STEVE VALLEY: “The reason why military and the civilian leaders selected Mr. Burns was because he was the most prolific and simply the best journalist in Baghdad. He’d been writing about Iraq since the Gulf War and nobody knew the intricacies of Iraq better than him. Come on, he wrote for the NY Times and we all know how friendly the most left-leaning daily newspaper in America was to the whole military operation in Iraq. Check the archives of his stories and see how many of them are critical vs. positive of what was going on. It may be tough to admit, but John Burns was light years ahead of every journalist in country with regards to talent, knowledge and connections. End of story.“
JAMIE McINTYRE:  No arguments here.   While John Burns’ reporting was — in the words my original post “of the highest caliber” — my point was that in being too publically lauded by the people you are covering, you run the risk of creating the opposite perception.  Especially among people who already are predisposed to believe the worst about the military media relationship.  As I said, Burns is so solid, his reputation so stellar, it wasn’t an occupational hazard for him.  But the praise of other journalists — especially the blanket praise for Fox –  feeds into anti-military and media sentient that embedded reporters are too cozy with their sources.  My point was about the perception, not the reality.

STEVE VALLEY: “Again, you’re writing as a scorned CNN reporter that missed out on stories because I or someone else from the CPIC didn’t call you to cover a particular story. Fox reporters were always around waiting to cover any story, whether good or bad. You sound like Keith Olbermann at MSNBC lobbing hand grenades at Fox by calling the whole Fox news team partial to positive coverage. They weren’t and you know it. It was much easier to get Fox to cover a special event or a feature story because they were readily available whereas most of the other media outlets took hours to get to the CPIC when these opportunities arose. Remember, they had moved into al-Rasheed Hotel across the street from the CPIC and were working out of the International Press Center that was adjacent to the CPIC, so yeah, we went to them first with some stories because it made our lives easier over a 16–20 hour workday.“
JAMIE McINTYRE”  Ouch.  Hell, hath no fury like a reporter scorned.   Honestly, I think you misread me here.  I wasn’t accusing Fox or anyone else of “partial or positive coverage”.  I was saying you — by saying you liked ANY reporter from Fox —  were fueling that perception. As a reporter, I made a lot of effort to win the respect of the people I covered, trying to convince them I was “one of the good ones,” who would give them a fair shake, and who was trying to provide context, not provoke outrage with my coverage.  And yes, that did result in me getting more than my share of scoops and exclusives.   I understand why PAOs appreciate the really good reporters like John Burns.  It does make your life easier when the coverage is evenhanded and impartial, and incisive to boot.   I wasn’t criticizing Fox.  I was gently chiding YOU, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, suggesting that in handing out praise, you may have the unintended consequence of tarnishing their image.

STEVE VALLEY: “You can say what you want about Steve Harrigan, but I think his train of thought was that the insurgents shot and tried to kill these Marines just minutes before entering the mosque and they deserved what they got. I personally wouldn’t have thought twice about whacking these militants. The Marines did the right thing, and I’m willing to bet that a majority of the American public would agree with me. That’s why the main stream media is held in such low-regard these days because they’re always trying to create another story that’s critical of Bush’s war and his military. You and I will never see the same on this issue so there’s no point in carrying on.“
JAMIE McINTYRE:  Actually I don’t know what Steve Harrigan was thinking.  It would be great to hear from him. I only have your account to go on.  Maybe Steve felt the enemy insurgent got what he deserved, as you say.   Maybe he thought any investigation should be done outside the public eye.  Maybe he thought the average American wouldn’t understand the context of what happened, or the split-second decisions that have to be made in combat.  Maybe Steve believes in the laws of war and the principles embraced by our military that place us above the murderous terrorists we’re fighting.  I don’t know.  I do know that your account reinforces the perception that Steve Harrigan, and by association his network, would be willing to turn a blind eye to a possible war crime.    As I point out, an investigation cleared the Marine in question.  What looked on video to be a case of shooting the wounded on the battlefield, was judged to be too ambiguous to blame the Marine.  That wasn’t my point.  My point was when reporters witness potential misconduct by U.S. troops in combat, they have an obligation to cover it, not cover it up. I also knew Steve at CNN, and have nothing but praise the few times we worked together in the field.

STEVE VALLEY: You write as if I was singling out CNN reporters in my book when you know that I wasn’t. You have to tell the complete story of why I had problems with Mr. Vause and Ms. Amanpour. Mr. Vause purposely tried to goad me into a physical altercation by screaming at me, “That’s why you’re losing this thing because America is too fucking arrogant!” Mind you that he screamed this at me while we were nose-to-nose in front of at least 100 media and government officials inside the Baghdad Convention Center.  I think I won this? I walked away and called his producer and never saw him again at the CPIC. I did what any professional would do. I would have done the same to you, John Burns or Tom Brokaw. It didn’t matter that Vause was with CNN, it mattered that he was completely unprofessional.    Ms. Amanpour is a great journalist but seemed peeved that she had to play by the same rules as everyone else. Jamie, this had nothing to do with either of their reporting, just their own level of common courtesy and professionalism.
JAMIE McINTYRE:  Again my point here wasn’t that you were unjustified in your position.  My point is that anytime you get in a fight with a reporter, no matter how right you are and how wrong the reporter is, it only raises the reporter’s stature within his or her news organizations.  It an example of what I like to call “the natural perversity of life.”   I have seen many reporters who behave like arrogant, agenda-driven weasels, whose editors see that as a virtue.   My point was to point out that your criticism paradoxically probably helps their careers.   I’m not defending Christiane or John Vause.  I’m just saying you’re doing them a favor by complaining about them.   That’s the irony.

So, what do you think?

(polls)

Steve Valley’s Inside the Fortress should be required reading by anyone who wants to understand the often tense and contentious relationship between the military and the media.

It’s an easy read, a straightforward, sometimes breezy account of Valley’s time in Iraq, including his many complaints about, and occasional praise of, the “MSM” (Mainstream Media).

But in doling out laurels to his favored press corps representatives, Valley doesn’t do them any favors, and in fact he reinforces the corrosive perception that reporters who cover the military are too cozy with the people they cover.

Here’s the short version: Valley had a lot of respect for John Burns, the wild-haired veteran correspondent for The New York Times. “John was the writer we picked for every important event we needed to be covered accurately and without bias,” Valley writes in the chapter about the Fourth Estate.

Here’s the problem: I read Burns reporting in the Times, and saw him often as a guest on CNN. And I agree with Valley. His reporting was of the highest caliber.  But whenever military officials were tempted to tell my bosses what I great job I was doing, and how superior my reporting was compared to others who seem to have an agenda, or were just careless with the facts, I would thank them, and advise them to resist the urge.

“The best thing you can do for me is to complain about me,” I would explain jokingly. The last thing senior editors want to hear is that their reporters are loved by the people they’re covering. The biggest occupational hazard faced by Pentagon correspondents is the perception that they have become overly impressed with the military or too easily persuaded by their arguments.

It can lead to instant journalistic death. So while we reporters do want to enjoy the respect of the military, it is even more important to maintain the respect of our bosses or we won’t be in any position to earn respect from anyone.
Now I would think the Pulitzer prize-winner John Burns has such a stellar reputation over a such long career, he’s in no danger of being perceived as “going native.”

And it’s only natural for Public Affairs officers to appreciate good reporting. It does make their job easier. And Valley singles out a few of the very best, including NBC’s Richard Engle, and CNN’s Jane Arraf. Then he drops a bombshell, offering that his “nice” list includes “any Fox News Channel reporter.”

Ouch. That’s the kind of blanket endorsement that smacks of collusion. Consider Valley’s praise of Fox’s Steve Harrigan, (who was a crackerjack producer for CNN in Moscow when I first met him in 1994). As Valley recounts it, he was discussing with Harrigan an incident in which an embedded reporter, Kevin Sites at the time with NBC, shot video of a U.S. Marine shooting a wounded insurgent in a mosque who, it turned out, was unarmed. Shooting the wounded is a clear violation of the law of armed conflict, but following an investigation the Marines decided the unnamed Marine corporal might have reasonably thought the man was a threat because he could not see what was in his hands.  No charges were filed.  Fair enough.

But here’s the disturbing part. According to Valley, Harrigan of Fox told him, “If I had taken that video, I would have just given it to the Marines because there was no need to put something like that on the news.” Valley said the statement exemplified the difference between Fox News and other news outlets.

As I said, I know Steve Harrigan. He did a great job helping me when I was lost in Kiev, Ukraine. But that statement, that you would essentially ignore up what might be a war crime, just reinforces the worst perception of journalists in the war zone, as partisans, not impartial reporters.

By the same token Valley did CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and John Vause a big favor. He complained that Christiane was guilty of “obnoxious behavior” and “wanting to be treated better than anyone else. The truth is, that’s usually seen by media bosses as “aggressively fighting for competitive advantage.” Same for John Vause who annoyed Valley by leaving a CNN camera on during an attack, when the military ordered everyone to pull back. A shoouting match ensued. Valley thinks he won this dustup by keeping his cool. But I guarantee you, CNN would have nothing but praise for a reporter who went toe-to-toe with a PAO to get an advantage on a story.

Memo to unscrupulous PAOs: If you really want to harm a reporter’s career, you have to be diabolical. Call the reporter’s boss and praise the journalist for reporting the story exactly the way you thought it should be reported. Thank them for using all your talking points, and not mentioning anything that could be misconstrued as a war crime. Of course, you’d have to lie, in most cases. But if you’re okay with that…

See Steve’s full respoonse and my additional comments at Fortress Mentality

Rand Beers, Under Secretary for National Protection and Programs Directorate
U.S. Department for Homeland Security, on why the case of alleged Christmas Day bomber Umar Abdulmutallab, was a “failure of analysis”. From The Heritage Foundation’s National Security Bloggers Luncheon, March 3, 2010

Richard S. Keevill, chief of the force that guards the Pentagon said at a news conference after the shooting, “We train with some regularity to see we can do it very quickly, and we did it very quickly tonight.”

The two Pentagon Force Protection officers involved suffered only “grazing wounds,” while the suspect died from the return fire.   And the heavily guarded fortress was protected.  Job well done!

Not so fast. In the words of the classic informercal, “But wait, there’s more.”

The dirty little secret is that what saved the Pentagon from disaster was the fact the gunman was unaware of a gaping hole in Pentagon security, and therefore fortunately didn’t know how to exploit it.

Don’t worry, I’m not going to explain it here.   But trust me, as someone who has been in and out of the Pentagon thousands of times in the last two decades, I know where the shortfalls are, and there is a vulnerability that I pray will be addressed before something really bad happens.

All it would take is someone with intimate knowledge of how the security works, and the willingness to die in the attempt.  I think we know our enemies are more than willing to give their lives to kill Americans.

Some history.  Flash black to the innocent days of 1995.  The Oklahoma City bombing reveals the vulnerability of big buildings to truck bombs.   I look around the Pentagon where I work and I realize there is nothing to stop a similar attack here.  In fact my huge plate glass window looks right out on a likely target zone.   I raise the question, quietly with Pentagon officials.  I am assured there is no problem.  Security is fine, I am told.   I go outside and take pictures showing how a truck could easily drive around the security gates guarding the approaches to the Pentagon.  There is nothing but flat grass between the gates and the building.    I am told by officials that there are other defenses I am not aware of.  “Secret defenses” that would stop a vehicle before it got to the building.  This reminds me of the myth that there are surface to air anti-aircraft missiles on the roof to shoot down attacking planes.  No such missiles were deployed in the time I was there, and there were no secret defenses to protect against truck bombs.  It was all BS.

What there was, was a long-term plan to fortify the defenses over a several year period, but officials understandably didn’t want to telegraph to terrorists that the Pentagon would be vulnerable for the next five years, essentially saying “If you’re going to attack, better do it soon.”

I discussed with my bureau chief whether to do a report about the security shortcomings, with the idea it might put the improvements on the fast track. In the end we spiked the story, worrying it might give too many ideas to bad guys, before the deficiencies could be corrected.  So we held our breath, and hoped for the best.   And over the years, many enhancements were put in place.  By Sept 11, 2001, the building was far more secure, but not impregnable.

Then the plane hit, and security became an even bigger priority.  Additional checkpoints were set up, tighter procedures were put in place for issuing building passes and escorting visitors, an entire road was moved at enormous expenses so trucks would not pass too close to the building, and giant earth berms were erected.

The Pentagon is now one of the most heavily fortified buildings in the world.  But there is still a way past all this.   In the movies the bad guys always come in disguised as workers in coverall and crawl through the oversize ventilation shafts.  It’s always a fanciful depiction that is comforting in that it couldn’t happen that way in real life.

But at the Pentagon, there is still a way in that most Hollywood scriptwriters could figure out if they put their mind to it.  There could be a Ft. Hood-style shooting at the Pentagon.    Or even a breach like the insider attack on the CIA in Afghanistan.  And if Chief Richard Keevill wants to know how it could happen, and take steps to prevent it, I could let him in on the secret.

PLEASE– DO NOT POST YOUR THEORIES HERE.

Just today I read the hair-raising account of a Californian man who’s Toyota Prius went into warp speed, and with the brakes smoking from trying to overcome a stuck accelerator, the car finally came to a stop when a Highway Patrolman pulled his car in front.

The driver gave a news conference in which he described how he called 911, but couldn’t talk on the phone and control the car as it reached speeds over 90 miles per hour.

So here’s the part I don’t get.  I didn’t even hear anyone ask the question:

WHY DIDN’T THE DRIVER PUT THE CAR IN NEUTRAL?

How hard is that?  If the guy panicked and didn’t think of the obvious first thing to do, why didn’t the highly trained 911 operators tell him to do that?  Why didn’t the police officer, who was broadcasting instructions over his loudspeaker, according to the AP account, tell the driver to put the car in neutral?

Actually I just listened to the 911 call and it turns out the dispatcher did ask the driver if he could take the car out of gear, but the driver wasn’t listening.  He said he couldn’t talk on the phone AND drive the car.  But he did have time to perform the useless maneuver of reaching down and pulling the gas pedal back up.

I find it astonishing that any driver of a modern car could be unaware that to disengage the engine from the drive train you simply PUT THE CAR IN NEUTRAL.  I’m glad he’s okay, but the guy needs to go back to driver’s ed.

So when you hear the stories about cars that ran amok for miles before tragically crashing and killing it occupants, you have to wonder if the drivers simply panicked and failed to execute a simple procedure that would have saved their lives.

If Toyota cars can’t be put in neutral when the accelerator is stuck, then there are problems with the transmissions that are far more serious than anything we have been told about so far.

Am I missing something?

While I appreciated the film’s gritty verisimilitude and its evocative portrayal of the unremitting stress of irregular warfare, the movie is marred by its inaccurate depiction of some aspects of the military ethos.  And that bothered me.

And yes, let’s acknowledge right from the outset, “The Hurt Locker” is just a movie, a Hollywood version of the war.  Despite the fact it was written by a freelance journalist who embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq, it doesn’t claim to be “based on a true story”, or even “inspired by a true story.”*  It’s a work of fiction.  With a fictional maverick commander, who puts the lives of his fellow soldiers at risk to stratify his personal pursuit of justice, along with an apparent lust for a constant adrenaline rush.

That said, many people form their beliefs about historical events from entertaining, but historically inaccurate movies, such as JFK, or “K-19 The Widowmaker,” just to name two among dozens of examples.  What most Americans know about Gen. George Patton comes largely from larger-than-life portrayal by George C. Scott’s, a portrait in many cases at significant odds with the facts.

“The Hurt Locker” is shot in that herky-jerky style that is intended to mimic the feel of a video from a small handheld camera, while invoking the jittery tension soldiers have when their head is on a swivel because danger is lurking in every shadow.

For me it was effective, in the sense that in felt like I was deployed Iraq.  And like a tour of duty in the warzone, barely halfway through the movie I felt like: “I get the point.  Can I go home now?”

The movie is at its best showing the harsh realities faced by U.S. troops who are asked to comport themselves with the highest standards of any of the world’s fighting forces, while facing an enemy with no scruples at all.

But it fails in showing how most troops live up to those standards, even though granted, it does include a lead character (with character) as a counterpoint to the cowboy “wild man” protagonist whole breaks all the rules.

As a movie, it also fails on a storytelling level.   The story arc is flat.  No one really grows, or learns, or even changes in the course the narrative.  War changes people, but in “The Hurt Locker” no one changes.  The “hero” goes home after deployment only to find that he’s confronted with too many choices in the cereal aisle of his local grocery store, so he signs up for another year of death-defying bomb disposal duty.

What was the point?  The point seems to be there is no point.  No point to war, that is.

So why did “The Hurt Locker” win Best Picture?  Was it Hollywood voting for an anti-war movie?  Is “Avatar” director James Cameron so unpopular with his fellow academy members they wanted to stick it to him by giving the Oscar statuette to his ex-wife?  Or were the other nine nominees not all that great either.  (“Avatar” also has a not-so-subtle anti-military theme, featuring a lantern-jawed caricature of a villainous mercenary commander devoid of conscience, compassion, or even a cursory understanding of Gen. David Petraeas’ COIN manual.)

What do you think?

(polls)

(polls)

Feb. 11, 2010 — At 8:44 p.m. (PST), a short-range threat-representative ballistic missile was launched from an at-sea mobile launch platform. Within seconds, the ALTB used onboard sensors to detect the boosting missile and used a low-energy laser to track the target. The ALTB then fired a second low-energy laser to measure and compensate for atmospheric disturbance. Finally, the ALTB fired its megawatt-class High Energy Laser, heating the boosting ballistic missile to critical structural failure. The entire engagement occurred within two minutes of the target missile launch, while its rocket motors were still thrusting.

It shot down a test missile in the boost phase. (See Video below)

It’s also historic, as Boeing brags in a press release, “This experiment marks the first time a laser weapon has engaged and destroyed an in-flight ballistic missile, and the first time that any system has accomplished it in the missile’s boost phase of flight. ALTB has the highest-energy laser ever fired from an aircraft, and is the most powerful mobile laser device in the world.”

Feb. 11, 2010 — An infrared image of the Missile Defense Agency’s Airborne Laser Testbed (right) destroying a threat representative short-range ballistic missile

Funding for the ABL program has been cut back, and critics still think is “pie in the sky” But when building multi-layered missile defense, in which no one system can be counted on 100 percent to stop a (potentially nuclear-tipped) incoming missile, the ABL could be the first best defense against madmen and rogue states.

The flying “star warrior” has several advantages over land-based systems, in that it could be deployed to any place in the world where an unexpected threat emerges, as well as the usual hot spots, like North Korea, if tensions were to rise.

ICBMs are most vulnerable in their boost phase, when they are filled with fuel, and can be destroyed with a high-energy laser, if you can track it.

Sounds like science fiction, but February 11th it was shown to be science fact.

Is it worth the money?  How many layers of defense do we need?

Considering the old saying that one nuclear weapons could ruin your whole day, I subscribe to the redundancy theory of redundancy.

If North Korea, or Iran were to threaten the world with a nuclear armed missile, I would like to know — and I would like for THEM to know — we have a good chance of bringing it down over their territory.

Which brings us to the problematic, but vitally necessary process, of figuring out which terror suspects in Guantanamo have been properly designated “unlawful enemy combatants” and therefore not entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions, and subject to indefinite incarceration at the U.S. run prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The dilemma of holding suspects based on unconfirmed, and perhaps unconfirmable intelligence, which cannot be disclosed for fear of burning sources and methods, while at the holding ourselves as a nation to the highest standards of human rights and due process under law, is a contradiction portrayed brilliantly in a new short film, “The Response.“
Starring Peter Riegert as a conflicted military judge, and produced based on actual declassified transcripts, it’s a great, nonpartisan jumping off point for a real debate about a live and death issue.
The evidence against many of those held was summed up at recent screening I attended by Rear. Adm. John Hutson, a former Navy JAG as, “A guy, we can’t tell you who, told us something, we can’t tell you what, that makes us think you’re a terrorist, but we can’t tell you why.“
The film’s brilliance is in the use of real dialog culled from thousands of pages of transcripts released by the Obama administration under the FOIA of hearings that were conducted in the first few ears of Guantanamo’s operation. As well as a fictional debate between the military judges that captures both sides of the issues.
Peter Riegert (Local Hero, Animal House, The Good Wife ) said the first thing he wanted to know from writer/producer Sig Libowitz before he agreed to appear in the dramatization was whether he had an agenda, if the film would be an agitprop.
After reading the script Riegert agreed to take part in the project (which also stars Aasif Mandvi from The Daily Show) and the result is a short pithy film that frames the debate perfectly, and leaves the tough question for you to decide.

Check it out.

I watched this thought-provoking movie at a special showing at the French Embassy in Washington last night. The 30-minute film depicts the process by which the United States determined if detainees at Guantánamo were properly classified as unlawful enemy combatants. The movie’s biggest virtue: It plays it right down the middle and leaves it for you to decide what the U.S. response should be to an enemy who doesn’t play by our rules, and doesn’t want the war to ever end.