I’ve admired Nir Rosen’s work in Iraq and Lebanon and have regularly used this blog to call for independent, non-embedded journalists to get in and provide us with another view of Afghanistan. I had high hopes for Rosen’s Rolling Stone feature on the Taleban, but it’s a devastating disappointment. While I don’t share Dave Dilegge’s view that journalists shouldn’t embed with “the enemy” — I’ve always thought we have to cover both sides of a conflict — I find it equally distressing that someone would call this “an instant classic of war reporting”. Elizabeth Rubin’s Korengal piece was a classic; Dexter Filkins’s Falluja dispatch was a classic; Rosen’s own “The Myth of the Surge” was a classic. The Taleban story isn’t. It’s an extended travelogue with little narrative power and even less insight. It doesn’t tell me the war is lost; it just tells me the Taleban think it is. And, apart from dropping vague hints that they’re not who they seem to be, it tells me very little about the Taleban themselves. In fact, what it really amounts to is a left-wing Michael Yon story — instead of patriotic bluster it’s just laden with endless gloom, and instead of victory it celebrates defeat. I fail to see the big difference.
(Josh Foust’s detailed critique is here.)
“While I don’t share Dave Dilegge’s view that journalists shouldn’t embed with “the enemy” – I’ve always thought we have to cover both sides of a conflict”
I’m curious Jari:
1.) What possible advantages would there be for the rest of us to see the war from the other side of the trench, if not for the mere purpose of moral relativism?
2.) We already know what the Taleban stand for, what else new could be brought to the plate?
3.) From where do you draw your reasoning that anti-democratic/liberal forces need their story told at all during a time of conflict?
Just wondering.
Kenneth, I think we have to define ”enemy”.
Clearly, the Taleban, by way of their relationship with al-Qaeda, is an enemy of the United States. An American journalist covering the war from their side could thus be seen as “embedding with the enemy”, and it’s fairly easy to understand how that would raise ethical questions a la Jane Fonda in Hanoi.
As for the rest of us, I’m not so sure. Would I consider myself as befriending the enemy if I chose to ride with the Taleban? No – first of all, I wouldn’t befriend them any more than I’ve befriended the U.S. troops I’ve embedded with in Iraq, and secondly, although Finland has troops in Afghanistan, I have a hard time calling the Taleban our enemy.
Things are generally not black and white when it comes to armed conflict. Who, for example, were the good guys, the “pro-liberty” and “pro-democracy” ones in Bosnia? I couldn’t tell you, and even if I could, I probably would’ve done stories about all of them anyway. Same with Afghanistan pre-9/11 – I traveled with many competing groups, and before that, with both the Communists and their mujahedin foes.
So, yes, I do believe in covering these messy conflicts from both sides. Ideological distinctions are for editorial writers.
Thank you for answering back, I’m not speaking as just an American, but as a Finnish citizen as well.
The Taleban is very much an enemy of the free world to which Finland clearly belongs. And since the Taleban played such a crucial role in the destruction of the WTC which snuffed out the lives of thousands of people from a multitude of nations, it most certainly makes them an enemy of Finland, as it does the rest of the European Union …and elsewhere.
But getting back to point at hand. Concerning the Taleban and the Islamofascists the west is curretnly engaged in fighting against:
1.) What possible advantages would there be for the rest of us to see the war from the other side of the trench, if not for the mere purpose of moral relativism?
2.) We already know what the Taleban stand for, what else new could be brought to the plate?
3.) From where do you draw your reasoning that anti-democratic/liberal forces need their story told at all during a time of conflict?
–Kenneth
Kenneth,
once again, this boils down to world view, something you and I do not share.
Also, by now you should know that I will not answer a bunch of ideologically loaded bullet points no matter how many times you repeat them.
But I will say this much:
In my world, things are not black and white, set in stone, anti-this and pro-that. In my world, Kenneth Sikorski does not define who my enemy is, nor does anyone else. In my world, once I do define my enemy, I want to know as much about him as possible. In my world, bad things don’t go away just by shutting them out, and good things don’t happen just because you wish real hard.
But, of course, that’s just my world.
Now I’m going to call it a day and put my 5-year-old to bed.
Jari: “Kenneth, I think we have to define ”enemy”.
Jari: “In my world, Kenneth Sikorski does not define who my enemy is, nor does anyone else.”
Excuse me for placing a comment in the comment section.
Speaking as an American I can say that such reporting can have intelligence value. Depending how ‘on the ball’ they are, it can either give you insight into their capabilities and intent or, at least, get an idea of what they think is important to present to the world.
Both can be very important.
Unlike Jari, I actually found the article interesting and informative. Admittedly, he didn’t emphasize the points I found most interesting but the conflict in Afghanistan is so poorly understood by most Americans that I think a reporter really has to try to produce something that has no value there.
I think this addresses your first question. This helps us in ‘knowing our enemy’. I think it’s valuable for the American (and allied) people to know that our enemy is thinking of this conflict in terms of decades. We should be able to tell out people ‘Look, if you have a child born today, chances are quite good he/she will serve a tour in Afghanistan when they are 18. And that’s OK.’
I think the war in Afghanistan is a just one, and so the idea of a long war there doesn’t bother me in principle. But something of that duration is going to require our people to be prepared for it.
I would disagree with your second assertion. All Taliban aren’t necessarily the same and not all anti-coalition forces are Taliban. They have different motivators and goals. The more information we have about them, the better (either secret or open source).
My answer to your third question would come from my statement that I think the information is valuable as a source of intelligence. There’s no reason why this type of intelligence should be kept secret from Americans. The more they see of the enemy, the less they seem like 10 foot tall demons and, I would argue, the more we can understand why we fight.
I believe that there is enough info on the Taleban as an enemy to know what they want and how they would govern Afghanistan if they would ever get back into power.
I would rather see the military infiltrate and glean info, then to see media types sending back stories meant to stir public opinion, either way. They are simply not needed.
I can’t help but notice your conflating intelligence gathering with western journalistic practices. I find it highly doubtful that the kind of intel the military is looking for, could be gleaned from the “human interests” stories done by the imbeds with the Taleban and similar enemies.
Like I said, we already know what the enemy is, if there is shift in what’s facing the armed forces there, the military is not going to turn to the media for help, they have their own ways and means. I can’t help but see that as a red herring of an argument.
The Allied forces and media didn’t see the need to imbed with the Nazi German troops during WWII, in order to “understand their enemy better”, neither do we need them with the Taleban now.
Since WWII, journalism and the ethics that guided them has been turned on its ear. Way too many journalists have become a part of the conflict they’re reporting, and that spells ill for the profession in general.
I need only to point to the over the top reporting on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to prove my point, the examples are legion.
“The Allied forces and media didn’t see the need to imbed with the Nazi German troops during WWII, in order to “understand their enemy better”, neither do we need them with the Taleban now.”
Not true. The heroic and inimitable CBS radio correspondent Bill Shirer reported from Berlin until 1940, and he certainly didn’t leave because one couldn’t “embed with the enemy” but because the Nazis only wanted him to report their side of the story.
Incidentally, how about all those correspondents in Cold War Soviet Union? Surely “embedding” with the Evil Empire must have constituted a serious offense?
Sorry KGS good intelligence is a lot more than infiltrating the enemy to glean information from them. Quite frankly, we don’t have (and could never get) anywhere near the amount of trained personnel to do that sort of work.
The work of journalists (and other open source media) can be a very valuable tool for intelligence gathering. That’s an almost universally held belief now in the intelligence community. You better believe the military and the intelligence community is using open source information to fill out their understanding of their operating environment.
There’s an old cliche in the intelligence community that goes something like this: 80% of all our intelligence needs can be met through a good university library. That’s even more true today with the vast amount of information available.
While you man think that story had only ‘human-interest’ value I would disagree. There was actually quite a bit of information that could be tactically relevant there. You just need to know where to look.
Again, the Taliban is not a monolithic force and not all of our opponents in Afghanistan are the Taliban. There are all sorts of shifting goals, alliances and motivations and we ignore them at our peril. Refusal to learn as much about our enemy as possible on ideological grounds is self-imposed ignorance and not likely to win us any wars.
WWII is not a good analogy for the wars we’re fighting for a whole host of reasons.
Quite frankly, I didn’t see the piece as particularly sympathetic to the Taliban. It was gloomy but given recent statements by many of our commanders, doesn’t appear to be way out in la-la land. In any case, no one story should constitute someone’s entire perspective on any subject. A story like this should be a part of the overall picture. Elements in the story or the central theme can (and should) be subject to verification through alternate sources of information and can be judged based upon their credibility and the reliability of the author.
I will agree it’s not a ‘classic’ piece of war reporting but probably think it’s better than Jari gives it credit for.
Lets be honest here.
1.) I doubt seriously that Shirer was reporting to his US audience human interest stories about Germans and how “they’re just like us”…something that passes for news journalism today.
2.) The US was not at war with Germany at the time Shirer was reporting from Berlin.
3.) At least he had the temerity and above all, common sense to leave Germany when he knew he was being used, unlike CNN, whose CEO, Eason Jordan admitted that his news org, failed to report all the news due to Iraq being…Saddam’s Iraq.
4.) The closest Shirer became to imbedding with German troops was to get to Paris.
The major thing that seperates journalists of Shirer’s calibur and today’s present lot, is that the former had a clear sense of what line could not be crossed, and the latter not knowing the difference.
Hi iago68,
Ever since Vietnam, everyone knows that the moral on the homefront is as important as the battlefield itself. Even during WWII, the moral of the people was a crucial consideration for the war dept., and their attention to that greatly contributed to steady flow of money that helped to support the war effort.
The US of the media by the enemy, to directly affect the home audience cannot be denied. Which is all the more reason to seriously contimplate whether or not an imbed with the enemy is a good thing. I think not.
The US military is not presently gleaning the book shelves of the libraries to find out where the Taleban are hiding, but the Taleban are indeed looking for useful stooges to use in order to help counter NATO victories.
It’s done all the time, and like in 2006 when Israel went to war against Lebanon due to Hezbollah’s acts of aggression against the Jewish state, there were foreign “useful stooges” there ready and willing to report on the horse and pony show the Hezbollah was putting on for them.
I can think of no greater example of journalist gone over to the dark side, than the infamous Robert Fisk.
But back to the issue at hand, when it comes to the present day news media, and the speed in which a faulty news report gathers steam around the world before the actual truth of what happened has barely gotten its pants on, proves that the modern age of reporting brings new responsibilties.
I just do not see the advantages of journalists teaming up with the enemy to report on things that could be used to undermine the whole war intitiative. Besides, it’s a proven fact that a journalist will be more sympathetic to the side he/she is reporting from, than to the side is firing at them.
Correction: “The manipulation of the US media by the enemy, to directly affect the home audience cannot be denied. Which is all the more reason to seriously contimplate whether or not an imbed with the enemy is a good thing. I think not.”
Hey KGS,
Well, of course you are correct in that the enemy (and everybody with a point of view) is going to try to spin a message. Some will do it better than others but certainly that is something that can be accounted for when using open source information as a source of intelligence.
You are also correct in that news can have a profound affect on morale among those on the ‘home front’. This may just be an ideological difference between us. I think that in a democracy a well informed electorate will be one which will be more likely to support a just war rather than less likely.
I’m very suspicious of those who would keep information from the citizenry ‘for their own good’. There is too much of a temptation to begin to restrict embarrassing information or hide errors because their revelation might erode confidence.
If we have a well informed citizenry (which should be the responsibility of the government before we go to war) then enemy propaganda should have a minimal effect.
And there is also a distinction between using information that is patently false (‘There are no U.S. troops in Baghdad’) and information that is just unwelcome. I would agree with you that fabricated stories are not worthy of attention from either the intelligence community or the public at large.
Finally, while the military may not be looking through library bookshelves to find out where to send an infantry platoon to patrol, the intelligence community is using open sources of information (from journalism to blog posts to government records) to identify targets are areas where further inquiry is warranted. I think you de-emphasize the value of such information. Again, while the article by itself was not ‘actionable intelligence’ it could very easily help fill out a picture of the situational environment.
Hey iago68,
In another age, journalists knew of the red line not to cross, and made concerted, conscious attempts not to cross them. Those that did, were either sanctioned (demoted to the obituary section) of fired, and had a very difficult time in clawing their way back up the ladder somewhere else. In short, credibilty mattered.
Much of what you say would certainly make sense back in the 40′s and perhpas 50′s, but nowadays, what passes for journalism can be summed up as mere partisanship. Certainly there are shining stars that buch the trend, but they are far and few between, especially here in Finland.
So, putting today’s style of journalism in the proper perspective, I find your arguments that imbeds with the enemy would produce something worthwhile …unconvincing. People are leaving the established media in droves, and with good reason, it’s becuase there is a problem with their credibility.
I sat in a meeting with the three major heads of Finnish YLE, The Helsingin Sanomat and Huvudstadsbladet, the latter being Finland’s only major swedish speaking paper, and viewed their amazament as myself, and others, proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that their news organizations where guilty of bias against Israel, either by written material or by ommision thereof.
If the news media’s overt biases are of such depth and scale as widely believed, then there is a major problem with imbedding journalists with the enemy, becuase the material will more than likely be used to hammer a political view.
Again, the case of CNN’s Eason Jordan admitting that its CNN desk in Baghdad, during Saddam’s time in power, reported its news selectively, which means the hard hitting stories were passed over. That’s the problem of having journalists report out of dictatorship and authortarian regimes, whether in Baghdad or Ramallah.
A case in point concerning the problem of a biased news media. look no further than here.
http://pajamasmedia.com/edgelings/2008/10/24/editing-their-way-to-oblivion-journalism-sacraficed-for-power-and-pensions/
Kenneth, I share your disillusionment with the media.
Just as a side note, though: Pajamas Media, the outfit you linked to, is not exactly a paragon of moral excellence. I met one of their bloggers in Baghdad in 2007 and saw how he reported his stories. After the Iraqi parliament was bombed, he filed a story that exaggerated his own proximity to the explosion, embellished the details, quoted journalists as Iraqi politicians and generally behaved in a way you just so eloquently condemned. When the rest of us who were there read his dispatch, we didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.
But, like I said, I do share your pessimism. When it comes to modern journalism, I find very little to commend.
Point taken Jari!
I have no reason to doubt your word, nor do I. There are a lot of well meaning individuals, myself included, who must also accept that, no matter who biased many journalists may be, it doesn’t absolve sloppiness by those who offer their services as an alternative to the MSM.
I admit that, as a blogger, I am a biased individual, I not deny that, and since I’m not a licenced journalist, my reports and notes/observations of things… are correctly to be filed in a certain category by the professionals, and rightly so. As a source, a blog ger stands or falla on the merit of his7her story being factually sound, which is nothing more that can be expected from a licenced journalist.
That is the way THINGS SHOULD BE. I respect that and give full kudos to those who understand that most basic of precepts of journalism. If I and the Tundra Tabloids are found to be guilty of faulty journalism, then I must take full responsibilty for it, as do you Jari, here on this blog.
That said, I am totally flabbergasted by the amount of material posted by the Finnish MSM that is so off based and factually challenged, that I wonder if the gate keepers are either asleep at the switch…or complicit to something deeper.
I have as tough a skin as you do Jari, we couldn’t do the things we do and not be tough to criticsm, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to write our thoughts, and you, write your articles.
But as you observed, there is little to commend, so again, if there is little to commend, why should we be championing, during this dark chapter in journalistic history, the imbedding of journalists into enemy ranks, while we know the penchant is real to abuse the information gleaned, for political purposes.
Again, the Israeli-Lebanese war is one fine example.