Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Press, military and war

Friday, Oct. 26, 2001 | 4:59 a.m.

One of the big complaints coming from the Gulf War was the inaccuracy of briefings provided by the military. This was particularly true of photos used for bomb damage assessment. Another example given by the press after the war, was the military claims about how accurate the Patriot missiles were against Saddam's scuds.

After the Gulf War ended, the press and military sat down and agreed to a set of principles to allow independent coverage of the next war. Ten days ago Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had members of the press ask for direct access to all military forces. They weren't buying into the secretary's story that some countries didn't want them there to let the world know about U.S. troops operating within their borders.

The Gulf War had a very limited number of experienced war correspondents available because Vietnam had ended 17 years earlier. At least the Vietnam War and Korean War were only separated by little more than a decade, and only five years were quiet between World War II and Korea. Some of the more experienced correspondents were available to cover all three of these wars, much like some soldiers fought in all of them. These were reporters who understood what they were seeing and weren't trying to make a name for themselves on the bloody dog tags of fighting men.

I wasn't in Vietnam, but a recent essay in the Los Angeles Times, by poet and writer W. D. Ehrhart, can be summed up in one paragraph. Ehrhart, a combat Marine, recalled that CBS News correspondent John Laurence was "one of the most honorable journalists in Vietnam." But his overall opinion follows:

"We did not like journalists very much. They would come to a place like Con Thien by helicopter, stay a few hours and then go away again, back to places with silverware and mixed drinks and clean sheets. They got paid a lot more than we did, and they came and went as they pleased. Even the most experienced journalists were mostly just a burden. You had to look out for them and take care of them and help them if they were injured, but they did not carry weapons and therefore could not defend you."

In Korea, I had only two experiences with correspondents, one of them I didn't see. Following a combat patrol I was taking my first shower in a couple of weeks. It was water pumped directly from a river full of ice but the brown laundry soap and stiff brush made it feel good. Somebody started asking me questions from behind a curtain. I didn't even realize it was a reporter until it appeared in Stars and Stripes newspaper sent back home. The other contact was with a photographer I refused to allow to take pictures of our dead. It was an unpleasant experience, more for him than me.

Philip Meyer, a military veteran who holds the Knight Chair in Journalism at the University of North Carolina, wrote in USA Today about the "military, civilian divide." He points to the fewer number of former military people in both the press and Congress. Meyer writes, "There was no such divide in World War II because nearly everyone served. One of the unplanned consequences of the military draft was a great leveling effect, where social-class distinctions were set aside." Allow me to add that it's tough for the military to be used as a punching bag by the media and politicians during peacetime and still not be wary of them when a war begins.

It will be difficult to cover the fighting men now making hit-and-run raids into enemy strongholds. There's little room for extra baggage when special infantry units go into combat from helicopters and airplanes.

What's taking place between the military and the press today can be understood and in the long run should be overcome, but it won't be easy. Recent respectable polls show the American public strongly sides with any restrictions the military puts on press coverage. It's going to take several experienced and hard-working correspondents to break through the divide described by Meyer.