BBC News Story

The UK's Chief of Defence staff - our most senior military officer - blamed media coverage for attacks on the Black Watch regiment - deployed just South of Baghdad to support US troop movements for the attack on Fallujah.

The story isn't very detailed, so it isn't very clear why he thinks this.

What do you think? Does media coverage encourage terrorist attacks on coailition targets? If so, how? What would be the solution to this - news blackouts?

What do you think?

I wonder if General Walker supposes that the Iraqi rebels would not have attacked if there had been a media ban imposed to stop any news of such attcks being made public in the west? Perhaps he feels the Iraqi's are more interested in how we perceive them than they are in actually liberating their country?

I seem to spy a certain irritation amongst military people towards any indication of a perceived weakness, especially with regards to the media. It seems to be a part of the military mind-set that demands slavish devotion to the idea of superiority and invulnerability. It was much the same when I was in the military.

I wonder if General Walker would rather the press were kept (even more) silent so that we could all go back to the 'good old days' when his predecessors were given leave to slughter tens of thousands without the public being made any the wiser?


Does media coverage encourage terrorist attacks on coailition targets? If so, how?

Of course it does. Information is power and the global media is a tool that both sides seek to use.


What would be the solution to this - news blackouts?

Better planning by our politicians and military commanders such that our free media is not jeopardised by half baked planning and poor political decisions.

What do you think? Does media coverage encourage terrorist attacks on coailition targets? If so, how? What would be the solution to this - news blackouts?



The media frequently give's the enemy intelligence. A key tactic employed by the insurgents are aimed to sour public opinion about the war. Once they hear that the British are coming, and hey, this is were they are going, you can then be sure the insurgents will act on that intelligence.

Fortunately the Black Watch came out of their re-deployment with a stunning success. Military commanders estimated a probability of a 20% causality rate and came out with less than 1% netting hundreds of insurgents.

I think a solution would be to limit the intelligence given to the media on locations of re-deployment.

The media are just doing their job -- reporting the news and as much as they can get their hands on. The military should never give them intelligence that could kill their soldiers by giving the enemy intelligence. Whatever the media reports, everyone has access to that information, including the insurgents.

What do you think? Does media coverage encourage terrorist attacks on coailition targets? If so, how? What would be the solution to this - news blackouts?

There are several issues here.
First, the revealing of intelligence. I remember when living in the UK during the Falklands/Malvinas war. The British Army was planning a secret attack against an Argentinain stronghold. A fortified hill on the road to the headquarters. They planned to launch an unexpected attack at night. They discussed the plan in front of an embedded reporter who immediately reported it to the world. The attack went ahead. It was one of the bloodiest of that war. The Argentinian Generals learned of the attack on television and forified the hill with extra troops in advance. The British succeeded, but with heavy caualties on both sides. Undoubtably, many extra people died because of the news report. Somebody should have kept their mouth shut, so that many Brits and Argies would still have their children today. Wreckless journalism IMO.

Second, the reporting of a war should be full and accurate (attrocities and all). It can be done with effect after the battle has taken place. How can reporters live with themselves when they have escalated the death-toll, albeit for a scoop?

Third, from my reading of the article in question I believe that the gripe is not due to leaking of intelligence. My reading of it is that a simple troop redeployment was made public and that editorials in the UK media spread fear that UK soldiers may receive heavy casualties in an "American fight". Most Brits are against the war. The masive public and media objections that followed probably did encourage the insurgents (sic) to target the Brits in the belief that British support for the war could be massively reduced if they took heavy caualties. It would be a major coup if the Brits pulled out, and IMO the idea was presented to the insurgents (sic) by the media furore that I am sure would have been reported in Iraq.

I beleive it was a combination of the two. Public opinion being one in that the insurgents believed that if they were able to inflict enough causalities with this new opportunity on the British elite soldiers it may ultimately result in the pullout of troops if not further lending Blair's opposition more ammunition. Fortunately they failed miserably. Also the general location of the re-deployment giving the enemy intelligence that "the British are coming" so they would be able to plan attacks ahead of time estimating what road they would travel on. There's only one major route that comes up from Basra toward the north, given there are side roads. Still it gave the enemy a general location to target.

That is why I quoted the comment made by the officer.



This situation is ironic because the Black Watch and the Marines that took part in the overall offensive of Fallujah achieved a historicaly stunning success in which the like's the world has never seen before. And yet the media and alot of people just dont see it, as if it they could have achieved perfect result's with no civilian or allied casualties.

In other words we have just come out of the largest offensive since Vietnam in a stellar victory with record breaking low causality rates as well as record breaking wounded to kia ratio. Look up the battle of Grozny and you will see the Russians faced the same situation in Grozny and read about what happened.

Yet somehow all the media can focus on is a Marine that shot a wounded Iraqi and argue over how many civilians have been killed.

Instead of seeing a headline that says "Historic victory over battle of Fallujah" you see "Marine killed wounded Iraqi".

Sorry didn't mean to rant...

The insurgents do not need the western media to learn of a units redeployment from one location in Iraq to another. If you believe so, you gravely underestimate the nature of the threat. We generally do much better at keeping targets of raids, sweeps, cordon & search ops, etc. close hold until mission launch - but they still get compromised on occasion.

The bad guys do monitor the western media to gauge the tides of opinion in this war. Certain ops are carried out specifically to influence the foreign media - no mistake about that either. But the media as a major source of intel? Not in this war.



Getting a little carried away there. Yes, Fallujah was a clear tactical success. You could perhaps compare it to the Battle of Algiers (January - March '57) - but the insurgents ultimately won that war.

It remains to be seen how well we manage to translate Fallujah into continued operational success and, ultimately, strategic victory.

I never stated they need the media to learn of re-deployments. Who know's if they would have learned of the re-deployment from other's means. I think you are assuming they would have. However if the media does report it you can be sure that they will know of it.



I never stated that it was the win that would end the war.



Perhaps I should have used different wording. The battle of Fallujah is not over. However the "invasion" if you will was a historic success, the overthrow of the current "government" of Fallujah (if you want to call it that) was extremely successful. But as we all know, as you pointed out, it remains to be seen if that success translates into a continued strategic victory.





Uh, no. The "Battle of Algiers" was about the war of an entire country, not any single town. The battle of Grozny was a specific town held by insurgents that used the same tactics and defeated the Russians superior force for the city. That is what I was comparing the battle for Fallujah with, not the battle for Iraq.

Its the word "historic" that I take issue with. Yes, the recent success is "history" in the sense of the timing of the event - we have now moved past the initial offensive operationally and are currently exploiting intel gained and attempting to build upon the tactical momentum developed. Political exploitation is, sadly, taking a poor second place. But it is not "historic" in the sense of a unique and critical cross-roads in our battle against the combined terrorist and insurgent threats in Iraq. Not yet, at least, in my personal, biased opinion.


Double-check your history, Vamp, before you go posting smilies.

The Battle of Algiers was a single campaign during the war in Algeria. I posted the time-frame for you right there. The French paras achieved a resounding success in the city, capturing or killing several key insurgent leaders, shutting down bomb-making factories, collecting piles of documents of critical intel value, etc. etc. Sound familiar? At the time, they thought they had broken the back of the insurgency. The war dragged on for 5 more years, and it was the insurgents who came out on top.

One of the better books on the history of the war is A Savage War of Peace, by Alistair Horne. I highly recommend it.

If you can give me an example of any recent urban battle that netted the same amount of enemy casualties vs. the amount of casualties on our side were the enemy used the same tactics in Fallujah then I will retract the word "historic".



My mistake... however the French tactics and the US military tactics employed are completely polarized. During the war the French had a policy of murder and torture. Hardly a comparison especially with a Marine being investigated for unlawful killing of an Iraqi.



Then im sure you know about the scale of which the French tortured and murdered the population.

If you were truly familiar with the war in Algeria, beyond simplified criticism of French brutality in the war, you'd have understood my reference. That campaign is referred to in every historical text I have ever seen as "The Battle of Algiers. Hell, its the most well-known campaign of the war - there's even a movie.

But you miss the point entirely in my comparison - being too busy combining defensiveness over our tactics with historical condemnation of the French.

In fact, there are really two points to my comparison:
1. Insurgents cannot hold out in the confines of a single city against a modern Army determined to uproot and destroy them. From the beginning, our ultimate tactical success in Fallujah was never in doubt.

2. Tactical victory is the easy part. An insurgency is ultimately won by the defending government not killing and capturing the bad guys - but by providing its people with security and stability. And in a manner that is perceived to be legitimate, politically, in the eyes of its population.

Even had the French used less harsh tactics, this would have been impossible for them to achieve- they were fighting to retain Algeria as a colony. So, we have an incomparable advantage in our basic reason for combatting the insurgents - we intend to secure and stabilize the country in order to enable us to leave Iraq in the hands of a new Iraqi government.

But, as I previously stated, we have thus far failed to really capitalize on the tactical victory with political measures. So far, there is still no significant IIG presence - security or administrative - in Fallujah and the surrounding province. Still just token representation, with the US clearly seen to be calling all the shots. We need to fix this, and fast, in order to give some sort of semblance of legitimacy to the region in order to encourage more Sunnis to participate in the elections - let alone simply making them possible. Its easy to be dismissive, but if we do not get a significant number of Sunni Arabs to participate in the political process, we further deligitimize the nascent Iraq government in the eyes of an entire segment of its population. In that case, the elections will only inflame the Sunni insurgency - not deflate it.

We are doing much better on the economic side - we have been working hard to create an effective aid process in Fallujah and the surrounding province to deal with the mass of displaced citizens. We still have more to do in the way of jobs, and this ties right into the need for Sunni Arabs to join the IIG in a real and functional manner.

Mustang I was not taking a pot shot at the French tactics, I know there are similarities, I was simply pointing out differences. The point you are making in reference to Algeirs is that a major tactical victory does not mean you win the war, and is the easy part given the circumstances, in which I agree with. The point I was making in reference to Grozny is that our troops could have suffered much higher causilties and a much longer drawn out battle. Of course there are always differences in battles. Though I do not agree that it would have been "impossible" for the French to retain Algeria. Unlikely, sure, but not "impossible".


Back on topic :

Does media coverage encourage terrorist attacks on coailition targets?

Usually not. Of course, careless reporting of positions and weak areas is the exception. However, most of the reporting that has drawn fire from the UK and US has to do with torture and the deaths of civilians. This information is already known to most of the people in the area (it's kind of hard to miss). The ones who didn't know were parts of the world not privvy to Al Jazeera (and even they have been run out of many parts of the world now), and of course, Americans. We get our news through a straw.


If so, how?

American understanding of what is really going on in Iraq will cause the one thing that can stop this war: widespread outrage, demonstrations, refusals to fight, and other pressures put on officials to end the war. Which is the real reason officials are trying to control the media and accuse it of endangering troops. Remember when Rumsfeld was being asked about Abu Ghraib and he started a tirade about the camera phones?


What would be the solution to this - news blackouts?

Of course that's the solution. From their perspective, anyway. And they're doing their best to make it happen. Remember the reporter who was killed by a soldier outside a prison in Iraq? They said his camera looked like a weapon.

That prison was Abu Ghraib.

His camera was a weapon. And so they killed him. And there's a lot of other reporters who have been killed and driven out of war zones by the US. And there's a lot of information we aren't getting.

What do you think? Does media coverage encourage terrorist attacks on coailition targets?

Of course they do. As a Marine who has served there, I can honestly say the media is the greatest ally the terrorist have.






If so, how?

Two fold first they help to incite anger in the Arab street and erode morale at home. They also provide a sounding board for terrorist, playing beheadings and the like only encourages them to perfomr even more grusome stunts.



What would be the solution to this - news blackouts?

A news blackout is severe, I would prefer the armed services directly controllling what was in and out particurally concerning troop movement, or other information that could be used to endanger or servicemen. I would also get rid of embedded reporters.