A reporter like me, who got no closer to the Persian Gulf War than the E Ring of the Pentagon, has weak credentials to enter the debate on the ground rules the Defense Department laid down for covering the conflict. But it does strike me that much of the controversy misses the point.
The main justification the Pentagon offered for imposing requirements that all battlefront dispatches be subject to review was to prevent disclosures that could jeopardize lives or compromise operations.
Pete Williams, the Pentagon public affairs chief, wrote a Washington Post article defending the system. He said the ban involved things like ”details of future operations, specific information about troop strengths and locations, information about downed aircraft while recovery efforts were under way and information on operational weaknesses that could be used against U.S. forces.”
Those are obviously reasonable exclusions, and as Williams noted, ”they were the least controversial” part of the code. In fact, Williams said, of the 1,351 ”pool reports” filed by print reporters during the hostilities, only one was judged by the Pentagon monitors to impinge on security-and the editor of the reporter`s publication agreed it should be altered to protect intelligence sources.
The conflict between the press and the military on real matters of security is minimal. The Post and other organizations voluntarily withheld information they possessed that would have tipped off Saddam Hussein to the flanking maneuver that routed his forces. They voluntarily withheld information about the operations of Special Forces units behind Iraqi lines.
The press does not have to prove its patriotism-nor apologize for its judgment. So why construct an elaborate and time-consuming review system to safeguard secrets that are in no jeopardy?
Williams concedes that the review process was pokey. Michael Getler, the Post editor in charge of the war coverage, says delays of 48 hours or more were common. Those delays cost the public timely information and did not increase military security. The review process ought to be dropped.
But the other great press complaint-that the military did not let reporters move about the battlefield on their own-has less merit. Everyone wanted a piece of this story, so 1,600 reporters were in Saudi Arabia when the ground war began. That`s one reporter for every 325 soldiers, sailors and airmen. Only 10 percent of the press gang was allowed into ”pools” with combat units, so 90 percent were mad.
Their gripes are out of line. There`s a difference between saying that the American public needed full coverage of the war and arguing that every single reporter sent to Saudi Arabia was entitled to his or her own piece of the battle.
If the 160 ”pool” reporters with combat units were not capable of describing the look, the sound and the feel of war, the news organizations that hired them should replace them. In fact, they performed well.
Having another 1,440 reporters trying to cover the same story would not produce a proportionate increase in information; it would only burden the military people trying to fight a war. ”Pack journalism” yields shoddy results, whether it`s on the battlefield, at a political convention or at the theatrical news conferences President Reagan liked to hold.
In fact, we are only beginning to read the best-and most valuable-reporting about the Persian Gulf War now that the fighting is over. It is coming from reporters who recognize that a war is much more complex than a prizefight and cannot be described adequately or analyzed as it is happening. The best reporters are going back now, when sources can no longer plausibly invoke ”military security,” and giving us the reality no one could report at the time.
Reporting being done now is of immense value, for it informs the policy debate in a way that no battlefield ”color” story can do. The only limit on this kind of reporting is the energy and ability of reporters-and the attention span of editors.
The press will gain public support, not by complaining about Pentagon controls, but by staying with the story until the public knows what really happened-a far more complex and contradictory tale than the government wanted or permitted to be told at the time.
