The reader will kindly forgive any tendency to rough language or behavior on the part of the site owner...
TMGlogo2006-2007phs-copy.jpg
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
TMGbloglabel1 copy.gif

TMGbloglabel3 copy.gif
TMG MONTHLY ARCHIVES
[-]



TMGbloglabel10 copy.gif

TMGbloglabel2 copy.gif
The Mudville Gazette Feeds

 

Add to Technorati Favorites
Technorati Profile
add.gif
Add to Google
addtomyyahoo4.gif
ngsub1.gif sub_modern5.gif

xml.gif rdf.png atom feed.jpg

digg.jpg

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.

pl-news.gif

tvc_logo_small.png

Mrsg- Greyhawk's Profile
Mrsg- Greyhawk's Facebook profile
Create Your Badge
TMGbloglabel5 copy.gif
TMGbloglabel6 copy.gif
350.jpg
Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by!
« Dog Whistle Heard | Main | Live Video Feed »

April 11, 2008

greyhawk copy sm.png

Targeting Journalists

By Greyhawk

This-week-in-Iraq-war-history continues with another look-back post, this one originally published in February, 2005. It concerns events occuring at the time of the fall of Baghdad - events that had made headlines again two years later. (And I'd like to think it helped draw a certain mainstream media guy into the blogosphere. I love to corrupt the innocent...)

*****

Milblogger meets reporter: The Mudville Gazette presents an online dialogue on the topic of military targeting of journalists with Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald. Opinions expressed are those of the individuals stating them, who should not be construed as representing any groups, organizations or third parties. Likewise no endorsement of comments herein by such groups is expressed or implied.

My thanks to Mr Crittenden for taking the time to participate in this discussion.

****************

Eason Jordan has resigned.

That's all well and good, but don't be fooled. The "Easongate" affair is about something more than one man slandering the US Military. As a member of that institution living in Europe I hear such comments more frequently (or at least notice them more often) than many Americans. The more outlandish a conspiracy theory is, the more likely it can be utterred without fear of reprisal in certain circles. Some small kernel of truth that adds any credibilty to the claim is a bonus. After all, journalists do get killed on battlefields. Civilians are often victims of crossfire. Soldiers sometimes mistakenly fire on their brothers-in-arms. It's a small step from those facts to an assumption that somewhere, somehow a soldier might have intentionally fired on a journalist in the heat of battle. That's the start of a slippery slope, nearer the bottom of which some are surprised to find executives with major news organizations opining that such events occur with a frequency that could not be unnoticed by the powers-that-be in both the military and the media.

Although twisted and distorted to fit his purpose, there are facts at the root of Eason Jordan's claim. The genesis of the soldiers targeting reporters in Iraq line could be traced to events in Baghdad during the final days of the invasion. Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald was embedded with A Co., 4-64 Armor, 2nd Brigade, 3rd ID during the battle for Baghdad, and was on scene when a US Army tank fired on the Palestine Hotel from the Jumhuriyah Bridge on April 8, 2003, killing two journalists. He was quoted ("selectively and/or inaccurately") in reports of the event that are now frequently cited as support for claims of murder committed by US soldiers. If anyone can be called a "fair witness" to both the actual event and the subsequent rise of a distorted version of same its Jules Crittenden.

Just before Jordan's resignation, shortly after I posted Media, Military, and Professional Ethics, Jules and I began the following online discussion:

GH: Military targeting journalists - it's obviously a hot topic these days. But did this really originate with Eason Jordan in Davos, or is he just the guy unfortunate enough to have repeated 'conventional wisdom' in a public forum where someone was ready to call him on it?

JC: Eason Jordan's remarks, as reported, are highly irresponsible and repugnant. But it didn't start with him. The myth about the military targeting journalists in Iraq has a long history, dating back to the Hotel Palestine incident and beyond that to the as-yet unresolved deaths of the ITN crew. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are willing to think the worst of the US military, and ascribe malicious intent to accidents of war. The head of CNN would appear to be one of them.

The Palestine incident was twice written up, by the Committee to Protect Journalists ("Permission to Fire") and Reporters Without Borders ("Two Murders and a Lie") in biased and sloppy reports that fuel this myth. So when Jordan tells congressmen the military targets journalists, he is only reflecting a view that has been given respectability by deeply concerned professional organizations that have been eagerly seeking out evidence of targeting, and when they can't find it, suggest it must be what happened anyway.

GH: I read a version of the Palestine Hotel story in David Zucchino's book Thunder Run - his version of events spelled out an unfortunate fact of war, a series of events leading to disaster, but just one of the many inevitable tragedies that occurs when 'it' hits the fan.

JC: Zucchino did a great job with Thunder Run. I ran into him in Baghdad on April 7 in the July 14th Square. He and 20 grunts had been dumped in a canal a few days earlier, and he had lost all his gear, but he stuck with the project and moved forward. His book told me all kinds of things I didn't know about things that were happening one to two miles away, and the higher level decision-making. I just had the grunt's eye view on all of it.

GH: Since the event is obviously significant to any discussion of "targeting journalists" I'll offer this excerpt from the book as background for those not familiar with the events of that day. Bear in mind this is the story as recounted by LA Times reporter David Zucchino in his book on the battle - not an official military after action report on the subject. I've added the maps for what should be obvious reasons.

****************
On a balcony outside Room 1502 of the Palestine Hotel, across the Tigris, photographer Faleh Khaiber was trying to get his shots of American aircraft in the skies over Baghdad that morning. Khaiber was an Iraqi, a Baghdad native who worked as a photographer for the Reuters news agency. He was staying in Room 935, but he had come up to the Reuters room because its two balconies faced north and slightly west, affording a view of the west bank of the Tigris. Khaiber was forty-seven, but he looked much younger. He was short and trim, with small features, his black hair tinged with silver and combed forward. He was nimble and quick, and good with a camera.
bdad1.jpg

Khaiber was one of nearly a hundred reporters and photographers staying at the Palestine, a tan, seventeen-story high-rise on the east bank of the Tigris about a kilometer and a half southeast of the midspan of the Jumhuriya Bridge. Some of the journalists had moved in recent days from the Rashid Hotel across the river, which had been seized the morning before by the tanks and Bradleys of the Rogue battalion. All morning on the seventh, journalists had watched from the Palestine as Assassin Company fought off an Iraqi counterattack at the intersection at the foot of the bridge on the west bank. The hotel's balconies and rooftop afforded a fairly good view of the fight, while far enough away, seemingly, to keep journalists from getting caught up in it.

bdad2.jpg

Outside room 1502, Khaiber was photographing the aircraft from the balcony to the east. On the adjacent balcony was one of the occupants of the room, Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian-born Reuters TV cameraman, Protsyuk's camera was set up on a tripod, but he wasn't filming at the moment. On the balcony directly below, Jose Couso, a Spanish cameraman for Spain's Telecinco, had set up his camera and was filming the battle across the river.

On his balcony, Khaiber wheeled around and tried to squeeze off a few frames of an aircraft roaring overhead. He wanted to get a few more shots before stepping over to Protsyuk's balcony to retrieve camera gear he had left there.

On the bridge, the tanks began taking fire from a high-rise building at the eastern end, at the northern foot of the bridge. It was a beige structure with a light brown center concrete fa硤e that protruded the length of the building. The crews began returning firing toward the base of the structure, where men with RPGs were running and hiding along the riverbank. Wolford radioed a request for a jet fighter to drop a bomb on the building to Major Rideout back at the palace. The request was passed up the chain of command to Colonel Perkins.

Then the battalion was presented with a piece of intelligence that seemed to promise a way to disrupt the Iraqi mortar fire. Earlier that morning, in the part of the governmental complex controlled by the Rogue battalion, a Bradley crew had destroyed a car loaded with armed men. From the wreckage, the crews had recovered a two-way Motorola radio that was turned on and still working. It was a small black radio. Hearing voices chattering in Arabic, the crewmen turned the radio over to the battalion's military intelligence team.

Chief Warrant Officer Two Willis Young, a fluent Arabic speaker who specialized in human intelligence, was intrigued as he listened to the conversations coming over the radio. He took the radio to Nussio, the battalion's executive officer, who was in the back of his armored personnel carrier next to the converted public toilet that was serving as a command post at the edge of the parade grounds. Young translated for Nussio: someone in a tall building was describing an American tank on the Jumhuriya Bridge. He mentioned that he was in a building that contained a Turkish restaurant.

Nussio radioed Major Rideout at the Republican Palace and warned him that one of Wolford's tanks was being observed by an Arabic-speaker in a building across the river. He was concerned that the speaker was a forward observer-a spotter-for Iraqi mortar and artillery crews.

Rideout radioed Wolford at the intersection: "Hey, you've got an FO across the river with eyes on you. You need to pay close attention. I'll get back to you with more later."

A minute later, Nussio radioed Rideout with an update. The voice on the radio was now describing more tanks across the river. He was telling someone that he wanted mortars fired to try to hit the tanks he saw on the bridge.

Rideout radioed back to Wolford and warned him to watch for mortars.

"We're getting mortars already!" Wolford told him. He described a garage across the river where RPG teams had taken cover behind construction equipment and were firing on his tanks. It was near the tan high-rise building. Rideout told Wolford to look for a building with a Turkish restaurant. That's where the forward observer was.

On the Jumhuriya Bridge, Staff Sergeant Gibson had been told by Lieutenant Middleton that forward observer overheard on a two-way radio was in a high-rise building across the river, trying to direct mortar and artillery strikes. Middleton had relayed the report directly from Wolford, who had told him, "see if you can find a spotter."

Gibson and Middleton were alarmed. At least one artillery shell and several mortar rounds had already slammed down on or near the bridge. If forward observer now had a clear view of the bridge in order to direct mortar or artillery fire, he could easily bring it right down on their heads. American soldiers threatened by mortars or artillery are trained to locate the forward observer and kill him as quickly as possible. "We've got to find this guy," Middleton said.

The tanks were receiving RPG and small-arms fire not only from the tan high-rise directly across the river, but also from gunmen running up and down a stretch of the opposite riverbank that extended hundreds of meters south of the bridge. Some of the tanks returned fire with coax and .50-caliber at RPG and machine-gun positions along that section of the opposite bank. As Gibson searched the opposite bank for anyone in a high-rise building, his gunner yelled up to him, "Hey, Sergeant Gibson, I got a guy over here looking at us with binoculars." It was a man on the upper floor of a light-colored high-rise across the river, about a kilometer to the south.

Gibson dropped down and looked through the tank's magnified sights. The gunner had the sights on 3X magnification. Gibson punched it up to 10X. It was difficult to see through the haze and smoke, but when Gibson scanned the high-rise building the gunner had indicated, he saw a figure holding what appeared to be a pair of binoculars next to something on a tripod.

In his tank at the edge of the bridge, Lustig heard Gibson describe the tripod and "some kind of optics." Lustig thought it might be a GLLD, a ground/vehicular laser locater designator-a tripod-mounted laser targeting device used by forward observers to direct artillery fire.

Middleton relayed the information by radio to Wolford. Moments later, the captain radioed the lieutenant back for a more detailed description. "What do you have?" he asked.

Middleton described the figure on the balcony, the tripod, and what appeared to be binoculars. Wolford asked him for the range-the distance to the building. He knew the marines were moving up the opposite bank somewhere to the south, and he was worried about accidentally firing on them. Middleton said the range was 1,740 meters. The captain told him to stand by.

The radio nets were humming. Wolford was trying to keep Rideout and deCamp informed, while also fielding reports and requests from his platoon leaders and directing his gunner in the firefight. Lieutenant McFarland radioed to ask about Captain Barry's position. Wolford gave McFarland the location, then turned his attention back to the situation across the river. He still wanted bombs dropped on the tan high-rise at the opposite end of the bridge, where gunmen were firing on his tanks. He was also worried about mortar fire, and in particular the forward observer Gibson and Middleton had just identified to the tall building across the river and farther south. The spotter had to be eliminated.

Wolford got back on the radio to Middleton. "Okay," he told him, "you've got permission to take the target out."

Middleton relayed the order to Gibson, who turned to his gunner and told him, "Fire a HEAT round at the target."

The round erupted from the gun tube with an orange flash and tore into the side of the building, just below and to the right of the balcony where Gibson had seen the figure standing. It exploded in a cloud of gray smoke and debris. Gibson was fairly certain he had finally taken out the forward observer.

Moments later, Major Nussio called Rideout with an update from the monitored Motorola conversations. "Whatever you're doing, keep it up. This guy is now calling his buddy and saying he's getting suppressed and has to move."

Rideout radioed Wolford and told him, "Whatever you're fucking doing right now, keep it up! You're starting to move the guy around. He has to find a new location." Rideout thought it was a hell of a coup, to drive out forward observer using a captured radio.

Now there was more fire coming from directly across the bridge. Gibson had his gunner traverse the gun tube. He spotted four men with RPG launchers as they took up firing positions behind a wall in an alley collapsed the wall and, Gibson thought, killed all four men. He traversed the gun tube again and scanned up and down the riverbank, searching for more targets.

Consumed by the fight, Gibson had no idea that the HEAT round fired moments earlier had mortally wounded Taras Protsyuk, the Reuters cameraman who had set up his camera on the balcony. Protsyuk was thirty-five with a wife and an eight-year-old son. The impact had also struck Jose Couso, the Spanish cameraman who had been filming on the balcony below severely wounding him in the face and leg. Couso was thirty-seven, with a wife and two children, aged six and three. Couso and Protsyuk both died of their wounds at Baghdad hospitals.

On the second balcony outside Room 1502, Reuters photographer Faleh Khaiber was knocked unconscious by the force of the blast, his head cut by flying debris. He recovered, along with two other journalists who were also injured by the exploding tank round.

At some point just before the Palestine was hit, Major Mark Rasins, the operations officer for the Tusker battalion, had been frantically trying to help Rideout and Wolford locate the building with the Turkish restaurant-based on the intercepted Motorola conversations. Rasins was extroverted and hands-on - the type of officer who was quick to address problems. Riding in a Bradley at the end of Barry's Cyclone Company as it moved past Wolford's company, Rasins was listening to the discussions over the brigade radio net. He thought the battalion needed to get out into the streets with an Arabic-speaking interpreter to find someone who could locate the Turkish restaurant. Rasins had the Bradley driver rush back to Sujud Palace, where Rideout had told him he could find Abdulla, a university teacher from California who was one of the brigade's interpreters.

Rasins and Abdulla arrived in the Bradley a few minutes later at an intersection held by Barry's company just off the west bank of the river at a bridge north of the Jumhuriya Bridge. They found a cluster of men in civilian clothes near the river. The men were like tourists, craning their necks and trying to see the firefighters raging up and down the riverbanks. Abdulla spoke to a neatly dressed middle-aged man who said he knew where the Turkish restaurant was - it was directly across the Jumhuriya Bridge. It was the beige high-rise. That suggested that the Iraqi spotter overheard on the Motorola had been in that building. The man added that the building housing the restaurant recently had been taken over as the headquarters for Iraqi military intelligence. Rasins grabbed the man, put him in the back of the Bradley, and rushed to the Jumhuriya Bridge. But by the time they reached the intersection, the Palestine already had been hit.

Meanwhile, Colonel Perkins had begun to act on the Tusker battalion's request for an air strike on the beige high-rise. As he discussed the air strike with Major Rideout over the radio Perkins overheard by Greg Kelly, the embedded Fox News correspondent. Kelly was standing next to Perkins on the raised front driveway of Sujud Palace, where the colonel's command vehicle was parked. When Kelly heard Perkins discussing a high-rise building across the Tigris, he told the colonel to make sure the building wasn't the Palestine Hotel. Kelly knew the hotel was somewhere across the river, filled with journalists.

Perkins had never heard of the Palestine. The east bank of the Tigris was not his area of operations. It had been assigned to the marines, who were still fighting their way up through the southeastern edge of city. Kelly told Perkins that most of the foreign press were staying at the Palestine. He knew it was across the river, but he wasn't certain of its exact location.

Kelly offered to call his New York office on his Thuraya satellite phone to try to find someone who could describe the hotel. He was given a number in Amman, Jordan, of a Fox Producer who had recently stayed at the Palestine. Kelly reached the producer and jotted down noted as the man described the hotel. Kelly was trying to relay the descriptions to Perkins, but finally he just handed the phone to the colonel and let him speak to the producer himself. Kelly had been with Perkins for the entire war, and he had never seen him so insistent and agitated.

Perkins wanted to make sure that the building being targeted for the air strike wasn't the Palestine. He sent a soldier down the ramp to get Chris Tomlinson, an associated press reporter embedded with the brigade's Attack Company. Tomlinson, who had served in the army, was wearing a tanker's CVC communications helmet and had been monitoring the brigade's radio traffic. He rushed up the ramp to find Perkins desperately asking about the Palestine. Did Tomlinson know what it looked like?

Tomlinson had never been to the hotel, but he offered to contract the AP reporter based at the Palestine. He sent an e-mail message on his laptop and also tried calling on his Thuraya satellite phone. There was no reply. Much later, Tomlinson realized that the hotel had already been hit and that all the journalists were either fleeing their rooms or helping evacuate the mortally wounded reporters.

Tomlinson called the AP office in Doha, Qatar and asked Danica Kirka, his editor there, for the map coordinates of the Palestine. She didn't know, so she tried calling the Palestine and sending a text message over the AP internal network to the AP reporter there. Again, there was no reply. Kirka told Tomlinson that AP reporter Nico Price, now in Amman, Jordan, had just stayed at the Palestine. She patched Tomlinson through to Price, who gave him a detailed description of the building. Tomlinson took notes, then gave Perkins a description of a tall, pink-colored building with balconies jutting out at an angle. He told him it was located at the sharp bend in the Tigris River, right next to the Sheraton Hotel.

Perkins radioed Rideout at the palace with the description of the Palestine. He told the major that he wanted to be certain the high-rise directly across the bridge wasn't the Palestine Hotel before he approved dropping a bomb on it. Rideout said the high-rise directly across the bridge wasn't pinkish in color, nor was it located next to any other tall building or in the river, which was farther south. Based on the description he had been given by Wolford in preparation for the air strike, Rideout did not believe it was a hotel.

At this point, deCamp got on the net. Perkins told him to make sure his people didn't accidentally fire on the Palestine Hotel. DeCamp had never heard of the Palestine. It wasn't in his sector. The only hotel he knew about was Rashid Hotel, which had been taken by the Rogue battalion the day before. But deCamp did know from Wolford, and from scouts posted behind the Republican Palace, that RPG teams and snipers were firing from positions up and down the opposite riverbank. He told Perkins that he'd find out about the Palestine.

Perkins still wasn't satisfied. He decided to go over to the bridge and personally have a look at the situation across the river.

Meanwhile, deCamp got on the radio to Wolford. In a loud voice that was unmistakable over the net, he asked the captain whether he had fired on the "Palestinian Hotel," as deCamp called it. DeCamp ordered Wolford to make absolutely sure his company hadn't fired on the hotel. Neither man realized that the hotel had already been hit. Wolford, like deCamp, had never heard of the Palestine - or Palestinian - Hotel. He told deCamp that his men had been firing at the beige high-rise directly across the bridge. DeCamp had trouble deciphering the captain's descriptions of a building with a "brown stripe" running down the side and "a pyramid" on top. He decided to get into his tank and go to the intersection to speak with Wolford directly - and to look across the river himself.

It did not take long for the news of an American attack on a Baghdad hotel filled with journalists to hit the international news wires. Between soldiers monitoring BBC radio and reporters imbedded with the Second Brigade, the first reports of the deaths at the Palestine soon reached Colonel Perkins.

Earlier, as he was trying to get a description of the Palestine, Chris Tomlinson had asked his editor in Doha to get word to the reporters inside the hotel to hang bedsheets from their windows as a way of identifying the building. By early afternoon, the bedsheets were out. (Iraqi soldiers later ordered the reporters to remove them.)

From the bridge, Wolford saw sheets fluttering from the building his men had hit, and his heart sank. He glanced over at Middleton, and he saw from the look on his face that the lieutenant knew it, too. It was a miserable feeling.

****************

GH: So you were there?

JC: I was about 100 yards or so from the Jumhuriyah Bridge, down at the intersection of Haifa and Jaffa, when Staff Sgt Shawn Gibson fired on the Palestine. All of us were highly concerned at the time about reports an Iraqi FO had eyes on our position from a tall building in the vicinity. After the big counterattack that morning was fought back, we continued to receive sporadic mortar fire and RPG fire all morning, taking and returning fire from several tall buildings. The tankers on the bridge reported that numerous RPG teams were operating up and down the opposite bank of the Tigris. Gibson saw what he thought was the spotter and fired. He was distraught when he learned his mistake.

GH: And following the events the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders also wrote up reports?

JC: Yes. I was quoted in the reports, selectively and/or inaccurately, and had RWB remove my remarks, which they reported inaccurately and without permission. CPJ, while casting aspersions on the soldiers based on speculation, neglected to include remarks I made on the character of Gibson and CO Capt. Phillip Wolford, whom I knew as professionals who went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties. I lived with them, rode with them into a series of actions and have great respect for them. The Palestine was an accident by well-intentioned men who had been under fire, some of it intense, since dawn the day before.

All of us who went to Iraq, embedded and non-embedded press, knew we could be killed. Many of us narrowly avoided it, but others weren't so lucky. It is part of the deal. What happened at the Palestine underscores the fact that there is no safe place in a war zone. That point also is illustrated by what happened to two European reporters embedded with 2nd Brigade of the 3rd ID, who they chose not to join the assault on Baghdad on April 7 due to the danger. They stayed back at the brigade TOC, where they were killed by an Iraqi missile. So much for second guessing one's safety options.

****************

This concludes part one of this discussion. Have a question or comment? Those who would like to "join" the conversation are encouraged to make use of the comments section below. Thoughtful questions and (respectful) dissenting opinions will be addressed in a future post on this topic.

Thanks again to Mr Crittenden for taking the time to participate in this discussion, and thanks in advance to all those who join in below.

Update/clarification: This post was written by Greyhawk - posted by the Mrs. Apologies for any confusion that resulted!

2005-02-13 18:03:27


Posted by Greyhawk / April 11, 2008 5:03 PM | Permalink

9 TrackBacks

In an excellent blog post by fellow Milblogger the Mudville Gazette discussing the targeting of journalists by the military, Mr.s... Read More

Hat tip to Instapundit. This is what I've been waiting on, a discussion of whether Journalists have been targeted, since the CPJ and Reporters Without Borders have obviously accused the US Military of "murder and deliberate targeting". I think this i... Read More

The Mudville Gazette has an interview with a Boston Globe reporter who was imbedded with the tank unit that fired ...

Read More

Back in the days when I wore green I was stationed for a few years at Fort Lewis, Washington. Because Fort Lewis is surrounded by small towns on all sides there's nowhere to safely set up tank gunnery ranges. Even the training rounds a tank fires wil... Read More

In this TCS article, James D. Miller argues that blogs, of all things, are likely to have a chilling effect on free speech. First we have the Scary Setup. Watch out America - if the Big Bad Blogs have their... Read More

Blogworthies LIV from The Blog from the Core on February 19, 2005 12:16 PM

Because The Blog from the Core simply can't cover everything. Noteworthy entries @ Posse Incitatus, Captain's Quarters, Vodkapundit, Catholic Analysis,... Read More

....for American soldiers.

A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest order for three US soldiers over the shelling of a Baghdad hotel that killed a cam...
Read More

FRESH OFF THE WIRES from Madrid: A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and one other, a court official said... Read More

A Spanish Judge has ordered the arrest of three American soldiers, charging them with the murder of Spanish journalist Jose Couso. Couso was killed by an M-1 tank round in April, 2003 while he, treating war as the spectator sport we all know it is, was... Read More

21 Comments

As a former soldier myself I really appreciate Mr. Crittenden's comments on this topic. American soldiers (and those of other Western nations I had the privilege to serve with) have the rule of law inculcated into them. They know what is a legal order and what is not, and would be horrified to find out that one of their comrades had deliberately targeted a non-combatant, even the nearly universally disliked journalists.

It's interesting that you chose today to post this Mrs. Greyhawk since I just finished writing a post on my own blog about a training accident that took place when I was stationed at Fort Lewis. Considering that such a thing could happen in peacetime under training conditions it suprises me that anyone would think that an accident couldn't happen in wartime. Soldiers are under great amounts of stress in combat and sometimes make mistakes. To suggest that means that honorable men and women are deliberately taking actions that any warrior would find abhorrent is despicable. Sadly, in today's world, certain groups of people can be attacked by the media with impunity, including soldiers and police officers, and the media is rarely, if ever, taken to task for it.

My sincere condolences to the family and friends of those killed covering this war and other hot spots. The courage it takes to go into these areas is to be respected.
The real question is why most of these courageous people take the low road when it comes to reporting the stories. There must be a reason that most of the MSM reporting is so negative. I think because any story showing the U.S. in a badlight gets coverage the reporters are going to write those stories even if they have to make them up or "speculate". Career enhancement is the motive at this level and it's driven by the ideology of the upper echelons like Eason Jordan!
Kudos to your guest for telling the story! Isn't Greg Kelley an ex-Marine? Good training shows!

The reporters I talked to in Viet Nam (two) said that they respected the fact that being on operations was very dangerous but that was their job. They also mentioned that most of the press was satisfied to file reports from the Hotels in Saigon or other safe places.

I don't know from first hand experience, but was told by a Captain, that one of those two I spoke with was killed a few weeks later. The Captain said that he was killed along with 5 of our troops by a short arty. round.

Here is something I found that shows that even Kofi Anan said that most journalists who die are MURDERED.

http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGPOL305032004

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

"Career enhancement is the motive at this level and it's driven by the ideology of the upper echelons like Eason Jordan!"

That is indeed the problem. In this case, they're from the Left and there for one purpose, to find an angle they can manipulate to discredit our military's objectives and actions. All the while doing their part helping to sustain/strengthen their own careers and organizations as they feed the public up to date coverage on world events.

They live for and get paid to further an agenda. They are not very good people.

I dont believe they targeted on purpsoe
but incompetence.

just like Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia

should have intel on high rises
and where non combatants were before firing

its jsut intl law,

I think it's telling that when they hit the hotel the enemy spotter "...is now calling his buddy and saying he’s getting suppressed and has to move.”

No matter how it is characterized it seems it was effective and looks like the Palestine hotel was being used by an enemy spotter. That was unfortunate for the journalists, but considering Saddam's record of using human shields should have been expected by the journalists congregating there.

Kalroy

The fact that Mr. Crittendens comments never made it to the MSM is telling. It is almost inconceivable the extent our military goes to prevent civilian collateral damage. Our enemies certainly don't. And housing up in an area inhabited by enemy combatants would certainly lead one to believe it could get dicey.
The deaths were unfortunate and sad, but the circumstances are certainly understandable.


Always a pleasure to see Mr. Crittenden's remarks - he is a walking refutation to the meme of media bias against the military.

I, for one, would have been happier to see Jordan admit what he did and try to fix it - he didn't have to resign. That would have been more instructive, IMO.

There is a lot of very good coverage of the military out there - not all of it uncritical, *but not all of it has to be* - all we ask is an even shake.

Thanks for bringing this to us. I'll link to it later if I don't space out completely.

Everyone seems to be missing a big point. If the troops were out to get the media, both Dan Rather and Peter Jennings have been in and out of country. Wouldn't those two never make it back out? And what about that witch from CNN, the Brit with the lying dirty mouth? No, if our guys were out to get media, there would be many more of them dead.

Good work here Greyhawk and Mrs. Greyhawk. I will spread the word about this post as well.

Exactly. I think the larger story here is being ignored: WHAT THE HECK HAS HAPPENED TO MILITARY MARKSMANSHIP???

If we are truly targeting journalists, this track record is nothing to boast about. I, for one, am ashamed...

*running away*

Followed the link over from Instapundit with the intention of pointing you at Thunder Run myself. Glad to hear you guys have already followed up on this.

Thunder Run is one of the better books to come out of the conflict. I also recommend Generation Kill by Evan Wright (an account of a platoon of First Reconnaissance Battalion Marines), The March Up by Ray Smith & Bing West (with the 1st Marine Division), In the Company of Soldiers by Rick Atkinson (with the 101st Airborne), Masters of Chaos by Linda Robinson (with the Special Forces) and Naked in Baghdad by Anne Garrels (NPR correspondent in Baghdad for the duration).

My question is why haven't the circumstances outlined in Thunder Run been circulated as widely as the false assertions that the journalists were deliberated targeted?

GreyHawk,

Excellent job on this.

Here is what bothers me:

"Some of the journalists had moved in recent days from the Rashid Hotel across the river, which had been seized the morning before by the tanks and Bradleys of the Rogue battalion. All morning on the seventh, journalists had watched from the Palestine as Assassin Company fought off an Iraqi counterattack at the intersection at the foot of the bridge on the west bank. The hotel’s balconies and rooftop afforded a fairly good view of the fight, while far enough away, seemingly, to keep journalists from getting caught up in it."

What does recent days mean? Did any journalists move from the Rashid to the Palestine hotel the previous day when American troops took over that hotel?

We should remind ourselves in the days just before the war began how the journalists lined up to get IN to Iraq to report on the war, hoping to get spectacular TV footage and pictures similar to CNNs coverage during the initial aerial bombardments in the first Gulf War. What explains this phenomena? Media organizations send their reporters into harms way to sell TV time or newspapers in the supposed name of getting the truth. But when they allow themselves to be manipulated into providing the message the country they are in wants to get out, or restrict what they show to what matches their own opinions or their own agenda, they cease to be news and become propaganda. So they are at least complicit in the deaths of their employees in combat since they sent them into a war zone to put out the propaganda allowed by the host country and have no room to blame either side when their reporters are killed.

It's a tough world out there. If you choose to be there, accept the consequences, friendly fire or hostile fire, collateral damage or in the wrong place at the wrong time. Acting like the blue helmet on your head and the TV or PRESS on your flak jacket is a force field against the laws of physics when the warhead goes off 20 yards away and you are riddled with shrapnel just shows that you are too stupid to understand the world as it is, and therefore have no business telling the rest of us how it should be.

If you are a journalist and have observed the US Army in action, seizing your hotel the previous day, why would you move back in to enemy held territory to continue to observe the battle the next day? Even if you started the war in the Palestine, why would you be surprised when shells or bullets from combatants start exploding around you? After all, the American Army WAS capturing Baghdad, a location which you, as a correspondent, had thoughtfully placed yourself so you could see people getting blown up, and send it to your editors with the byline "American Army kills innocent civilians". Either you 1) have no respect for the weapons of war and the men who wield them, because you ignored the devastation they wrought the previous day, or 2) are so consumed with showing the other side's story in the name of balance, but not truth, that you would put yourself in the middle of a battle on the receiving end of the most devastating fire possible, just so you can get a good shot for your news organization showing the hated American Army shooting at you.

Either your are 1) stupid and clueless, or 2) married to the philosophy that America is the root of all that is bad, as well as being stupid and clueless. And the excuse that they are just journalists doing their job doesn't hold water. Sending journalists into a combat zone without the expectation they will suffer the same casualties as the soldiers fighting the war again shows how clueless journalists and their bosses are.

Bottom line: If you intend to cover a war, be ready to die just as the soldiers fighting the battle must be. Be ready to show just the truth, not your interpretation of it. And placing yourself in the line of fire, however you did it, especially when the American military is on the other end of the rifle barrel, is foolhardy in the extreme. Even the American military shows a greater fear and respect of friendly fire than they do of enemy fire. (Witness all the effort put in to training soldiers to look where they are shooting, and holding their fire if the target is not identified.)

If, as journalists, you are not ready to die for the truth, quit painting yourself as some noble bard who unveils the injustice in the world through the truth of your words and photos. You shouldn't flirt with the truth ---- you should be married to it.

Subsunk

My own experiences with journos (in the public-safety realm) always brought home to me that many of them never even consider that there might be another side to the story. I told some journo friends about the things I saw at work, and they always just had this blank stare; you could see the phrase "does not compute" rolling behind their eyes. It was quite frustrating. I just wanted to shake them, hard, and yell "I'm not lying! This is the way things are!"

Again, why would a person with the guts to go into a combat zone risk their lives to tell a lie? There has to be an incentive from above, from the powers that be , the ones who say how much air time a story gets. It seems the worse the U.S. looks in the story, the longer the story runs. New York Times ran Abu Graib stories on the front page 50+ times according to the O'reilly Factor!
Why?

Greyhawk,
Your essay + Crittenden interview + Thunder Run extraction combine to make the most useful journalism on the Pallestine Hotel incident (that I've seen). Just superb. I've done my best with a SeekerBlog post to send folks over here.
To Dean: thanx heaps for the book reviews, just added to my wish list. I will second your nominations for the two I've read: In the Company of Soldiers, and Naked in Baghdad.
May I also recommend Karl Zinsmeister's: Boots on the Ground: A Month With the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq , and his Dawn Over Baghdad: How the U.S. Military is Using Bullets and Ballots to Remake Iraq, reviewed at Townhall here. The latter is the first (and only?) on-the-ground book on reconstruction and anti-terror strategies.

Gee too bad for CNN i mean just think over the last few years how bad its gone for the liberal left-wing news media i mean first it was that reporter for the New York Times then it was DAN RATHER and then TOM BROKAW and now this person for CNN(Communist News Network)who next? frankly i hope its PETER JENNINGS

My domain expertise is unrelated to military affairs but I know from extensive reading over a long period of time that journalists have their own views and their own biases. Whether consciously or not, an author's biases will be reflected in the stories he or she writes. Moreover, if your colleagues are getting killed in substantial numbers , it's very easy to assume they're being targeted without any regard for the circumstances.

Covering a war is dangerous work. As others have pointed out, if the military really was targeting journalists, many more of them would be dead right now.

I am a little surprised by the apparent admiration of Crittenden's reporting.

He says: "The Palestine incident was twice written up, by the Committee to Protect Journalists ("Permission to Fire") and Reporters Without Borders ("Two Murders and a Lie") in biased and sloppy reports that fuel this myth."

Sorry, wrong. Neither of these reports "fuel the myth" [of targeting journalists]; they both rubbish it. Both are meticulous reports entirely consistent with Crittenden's own account.

If anyone is fuelling the myth it is Crittenden, by falsely claiming that a couple of widely respected journalists' organisations support the myth, when they don't.

It's too bad that you're not going to see the whole story in the mainstream media. they would rather the nation believe that we are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers with no regard for human life. Yes, it is unfortunate that those journalists had to die, but they knew when they went to Iraq that they were entering a war zone and they knew of Saddam's history of using human shields. A large part of that was their own fault. And if they want to blame someone, they should blame the Iraqi who was directing fire from that building. That's all I have to say

There's a weird dichotomy concerning these accusations and statements of fact. For one thing, if the military was in reality targeting journalists for execution and assassination, journalists would never speak about it nor write it.

How do I know this? because journalists and reporters are extremely silent over the Islamic Jihad when the Islamic Jihad even gives a whiff that they will go apeshat over something the media has reported.

So if the military is targeting reporters, why do reporters feel very free to publicize this then?

The world is an upside down place because people like reporters can crush the bones of infants just because they can't pick on someone their own size, since that would be dangerous and scary.

A large part of that was their own fault. And if they want to blame someone, they should blame the Iraqi who was directing fire from that building. That's all I have to say

I think in retrospect, many Leftists and Democrat reporters want the United States military to be as bloodthirsty as they wish. This way, they feel secure in knowing that their world view is correct.

For example, the Palestinians want the Jews to be the enemy that they say they are. Because if the Jews weren't around for the Pallys to fight, the Palestinians would have to find somebody else to pound on.

Thus Democrats and reporters need and are in symbiotic relationship with mass murderers, war criminals, and assassins. They need the existence of such people, in order to function correctly. And trying to make the US military into what they need, is just the reflex of any junkie and inanimate tool.

A tool wants power. If it electrocutes you, then it isn't the tool's fault. It is our fault, as users, for not using the media and the reporters as they could be used. We still treat them as people and individuals, when they really aren't.

350.jpg
Mrs G copy.png

November 26, 2010


America@war
[Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit.

That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary.

From their about page:

The Naval Institute shall remain

INDEPENDENT - A non-profit member association, with no government support, that does not lobby for special interests;

NON-PARTISAN - An independent, professional military association with a mission, goals and objectives that transcend political affiliations; and shall encourage

IDEAS - Through its respected journals Proceedings and Naval History, its conferences, its books and its online content, in support of those who serve.

"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation:

The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism.

Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented.

I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are.

"Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result.

Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web...

And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed.

The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down.

*****

But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:

Closing Blogs is nothing new. So many site's owners just give up on their own. They come and go, you know, these MilBloggers do. Like any other sort of blogger. Many post in the lonely down hours far from home, spill their guts for the world, then abandon their spots when the tour of duty is up. They have lives again somewhere in the world, and no need to share the details. So it goes.

Many are truly gone - no site left at all. "The page cannot be found." Other blogs remain, like abandoned defensive positions in shifting desert sands.

Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down.

If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real.

And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale.

We've already made history, it's time to save it.

(More to follow...)




Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |

TMGbloglabel7copy.gif
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
TMGrecentcomments.gif
  • Ymarsakar: A large part of that was their own fault. And read more
  • Ymarsakar: There's a weird dichotomy concerning these accusations and statements of read more
  • Drew: It's too bad that you're not going to see the read more
  • Ian Miller: I am a little surprised by the apparent admiration of read more
  • Jack E.: My domain expertise is unrelated to military affairs but I read more
  • blue eagle: Gee too bad for CNN i mean just think over read more
  • Steve: Greyhawk, Your essay + Crittenden interview + Thunder Run extraction read more
  • mrupert: Again, why would a person with the guts to go read more
  • J-P: My own experiences with journos (in the public-safety realm) always read more
  • Subsunk: GreyHawk, Excellent job on this. Here is what bothers me: read more

MBC2010.jpg

MILBLOGS NEWS

*****

Latest Posts From MilBlogs

*****

milblogsa1.jpg Prev | List | Random | Next
Join
Powered by RingSurf!
TMGbloglabel2 copy.gif
The Dawn Patrol Feeds

 

Add to Google Reader or Homepage Subscribe in NewsGator Online Add to netvibes Add to Plusmo myaol_cta1.gif

xml.gif rdf.png atom feed.jpg

TMGbloglabel8copy.gif

TMGbloglabel9 copy.gif
Blah Blah Blah
me220.JPG

The Mudville Gazette is written and produced by Greyhawk, who recently retired from 24 years of active duty in the US military, but will maintain this disclaimer: Unless otherwise credited, the opinions expressed are those of the author, and nothing here is to be taken as representing the official position of or endorsement by the United States Department of Defense or any of its subordinate components.

Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house.

I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.

Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.

Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com

andsm.jpg

*****

Tending Distant
Fires


Far from hearth and home, watching
Cold alone but not alone
On distant shore and only wanting
Safe return and little more

What tales we'll tell
When that time comes
When tales can be told

When things grim
Seem far away
When other fires go cold

Some distant sunset, vision fading
Memories remain
And tired eyes gaze 'pon folded flags
While distant drums beat their refrain

Saluting fallen friends whose names
And youth will never fade
Here's to those on other shores,
for them live well, the price is paid

- Greyhawk,
Baghdad,
December 2004