sit around a table and bloviate on trivial things than sending reporters off to foreign countries to do some journalism. Bottom line, ya know?
Edward R Murrow, Robert Capa, Ernie Pyle are turning over in their graves. Whatever happened to Peter Arnett?
Read "The Death of Captain Waskow" by Ernie Pyle.
Things sure have changed since my war.
World, I hardly know ye.
March 21, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some additional reading recommendations:
War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (Chris Hedges)
The Cat From Hue (John Laurence)
Live From the Battlefield (Peter Arnett)
Shooting Wars (Erik Durschmeid)
March 21, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post Joe. It is an honor being able to post a comment to one of your excellent pieces.
Semper fi and thanks for all you've done.
Devil Dog Dem
March 21, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The job of a reporter is to tell "Who, What, Where, When, and Why." And at the company or battalion level, the level at which reporters are embedded, the answer to "Why" is easy -- because division said so.
Only a fool could think that being "in the field" and marching "with a company, whether for 3 hours or 3 days" -- or for any other length of time, for that matter -- can tell him whether the government has created a "perfect disaster where good soldiers and Marines are sent to fight and die on the flimsiest of excuses and for the poorest of reasons."
March 21, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen said:
"......can tell him whether the government has created a "perfect disaster where good soldiers and Marines are sent to fight and die on the flimsiest of excuses and for the poorest of reasons."
You're describing Iraq.
March 21, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ellen said;
"......can tell him whether the government has created a "perfect disaster where good soldiers and Marines are sent to fight and die on the flimsiest of excuses and for the poorest of reasons."
you're describing Iraq.
March 21, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Joe,
A coincidence has just occurred. Your comment that Bob Bateman surprised me because I have just had an exchange with him about what he has written on this blog. Very courteous I might add. He sounds(writes) like a great guy. But part of our exchange was about the surge not meeting it's stated purpose which was to make time for the Sunni and Shia' to reconcile. I don't think he disagreed. The ground troops made the time but there was no reconciliation. I also mentioned to him that we were in the middle of a blood feud and it wouldn't end until they were either tired of killing each other or there was only one left on one side or the other. Talking about why we are there, how the war was executed is an exercise in futility and a waste of time. Getting the troops out of Iraq should be the only topic when discussing this debacle. Then maybe we can focus on bin Laden if Pakistan permits us.
March 22, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
nellieh,
I agree, the only debtate should be how quickly we can safely get the troops out. Unfortunately, here's what I see you run up against;
I refer to no one in particular, but in general, when I say that what you face when you support a pull out is any number of people, intentionally or unintentionally, seeing your point as somehow denigrating the troops. I think these people see a pull out before there is a Democracy, peace and prosperity in Iraq as a failure of the troops to establish these goals.
The sad part is its not the troops, its the civilian leadership that put the troops in an impossible situation just as they did in Vietnam, and when people see it as an attack on the troops, the civilain leadership gets off the hook.
I believe the Bush/Cheney gang want to turn over the war to the next administration so they (Bush/Cheney) can't be blamed for 'losing Iraq'.
I have yet to see any reason to believe they value our troops' lives more than their desire to
avoid blame for a disaster.
March 22, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
War is too important to be left to the ignorant. Ignorant political leaders, ignorant military leaders and ignorant reporters can combine on occasion to create a perfect disaster where good soldiers and Marines are sent to fight and die on the flimsiest of excuses and for the poorest of reasons.
Due in part to the failure of the papers to take Gen. Sullivan up on his offer, there is one other ignorant class. Ignorant citizens. These are the people who gave George Bush a 70%+ approval rating during the buildup to the Iraqi invasion, but who now give him, on a good day, 29%.
These are the people who wanted to see dead "ragheads" after 9/11. It didn't matter who paid the cost, as long as it was someone brown and different. As Balbir Singh Sodhi discovered. These are the people who forced Hillary Clinton and many other finger-in-the-wind Democrats to approve the Authorization for Use of Military Force which GWB rode into Iraq.
God knows we didn't learn the lessons of Vietnam, lessons so ably analyzed by people such as Andrew Bacevich - a man who has now lost a son to this godforsaken misadventure.
We should not worship the men and women we send off to fight our battles as heroes. They are not heroes. They are people who took a job, for reasons either noble or mercenary. For many, it is both noble AND mercenary. But without them, we would be defenseless. Andrew Olmsted was a soldier who understood his job as a soldier very well. And he understood his job as a citizen even better.
It is our job as citizens - a much more important job - to send them into harm's way only when necessary, only with the defense of our nation as a goal.
We threw off a king 232 years ago, and now we find ourselves individually and collectively in the position of Henry V on the night before Agincourt, as William Shakespeare fictionalized that event. It may be fiction, but read it, to better understand your job as a citizen.
For over 100 years now we have thrown our defenders into imperialistic enterprises. The Iraq conquest is only the latest example. Please, dear God, let us learn the lesson this time.
March 23, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink