Ciao!

Bravo, Miguel! You have encapsulated eloquently what I have been trying to say for a week or more: it's war. When asked, I have been telling people that I wouldn't be surprised if the war lasted well over a year... even as many as six (when you count in my own conspiracy theories that Iraq is the second step in campaign that will include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, et al). People seem shocked, but like you pointed out...the talking heads have been using terminology like "long and protracted" for months now. Seems obvious to me.
Your blog is cutting me off...see next entry.

Love,
Micah

So anyways...
I am curious to know what your take on the whole embedded journalists thing is. It seems problematic to me. The brutalities and atrocities inherent in combat may be swallowable to people like you or myself who have read comic books and have a cynical, semi-educated outlook on the world. But what about the naked masses? I am not sure if our culture as a whole can digest the image of a psychological breakdown from one of our eighteen year old boys. Drooling and shivering in panic on international airwaves, I see a snapped GI being quite a catalyst for panic or, at least, negative action/demonstration. Thoughts?

Love,
Micah

I'm OK w/ embedded reporters. They're slowly making the studio pundits understand what combat deployment is really like. Mostly boring, punctuated by sharp engagements of an hour or so. I've faith in most Americans. Not the bleeding-hearts, but I don't factor them in the equation once war is under way (no offense to any bleeding-hearts out there).

As to the war's duration: I don't think it'll take years. We're due to engage the RG in the next 48hrs. We'll probably push on Baghdad itself by week's end. Probably end that by month's end (minus the moping up). I don't think there are plans for any other war. I could be wrong. But best thing is to democratize Iraq and use it to filter liberal democratic ideas throughout the region.

Oh, and that column moving out of Baghdad. I was watching the evening news. In the major clash today, approximately 1,000 Iraqi troops were killed. We lost one marine. But we didn't move forward any. So I guess we're still losing the war, eh?

May I join into the discussion? I am struggling with embedded journalism. It is always journalism that is with the troops,rather one-sided. And I think it gives war a sense of a miniseries/ movietype of mood. Or the reality show. Not sure if it really represents the horrors of war accurately and in a good objective way. However, I call Salam Pax' weblog, if updated, the log of an embedded civilian. Also those web logs of journalists in Baghdad or the kurdish areas give it a different perspective.
Then again ... truth is the first casualty of war, I guess if one wants to go beyond what embedded journalists say, one has to look for more sources.

Ok, pls fill me in on this. "What's embedded reporting?"

When reporters are "embedded" within troops, and can only report from within that context & its restrictions. There are some unembedded reporters in Bhagdad - but they have to stay within Bahgdad (with an Iraqi monitor).

Actually, I think embedded journalists are probably the most "accurate" of the journalists, since they're right there. I don't see why they're being "untruthful", since they're just reporting the facts as they see them. I keep wondering why journalists are so highly criticized as "unobjective" if they don't staunchly oppose the war. Is it OK to be unobjective only so long as you do it for the anti-war position? How odd.

No one seemed to complain about all the journalists in Iraq that were constantly followed around by Iraqi "minders" (who'd threaten Iraqis into giving "proper" interviews).

I think what I said came out the wrong way. As I said, I am struggling with embedded journalism, I cannot decide whether they are good or bad. I personally think they report acurately from what they know being with the troops. What is bad, in my opinion, is that it gives the impression of a war-reality show, which diminishes the impact this war has, it leaves out information, other networks/journalists provide. Like the "Stern" wrote today: Wow, what an explosion, isn't that amazing. It is one-sided, because they are only within the troops or as Lee said, they report within their context and restrictions. So it is like individually they do a good job, collectively it is one-sided. TBC

OK, yeah, I agree. I think we've run up against the limits of round-the-clock video media. Print is so much better. There have been embedded reporters before (e.g. WW2), but not so "instant". More and more I'm turning to strickly reading weblogs and "print" (online) journalism.

However, this is not to say that the journalists in Bagdad are doing a better job, as they cannot report objectively either. For 1) they are under monitoring by the Iraqis and for 2) restricted by their radius of action. So what the embedded journalists say is good, but their reporting is incomplete and one needs to look beyond their reporting to get a better picture. Which is ... what one ought to do usually.
I think my main crutch here is that you can now watch a war while sitting on the couch and eat chips. "Look, they bomb that house! Wow, what an explosion! Cool sh*t, what a bomb!"
Hope I expressed that better now.

I agree with Melli that embedded journalists don't give you the whole story; it's because they can't. They are bound by rules set out by the COs, namely that they won't report anything that the commanders consider off-topic for fear that they will be tipping the U.S. hand to the enemy. So now what we get is 'dog on a leash' journalism, which is not good reporting at all. It's great for those live shots, thought.

I disagree about the "dog on the leash" reporting being bad. The problem is that those reports are goin on LIVE. Surely you don't expect a reporter to say:

"The marines I'm w/ are about to attack the enemy building behind me, Kent. They're going to send a squad up to attack it from the left flank."

That's not journalism, that's possibly telling the enemy information they could use. It's a fine line, to be sure, but I completely agree that "embedded" reporters need to clear information they report.

You also can't expect the general's press briefing to outline the deailed war strategy. That just makes no sense.