Sites

If you're not familiar with this site there are three things you should know before reading this post:

1. No one can accuse me of undue sympathy for journalists, I've done more than my share of highlighting their various character flaws and other shortfalls. FOr instance, while others were wringing their hands over the matter Mudville exposed the fraud perpetrated by CBS and Seymour Hersh on the Abu Ghraib case, by far the most heinous act ever committed by the media against America's efforts in the War on Terror. (That story and other media bashing exposes can be found here.)

2. I am a GI stationed in Iraq.

3. This post isn't about the Marine who shot a combatant who deserved a far worse death than he got.

Keep those things in mind and we'll get along just fine...

Last week, before the great brouhaha over the Marine shooting of a combatant in Fallujah I linked to Kevin Sites' Blog with these words:

Whenever reading a published report from the front I always wonder where the work of the reporter ends and that of the editor begins. By that same token, I'm never certain who to blame for any part of a story I might find offensive or recognize as patently false.

That said, I can't help but admire a reporter like Kevin Sites, who has been blogging off and on from Iraq since the invasion. Here are his latest posts - photos and a report from the streets of Fallujah.

After the shooting became the biggest story of the week for last Monday I added this quick update:

For those accusing Sites of various anti-American crimes I offer the same admonition I'd give to those who accuse the young Marine of atrocities: "You weren't there."

The gist of which was drawn from an even earlier (and initially unrelated) post wherein I asked Is there a name for the psychological condition whose sufferers believe anything they hear about Iraq - except for the words of those of us who are here - to the point where they are compelled to demand that the people who actually live here share their twisted view?

Later in a very much misunderstood, sometimes misquoted, and often ignored post I offered up a more in-depth defense, noting the fact that in Fallujah only one side was fighting for freedom of the press - among other noble causes - and that those who would call for the end of embedded reporters were dishonoring the sacrifices of a lot of GIs.

Now I'll dispense with subtleties and add this: I've seen a number of people claim that Sites "wasn't fit to accompany those Marines" yadda yadda yadda blah blah blah but the one inescapable fact is this: He was accompanying those Marines, he did go through that door, and I'm not sure the loudest whiners in this entire episode would have the guts to do so.

Now go back and read this entry, from even earlier then those others linked above. Never mind, I'll excerpt:

“Since January this year, anti-Iraqi forces have abducted at least 20 journalists,” pointed out Lt Cmdr Balice, quoting the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ).

There is a widespread perception among Iraqis that foreign journalists are “spies” or collaborators with coalition forces, the CPJ had stated in a recent report.

Reporters Without Borders, an international media watchdog with its headquarters in Paris, has listed Iraq as the most dangerous country for journalists.

The 19-month Iraq conflict has now claimed the lives of 57 news media personnel - journalists and critical support staff - and one is missing, according to records kept by the International News Safety Institute.

At the onset of the invasion in 2003, Sites virtually walked into this country without the relative safety of being embedded with U.S. forces, and has been here off and on ever since. Knowing the sort of cojones that took I expected throughout the whole latest series of events that Sites would post his own thoughts on the issue on his blog, where as I noted originally no editor (or anchorman or pundit, I now add) would stand between him and the public.

Now he has done so, in the form of a letter to the only people he feels (rightfully) he owes an explanation.

To Devil Dogs of the 3.1:

Since the shooting in the Mosque, I've been haunted that I have not been able to tell you directly what I saw or explain the process by which the world came to see it as well. As you know, I'm not some war zone tourist with a camera who doesn't understand that ugly things happen in combat. I've spent most of the last five years covering global conflict. But I have never in my career been a 'gotcha' reporter -- hoping for people to commit wrongdoings so I can catch them at it.

This week I've even been shocked to see myself painted as some kind of anti-war activist. Anyone who has seen my reporting on television or has read the dispatches on this website is fully aware of the lengths I've gone to play it straight down the middle -- not to become a tool of propaganda for the left or the right.

But I find myself a lightning rod for controversy in reporting what I saw occur in front of me, camera rolling.

It's time you to have the facts from me, in my own words, about what I saw -- without imposing on that Marine -- guilt or innocence or anything in between. I want you to read my account and make up your own minds about whether you think what I did was right or wrong. All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.

Here it goes.

And here you go to read the whole thing - unless you've already decided what happened and don't care to let additional facts disturb you.

UPDATE: comments unintentionally removed can be seen in extended entry

Name: 1trupatriot
Email Address: OneTruePatriot@yahoo.com
URL:

Comments:

I'm with you. I appreciate your link, I saw a smidgen of it this morning on Fox news, but couldn't find more. Sometimes the truth isn't pretty. I hope Kevin Sites can hold his head high, knowing that some of us would have reacted just as he did. It takes guts for you to support him, when half the blogging community is saying things like "frag him". The truth is none of us, from that Marine, to Kevin Sites, to me or anyone else, would know exactly how we would react unless we were there. And since we weren't, we may just hafta take their words for why they did whatever they did.

_________________________________________________________________

Name: Dman
Email Address: stuppldu@hotmail.com
URL:

Comments:

Are there any links to Sites reporting and video on the atrocities of the terrorists? If not, are there any links to Sites reporting on the positive actions of the Marines resulting in positive outcomes? I am not trying to be sarcastic but rather trying to make a judgement whether Site is truly balanced in his reporting as he claims.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Bucky Katt
Email Address: jaalinta@aol.com
URL:

Comments:

If there are, I haven't seen them. On the contrary his Blog write-ups of the attack on Falluja are typical of the MSM leftest screed one would expect to see in the NYT Op-Ed section.
It pretty much belies his "straight down the middle" claim.

What bothers me is the self-righteous attitude displayed by Mr. Sites. It's *all* about him. I believe it was Salt Lick in a earlier post that mentioned the title of Sites' blog: "Dispatches from a life in conflict" i.e. Mr. Sites' life. It don't get more self-centered than that.

Instead of letting Military Justice take its due course, he decided to be judge, jury and executioner. He *knew* what was going to happen, despite his protestations to the contrary. Now that this hornets nest has been stirred up, he's trying to back pedal. Why? Because despite his claim that "All the other armchair analysts don't mean a damn to me.", it does upset him otherwise he wouldn't be wasting his breath or his bandwidth.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: m2
Email Address: mbmays@gmail.com
URL:

Comments:

"Now he has done so, in the form of a letter to the only people he feels (rightfully) he owes an explanation."

I take issue with only this statement in your post. If Mr. Sites feels he has the right to report it, if he feels that the world has a right to know it then I have a right to question his rationales.

Godspeed Greyhawk.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Military Wife
Email Address: youweren'tthere@themosque.com
URL:

Comments:

To err is human. Now guess who I'm talking about.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: ThomasAgee
Email Address: tagee@sbcglobal.net
URL: http://tagee@sbcyahoo.com

Comments:

Keep posting GREYHAWK. Sites can defend himself, he obviously feels the need to do so. It's nice to know ya'll have as much info as you do over there. Don't take no crap off nobody.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: 1trupatriot
Email Address: OneTruePatriot@yahoo.com
URL:

Comments:

of course he shows the good stuff. He shows the character, the integrity, the brotherhood. At some point, no matter how intent on getting the "big story" a reporter is, they either pack up when the bullets start flying or they decide to dig in and stay. This guy stayed, time after time. You can feel his respect for the men he is with. What he seems to be saying is that he almost hoped the head honchos would take the tape away and relieve him of the responsibility, but they saw the need to be honest, as much as it would hurt. The commander could easily have taken that tape and told him to shut up, he might have told the story but without the tape it wouldnt have the same impact. They didnt take the tape, they didnt stop him. We ARE fighting for democracy over there, right?

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Max Power
Email Address: roustabout@gmail.com
URL:

Comments:

Whats moore telling is what sites DOESN'T say, that the shooting was entirely justified. I do appreciate your even handedness, but Sites personal bravery has no place in this story IMHO. Keep up the great work.
-Max

__________________________________________________________________

Name: 1trupatriot
Email Address: OneTruePatriot@yahoo.com
URL:

Comments:

well, maybe what he is saying is he doesn't know for sure that it was? In all our rush to support our soldiers, and I do, perhaps we are rushing too quickly to say he did nothing wrong? Maybe, just maybe, this young man did something he shouldn't have done, in the heat of the moment, with all the trauma and fear of having been shot the day before? I'm saying perhaps just because it was a mistake doesn't mean it didn't happen. Maybe part of the story, even part we may not want to hear, is the damage done to the psyches of these young men when they are forced to make split second decisions that aren't judged in the light of war, but in the light of humanity? So, what happens if he was wrong to shoot, but he had a darn good reason to be afraid, here in the world we call that guilty by reason of temporary insanity. Guilty, with a damn good excuse, but guilty nonetheless. And maybe not, maybe we won't know, but at least we will have tried our best to understand.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Mr. K
Email Address: kirk5874@hotmail.com
URL:

Comments:

I think it may be best to reserve judgment on the whole episode until more comes out.

But in my gut I do not trust Sites. Here is a story about when Sites was captured by Fedayeen.
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/11/lol.11.html

I am sure Sites one day wants to come back to the USA. If he did not regret the release of his video, why the lengthy explanation? Regardless of the sacred responsibility to report, he is not obliged to release everything he films. The very fact that he has been there so long, and knows the Arab people and Arab media, means he knew the impact of the release of his video.

His action was not like that of the Marine: over with and done and cannot be undone. He had the time to reflect on the impact of his actions. He can press the delete button, or even delay the release.

Did he view the release of the video in the context of, will this help or hurt the cause of the Marines in 3.1 he cares so much about? Any moron with the IQ of a skunk knows the answer to that question.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: EagleSpeak
Email Address: lawofsea@aol.com
URL: http://www.eaglespeak.blogspot.com

Comments:

Well said, Greyhawk!
If Sites managed to tape what was, at best, a confusing situation, well, we don't talk about the "fog of war" for no reason.
SItes understands the context as shown by his comments:

I'm also well aware from many years as a war reporter that there have been times, especially in this conflict, when dead and wounded insurgents have been booby-trapped, even supposedly including an incident that happened just a block away from the mosque in which one Marine was killed and five others wounded. Again, a detail that was clearly stated in my television report.
No one, especially someone like me who has lived in a war zone with you, would deny that a solider or Marine could legitimately err on the side of caution under those circumstances. War is about killing your enemy before he kills you.
In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.
I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Walter Wallis
Email Address: unclgene@pacbell.net
URL:

Comments:

The man was the enemy. HE WAS NOT YET A PRISONER! He made a sudden, unexpected move, as differentiated from the other enemies who apparently did not make sudden, unexpected moves. There is a reason that guys say "Freeze, turkey" or some such. When the story got to me it was "Marine shoots unarmed prisoner." Whoever put that statement in the story was prejudging a situation apparently well outside his/her experience. The failure of Sites to adequately convey the situation to his editors with his tape made him deserving of the criticism raining down on him.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Paulie at The Commons
Email Address: paulie@paulieworld.com
URL: http://www.paulieworld.com/blog

Comments:

Greyhawk:

Keep up the fire, as the Manchus used to day. Or, Rock Steady, as my old regiment used to say.

You are providing two essential services, military and communicative, and I thank you for both.

God Speed.

Paulie

__________________________________________________________________

Name: jordan
Email Address: mariajordan60@hotmail.com
URL:

Comments:

On the back handed slap to the public, which happens to take a dim view of Sites' actions: he has a job because the public consumes his work.
The context he provided was "The man did not appear to be armed or threatening in any way." You can hear the panic and fear in the Marine's voice just before he shot.
It bothered Sites that the soldier did not see the other enemy wounded lying around as a threat? Doesn't that show that the soldier was alarmed by this particular guy's movement only?

Sites has ingratiated himself with the Marines he depends on for his safety and continued work, and seems to be doing a persuasive job of getting back in everyone's good graces.

All I can do is warn deployed family members to keep their distance.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Rightwingsparkle
Email Address: mazzman1@sbcglobal.net
URL: http://www.Rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com

Comments:

Gosh, I feel so wierd disagreeing with you Greyhawk. It isn't that I think Sites is anti military or anything like that. I just have a different take on it.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: BloodSpite
Email Address: nospam@npsamplease.com
URL: http://www.techography.com

Comments:

I think everyone needs to remember a few things.

First off Sites is a reporter. Wether *we* think he should have not released the tape is moot. That is his job and he is going to perform his job as he see's fit.

Secondly before the raving mad dogs tear me to pieces, think of this as a ray of hope.

I think Greyhawk will back me here.

As a infantryman you have to be aware of your surroundings.

That means that said infantryman more than likey knew Sites was there, with his camera.

Now what trained rationale individual would shoot a individual without cause knowing there would be filmed record of it?

I think we should wait and allow justice to run its course.

That is, after all, one of the reasons we are in the Middle East at all, yes? Justice?

Wait. Don't turn loose your wolves ladies and gentlemen. While not imnipotent the military rarely hangs people out to dry totally undeservingly.

Let law takes it course first. In the end I think all will be justified and proven.
*Because we weren't there!*

Take care Greyhawk and stay safe.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Sean
Email Address: dustmans@mfr.usmc.mil
URL: http://docinthebox.blogspot.com

Comments:

Great Post Grayhawk!

In the fog of war, you react by instinct, whatever else you can say about Sites, he has guts. Having an imbedded reporter going with your group into combat is the same as going through a big inspection. You don't want to do something that will embarrass yourself or those around you. In the Marines defense, if you take out the bad guy, he's not going to come back and fight another day. So I agree with what the Marine was doing, just not in front of a camera and I agree with Kevin Sites for not hiding the truth, it is a black eye for us today but in the long run, it shows the world that we stand behind letting the people back home see what is going on out there (same could be said with Milblogs!). I hope the Marine comes out of this alright and I for one don't label Kevin anti-American (but if he's behind me I won't be capping someone that's lying on the ground)

Stay safe!

PS Grayhawk, I'm heading your way in January, keep a portajohn warm for me.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Jill Livingston
Email Address: jillabc@comcast.net
URL:

Comments:

Per Jonah Goldberg's 2001 article in JWR: "Journalist before American": During the 1987 seminar filmed for a PBS series "Ethics in America" Peter Jennings of ABC and Mike Wallace of CBS agreed that reporters shouldn't be distracted by loyalty to their own country. Placed in a hypothetical scenario of travelling with enemy troops during a Vietnam -like war, Wallace and Jennings were asked if they would warn American soldiers walking into an impending ambush. At first Jennings said he would warn them, but famously switched his position after Wallace lectured him about what it means to be a journalist."

Then there is David Westin, president of ABC news at the time of 9-11 who stated he "...didn't have an opinion" when asked if the Pentagon was a legitimate target. The way I would like all the journalists at ABC News to perceive it, is there is a big difference between a normative position and a positive position. ...as a journalist I feel strongly that's somthing that I should not be taking a position on."

With the MSM showing its bias so openly individual reporters are going to be judged fairly or not by the actions their news organs take with the material provided by the reporters.

When is it appropriate for a reporter to withold information? Just because they can file a report does that mean they always should?

For this particular incident I am putting my faith in the military system that the Marine will get a fair hearing that is held with the proper context of the hell of the moment. I pray for that Marine and all of our fighting forces. They will have to live the rest of their lives with the horror of the unpeakeable acts they have had to witness and sometimes be a part of so we can be free. I hope our country will recognize the help some veterans will need when they come home.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Bill Trippe
Email Address: btrippe@hotmail.com
URL: http://counterpundit.blogspot.com

Comments:

Excellent post. I appreciate your perspective on this. I, for one, am reserving judgment on both Sites and the marine.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: bclimo
Email Address: billclimo@comcast.net
URL:

Comments:

Tried to post this to Kevin Sites, but he has no way of sending him critiques of his works.

"Just read your letter to Marines in "3.1". I would think after spending some time with them, you might have learned that 3/1 is the usual abbreviation for the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

My big question is why you allowed my Marines to proceed into the mosque without giving them the important and necessary info to prevent the shooting that occurred. Had you not been there the day before? Why didn't you question the ambiguous reply from the departing squad? Did you offer any info, or just wait for the worst thing to happen? Are you another of the "objective Journalists" who use the Marines as protective cover and then sell them out for your Pulitzer prize.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Cecil Turner
Email Address: turnercg1@mindspring.com
URL:

Comments:

I'm unimpressed with Sites's side of the story. Whether intentional or not, he and NBC handed a significant propaganda victory to the insurgents. The most charitable interpretation is cluelessness.

Sites said: "I considered not feeding the tape to the pool -- or even, for a moment, destroying it. But that thought created the same pit in my stomach that witnessing the shooting had. It felt wrong." Okay, but what's the rush? How about saving it for the post-war documentaries? Does it bother you that Al Jazeera thinks it worthy of near-continuous looping?

In my opinion, each reporter ought to have to pass a test prior to embedding, with questions like the following:

"With a live video feed, you see missile fire dropping on the Baghdad "Green Zone," with an easily identifiable landmark in the background, your immediate reaction should be:

A) I've got to get this scene on air immediately--it's important news; or,

B) This obviously can't be aired--it shows the enemy where his shot is falling--I wouldn't dream of acting as his forward observer."

__________________________________________________________________

Name: O'Rourke
Email Address: rkorko@dslextreme.com
URL:

Comments:

The fact that Sites "DID go through that door" has nothing to do with anything. Whether he is a sniveling coward or the bravest man who ever lived is beside the point.

The real question is not did a marine do something "wrong". The question is why is a reporter releasing video which gives aid and comfort to our enemy, makes Iraq more difficult to pacify, and makes the job of being a marine in Iraq more dangerous?

Benedict Arnold was the most courageous field general of the revolutionary war. None of us "were there" when he went over to the British.

So what?

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Foobarista
Email Address: foobarista@yahoo.com
URL:

Comments:

I'm rather torn about this situation. Sites definitely gave Al Jazeera and other enemy propagandists anti-American, pro-terrorist fodder, and doubtless he knew this when he published his report. I can't imagine he wasn't unaware that his footage would be made into terrorist recruiting videos, showing just what soulless monsters the American Marines are. The guy that was shot in the video did more for the terrorist cause than any other fighter in Falluja.

On the other hand, self-censorship is a Bad Thing in a reporter. I'd rather have official military censors than encourage or insist on self-censorship among reporters.

When does a reporter cease being an invisible chronicler and become part of the battle?

Another thing: video is no more "truthful" than text. Video isn't "the truth" any more than a text description is, and it can be taken out of context, misused, and otherwise manipulated in the same way. Unfortunately, the effect is far more powerful.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Toby Petzold
Email Address: neognostikos@hotmail.com
URL: http://www.neognostikos.net/blog

Comments:

I just hope the Marine is cleared.

Using mosques as redoubts and feigning surrender and making women and children into human shields and all the other stuff is dishonorable crap. Our fighting men and women are facing some of the worst vermin on Earth. Whatever they have to do to exterminate these violent Submitters is fine with me because I know that our people are not murderers of innocents but are the agents of justice.

And that rat our man killed wasn't in that mosque as a prisoner or as a worshipper, but as an unjustified murderer of Americans and free Iraqis who had lost his fight. To hell with him and all his kind.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: J Yowsa
Email Address: jyowsa@hotmail.com
URL:

Comments:

The net effect of what Kevin Sites did is undemocratic, anti-free press and anti-human rights. But it's also totally in sync with what the rest of them have been doing all along. I notice too that CBS, the New York Times and others have picked up on Sites as THE voice of authority in the matter. Is he? He seems full of himself to me. And what a laugh talking about "truth" and NBC in the same breath. At least say you're going outside the mold or something if you're going to that. The best Sites can claim is that he assisted those liars in blowing an aberration totally out of proportion. And otherwise he himself lied.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: zoomlens
Email Address: goodjinipper12@yahoo.com
URL: http://insiteon.blogspot.com

Comments:

What if the enemy had thrown a grenade or flipped a switch and set off some device - if the marine had hesitated? Would the media be blaming the marine for not saving Sites' life? Well, no, because the marine would be dead,too. I liked the embed idea at first. I don't know now. Maybe we just need to have a screening process to make sure there is no hidden agenda that could go into action after the embed has made nice with the troops and gotten their loyalty.I believe there is enough evidence around to think that Sites had two agendas:No.1: His Chance at Fame. He inserted himself into the story very well. No.2: A liberal bias. Just because he went into Iraq by himself does not mean that he is a patriot. It means something was driving him that was bigger than fear. If that was just getting the honest story, then why did this become "Film at 11:00 on Al Jazeera?" All he had to do was report it quietly to the military and keep his mouth shut until they were through investigating ...instead of producing propaganda for the enemy. I guess for me, journalists should, of course, be honest. No question. But they should be Americans first and journalist second - if they want to embed with our troops. Sorry to sound off so. I just feel really strong about this. I signed the petition for the marine. I hope all of you did, too. LGF has it and so do some other sites. I linked to LGF to get it in my blog. Also there are some addresses there and at Blogs for Bush that some of you might want to use to write or call the Pentagon , etc. in support of the marine. God Bless, Grey hawk.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: bendan
Email Address: caobei@gmail.com
URL:

Comments:

I'm amazed at the comments regarding this incident. Bravo to Greyhawk for pointing out that Kevin Sites is a decent guy and that he doesn't deserve this criticism. And by criticism, let's be f-ing honest: a bunch of people shooting their mouths off about this guy could get him killed by some jacked up soldier or Marine in Iraq. Sure, the rumor starts like this, but how does it end up? "Hey, that's the guy who is down with the Haj. No shit? Let's get that fokker." Read between the lines of zoomlens' post: the guy is practically calling Sites a traitor.

Some people don't seem to have a problem with that.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Bill Faith
Email Address: bill.faith@gmail.com
URL: http://smalltownveteran.typepad.com/

Comments:

It took Nixon to go to China and it took Greyhawk to stand up for Kevin Sites and make it stick. Well said, sir. I have just this moment decided it's time for me to do a blog post titled "Judge not ... Marines or Reporters". Trackback to follow in a few hours.

Be safe, sir.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Salt Lick
Email Address: turf1@vt.edu
URL:

Comments:

Greyhawk --

Well, it's pretty hard to argue with a GI stationed in Iraq, but you've certainly left me scratching my head. After reading your defense of Sites several times, I understand your main points as:

1. You can't criticize Sites if you weren't there.

2. You can't criticize Sites because he has big gonades.

I'm not sure how either of those points addresses the issue of Sites knowing the probable propaganda use of this video, yet deciding to release it to the world. Still, if a guy with boots on the ground is comfortable with the way this has played out, so be it.

Stay safe.

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Cecil Turner
Email Address: turnercg1@mindspring.com
URL:

Comments:

"And by criticism, let's be f-ing honest: a bunch of people shooting their mouths off about this guy could get him killed by some jacked up soldier or Marine in Iraq."

Which do you think more likely, Sites being killed by a US serviceman, or a US serviceman being killed by some "jacked up" Jihadist (whom Sites's video helped inflame)?

"Read between the lines of zoomlens' post: the guy is practically calling Sites a traitor."

Sites seems to think his only responsibility is to his embedded unit, and the only issue is whether he fairly portrayed the Marines in question. It would be nice to see him acknowledge the issue of helping the enemy in wartime.

"Some people don't seem to have a problem with that."

This is obviously not limited to Sites (and in fact, his NBC editors/producers may well bear the lion's share of the responsibility)--and perhaps military censorship of embeds needs to be reexamined--but he's the one in denial. He apparently recognizes his video was damaging (to the US war effort), but doesn't see himself as part of the problem. It brings to mind an Orwell quote:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me.'"

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Timmer
Email Address: timmer847@cox.net
URL: http://www.sgtstryker.com

Comments:

Well said Soldier. And thanks...

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Surf-actant
Email Address: jsmythe1@cox.net
URL:

Comments:

Grey,
Looks like I'll be over there in January as well. I gotta tell you, I find myself in almost total disagreement with you. I can tell you right now, I know exactly what I am going to tell my Marines if we end up with an embed(s).

Let me put this in timeline form.

First, I'll get the embed and his crew alone and put on the nails-hard Marine Officer face and sneeringly, condescendingly ask them that now ultimate hypothetical: What they would do if they knew we were walking into an ambush, or if we were going to drive right by an IED?

Would they warn us?

This would be an open attempt to challenge them, maybe get them to thinking that they need to cowboy up and put me in my place, and thus, tell me the probable truth:

No, they wouldn't. After all, this is the pinnacle of professional, objective journalism, according to them, not you or I.

Perfect. Fine. Now, at least, the groundrules have been put in place. We all know where everybody else stands.

I would then have my Co Gunny form up the Company in a School-Circle and explain to them exactly what was going to happen. And I'd make sure that the Embeds were standing right there next to me, facing my unit.

This is what I would tell them:
1. The Embeds would be persona-non-grata within the Co./Unit. This is not in a diminutive or derogatory sense. I would instruct my Marines, in fact order them, that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES are any of them to risk anything, themselves or their buddies, to save any of the Embeds if they find the Embeds hip deep in the shit. Again, this is not personal. The Embeds have defined our relationship, not us. I would liken it to the Mars Rover: think of the Embeds as the physical constructs needed to move the camera and mike around the combat zone, that's it. If the Embeds define themselves in this manner, then it is only morally correct for us to do so as well.

And I have to be glaringly honest here, this is not a hard decision to make. Again, I do not mean that in a spiteful manner in any way, shape or form. What other course of action, from a purely logical standpoint, do I have that will ensure the highest probability that I get all of my Marines home safe and sound?

Who knows, back in the rear, back in CONUS, every one of my Hard Chargin' Devildogs could end up being best pals with the Embed(s), hell even be his/her best man at a wedding. But we won't be in the rear, will we?

I'd then make sure that the Embeds understand that they are on their own. That we consider them non-humans. They do not exist. If they get in the way, they will have to deal with the consequences. Again, I DO NOT mean that someone takes them out behind the woodshed and doubletaps them. But if they are standing in the way filming when we have to hightail it somehwere in a Hummer while taking rounds, they WILL get run over. Similarly, if one of them gets hit at the same time one of my Marines takes a round, my Marine will get absolute priority from the Doc.

Really, in the final analysis, you can't have it both ways. You can't be a patriotic American in a war zone, irrespective of your status as civilian or combatant, AND a totally objective MSM correspondant AT THE SAME TIME!! It is a metaphysical impossibility. It cannot be done. You are either one or the other. The trick will be getting them to admit that their hunger for the Big Story will always, no matter how grotesque to us, override their natural fear in a combat environment.

The galactically ironic thing is, they look at us in precisely the opposite light: how can as obtuse and misguided a concept as patriotism overcome a Marines' natural fear when lead is coming downrange at you?

__________________________________________________________________

Name: Wince and Nod
Email Address: winceandnod@yahoo.com
URL: http://winceandnod.blogspot.com/

Comments:

Greyhawk,

Thanks for your perspective. "You weren't there, he was" is a very persuasive argument for me. Truth is powerful. It is one of our weapons, and Sites is a soldier trying to wield the truth as best he can. So, was this a friendly fire incident? Don't think so, although the round dropped uncomfortably close. I suspect this video tape is a strategic victory for the West. It will improve discipline among our troops and ultimately be a propoganda victory for the U.S. Our soldiers die for freedom, including freedom of the press. Yet freedom of religion, the press, and speech are the most dangerous freedoms we have. All are vehicles for ideas. Right now we are fighting the idea that it is OK to indiscriminately kill to advance an idea. Our contention is that freedom itself is the antidote to this poison. Let freedom ring!

Yours,
Wince