If it wouldn't seem so inherently bias I would propose a military discussion thread dedicated to just that. I will not though because of that the fact that people will think that all our responses will be entirely bias to military. I would also like to state to those reading this thread that I am (in my opinion) very open minded when debating politics. What units have you and gpatmac served in just for further reference?

 

Anywhere there is a news team trying to make ratings, or anywhere there is a legal counsel trying to make a buck, the little guy/gal will be given a voice that will be heard around the world.

Where I work, it's the exact same thing. It's a paramilitary setting and we walk on egg shells. Our brass is there just to kiss *** and tie our hands behind our backs making our jobs near impossible. When the media shows up it gets even worse. Any really good training we do is dumbed down on the officail right up so that it doesn't look like we're doing anything too dangerous. Politics will kill any organization. That's what the ever expanding, all knowing, and omnipresent news media is doing.

Anyone watch the Channel 2 news the other night?

 

All systems that employ a regimented, extremely governed society are going to automatically assume a political mentality. Its the nature of the beast, you can't control people without a lot of organization. What kills an organization is people are have no business with it (i.e. reporters, civilians, mediators, etc...) trying to interpret and influence its actions. They don't share the same aspirations, goals or motives that those who compose it do so naturally it will work without alignment and conflict constantly. It would be like the average, run of the mill American trying to have a say in the Catholic church. He would just get in the way and complicate the proceedings of the organization as a whole. The Army is run by ONE civilian and that is enough. The military as it is used in America is essential a medium of deliberation or as Clausewitz said "an extension of politics". Governing civilian officials ( the President and Congress) delegate its use but is employment and day to day operations are decided by military officers. I am a firm believer in the theory of "you can tell me what you want done but don't tell me how to do it". This is the fundamental belief in all of America's branches and is the essense of the enlist, NCO, officer relationship.

 

I'm just seeing this. I'll read it more thoroughly later and reply.

 

Man, this is just such a multi-faceted topic that it would take some in-depth discussion to address all points.

All I'll say about the embedded media is that it serves no purpose except as a micromanaging watchdog. Is that wrong? Well, I will tell you that I really resent the media impinging on what we're trying to do, but in a sense, we've asked for it. I don't think that there have been any congressional hearings due to complaints from the media that they've been barred. I believe that since at least WWII, the media have been invited. Problem is, that we've had quite a bit of roguishness, we've actually asked for it in order to justify our efforts.

War isn't pretty and it is so vast that there will be crime. Supposedly, with regards to what unregistered says, the media is there in order to justify war. Well, that's just silly. If they wanted to justify the war, they would be in the operations centers. What embedded media tells me is that someone thinks that the commissioned and non-commissioned officers aren't doing their job, evidenced by Abu Ghiraib and that Jessica Lynch deal.

Bottom line, there'd be no need for some reporter strap-hanging along with the platoons and companies doing their business if the officers and NCOs would just do their job. It's a shame, but it would seem as though the only leaders in the Army who take their responsibility of training their soldiers to stay alive are only found in the combat arms branches. My feeling is that any leader who doesn't train his soldier not only their job, but also how to 'react to contact', 'react to ambush', 'react to indirect fire', and 'squad/platoon attack'; should be immediately removed from their position of authority. The only reason that all of those 'scandals' like the J. Lynch deal, Abu Ghiraib, and why every single combat support troop has been killed or injured is because their leaders are about as professionally developed as a private.

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review...n/art7-a97.htm

I believe myself and the vast majority of my peers to wholly buy in to the oath they took and all of those cool buzzwords like duty, honor, country, selfless service, integrity.... I treat the Oath of Office (and the Ranger Creed) as the most serious, earnest words that have ever come from my mouth. I don't need any media looking over my shoulder with their 'spycams' because I have the Law of the Land Warfare, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the Army Values to guide me.

1regu, I've been in Leg Infantry for the better part of 18 years. I was enlisted on active duty for 4 years with the 7th Infantry Division (light), then in the Reserves as a drill sergeant for 5 years while I was in college. Then I commissioned in '96 and have served in 2/327th IN at Ft Campbell, then 2-5 IN, 3rd BDE with the 25th ID (L).

I got my CIB in 1989 down in Panama with the 7th, then went to Kosovo with the 101st, then I just got back from Afghanistan in AUG 04 with the 25th.

I now have a recruiting company.

 

Wastn't there more posted since my first post?

 

Agreed.

I didn't mean it like that, I ment more along the lines of its there job to show what is going on. If our actions are doing whats right then them reporting it justifies the war. But thats a double sided edged sword I guess, when you include journalist bias. But I also agree with the latter comment you made. I honestly doubt that the Army would want things that go wrong to become public. And I believe the public has a right to know how our armed forces are acting.

Why not? We should be open to how things work day to day. I personaly think that would help the image of the army and the respect our soldiers should get no matter what. I don't see the harm in this at all. The journalist should understand what they face when they decide to tag along. Hence they should be prepared etc..


Its not you that I'm worried about its the minority that abuse their powers that Im more worried about. I still don't see whats wrong with having them there. If you are not doing anything wrong what does it bother you if a journalist tags along? The media is a watch group that should be allowed to watch what goes on in our military. By not allowing them to you cause more distrust than anything else.

I understand your points I just disagree with some of them. The media should always be involved with our military. (Atleast in my point of view.) War is war but we should follow rules even if our enemies do not. And I think by them being there we are more like to follow them no matter what.

 

I was waiting for you to post so...

 

As far as the public "having a right to know how the troops are acting" I think it is completely irrelevant for the simple fact of "what can they do". If troops were over there killing civilians for no reason what would a civilian be able to do about it anyway. Next to nothing. They could complain to their congressman who would already know about it so essentially they would be wasting their time. On the other topic, I completely agree with Salty that when I was tabbed and took my oath it was as though a new person had emerged from me. I apply the creed to not only my day to day military life and hound it into my soldiers but I apply it when I am in civilian clothes on vacation just as well. There is something to be said about soldiering that a normal civilian will never understand. When you are in the uniform you represent something far more than yourself especially if you are a leader of troops. I can personally attest that none of the soldiers under my command would ever do anything to put any sort of negative media on the Army or our unit. This is because any good leader does three important things. He earns (notice I said earn, no one can demand respect) the respect of his troops enough that they wouldn't do anything bad because they know that he will be ultimately responsible. The leader should keep them trained to the point where they A) don't have time to misbehave. and B) are so mission focused that they don't have time or desire to. Last and most importantly it is a leaders job to engrain the Army values into his troops if they are not there. Any soldiers who abids by the Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, Personal Courage motto would never do anything to disservice the Army or himself anyway. All these faults that have happened are all due to a lack of training and a lack of supervision which boils down to a LACK OF LEADERSHIP.

 

Wow are you wrong. Seriously, look at what happened in cases where the public found out of wrong doings in the Army. Then tell me the public can't do anything. And how would the congressman know about these issues if the Army decide to keep it internal?

If this is all true then why do you care if the media is allowed to watch you guys in operation? What harm does it do your unit to be observed? Why are all of you military guys against the idea that corruption can and does happen in the military?

Now granted I have a limited scope and experience to all that happens in the military, but I did grow up around you guys, my mother was an officer after all. And a lot of my friends are in the military. But saying everything comes down to lack of leadership is well for lack of better a term, naive. Basically, lets see if i have this straight, you're saying that if a private makes a mistake its the upper commands lack of leadership that caused this. So who ends up taking the responsibilty? The leading commanding officer of that unit or his boss? Things happen everything isn't white or black as you're making it seem. Some people are just not good people. And they exist in every aspect of society including the Army. And I believe the public has a right to know when the Army screws up.

 

You are absolutely right, it falls back on their leader. You say you mom was an officer and I'm glad to hear that but she was obviously never in a combat arms unit. Having civilians tag along on a patrol or anything for that matter compromises both the troops safety and their ability to work efficiently. I don't mind my unit being watched at all, but it had better not reveal my location, MTOE, purpose or any other pertainent information on the evening news. And if the reporter decides he wants to get in the action and decides to cross my field of fire what am I supposed to do. I would get court martialled for shooting him or killed for not taking action and returning fire. You don't acknowledge these things because you have never been in a situation like this. I believe it is ignorance on you behalf by not relating to those on the ground and thinking of their welfare before your desire to get some twisted news story at home.
About what you first mention, what did the public do? Nothing, the Army investigated the abuse cases themselves and will take care of it will a military trial so the public had no intervention what-so-ever. I believe you are the one that is nieve if you think that you have the ability to manipulate that situation in Iraq because you can't. A large majority of America wishes we were not there at all. If the public opinion matters so much than why are we still there?
Do me a favor and ask your mom who would be held responsible if one of her soldiers made a mistake and that will clear all this up. If she says what she should then you'll probably understand (ask her for an explanation), if she doesn't well....than I'll leave it at that. Salty and gpatmac will know what I mean.

 

1regul8 states it well. (I had a response very similar but lost my internet connection and it lost what I wrote.)

BTW, MTOE = modified table of organization & equipment, ie the list of everything that a company commander signs for, to include the soldiers. Yes, commanders actually 'sign for' their soldiers via a personnel asset inventory (PAI).

1regu actually brings up a point that I both agree with and disagree with. There is a spectrum of the definition of accountability. How much influence does the American public have over my operations? Well, directly, absolutely zero. I can, however, point to a few instances as far back as Vietnam and as recent as the GWOT where our hands have been tied due to the American public opinion. I will say, though, the effects of public opinion have never directly affected the leader on the ground but has affected policy and strategy at the HQ level. For instance, we couldn't chase Viet Cong into Laos and Cambodia. Now, we can't chase insurgents into Pakistan nor Syria.

 

I did acknowledge this issue. I think it was my first post. So I don't see my ignorance on the issue. Here I'll explain it even more. You don't just let the reporter go out with no directions or some sort of rules to follow. That would be nieve at best and plain stupid at worst. The reporter is doing this job with knowning the risk associated with it. If he gets hurt thats part of war and the risk he took by going. Why would the Army let him tell your units location, thats just stupid even though it happend I believe once? That to me is more of the Army's fualt for letting that reporter do that. Things like that should be stated in the rules of what the reporter can and can not do. So I still don't see if by setting up some rules to follow, why shouldn't reporters be allowed in. And no my mom was the head of a section of the hospital but I knew every commander of the combat units and most of the drill sergeants when I was living in Fort Sill Ok. (Most of my friends dads were commanders and they were my neighbors.)

Read what gpat said. Also especially during election years the public has a huge amount of power on how the military is used and what it does. Not to mention public outcry does change at times Army policy.

She wasn't (she is now an advisor for some general last I heard, but only parttime) responsible for all of the actions of her men. Somethings, like I said before, are not black or white. I'll call her when I have the chance but if my memmory serves me right I could proably name one or two off hand were one of her soldier screwed up and my mom wasn't responsible for it. She was responsible for taking care of the issue. But not for his actions. Well see.

 

You just contradicted yourself. The Army explictly stated their reporting policy and the reporter disregarded it. That is why they should not be allowed in. There is no governing body on reporters because they are independent civilians that are largely out for personal gain. To me, you answered your own question. The reporter-Army topic is not even what this post is about so I think you might want to reread the original post.

 

I know its not about this only but like I stated on my first post that is what I disagreed with. And hence the conversation that followed. Im not contradicting myself here, im putting rules that they can choose to follow or not. If they want to be with a unit they should follow rules that would make it less likely to hurt the unit by them being with them. If they choose not to follow them then they choose not to be present with them. These rules should have nothing to do with how or what they report. It should have to do with the manner they conduct themselves in the battlefield. I don't see how that contradicts myself. Maybe I just didn't explain it well enough in my previous post.