The American war against the Islamic State has become the most opaque conflict the United States has undertaken in more than two decades, a fight that’s so under-reported that U.S. officials and their critics can make claims about progress, or lack thereof, with no definitive data available to refute or bolster their positions.
The result is that it’s unclear what impact more than 1,000 airstrikes on Iraq and Syria have had during the past four months. That confusion was on display at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing earlier this week, where the topic — “Countering ISIS: Are We Making Progress?” — proved to be a question without an answer.
The dearth of information by which to judge the conflict is one of the difficulties for those trying to track progress in it. The U.S. military, which started out announcing every air mission almost as soon as it ended, now publishes roundups of airstrikes three times a week. Those releases often don’t specify which strikes happened on what days or even whether a targeted site was successfully hit. McClatchy has discovered that in some cases, the location given for bombings has been inaccurate by nearly 100 miles.
In previous recent wars, the military offered either regular updates or a chance for reporters to embed with troops and see the conflict for themselves. But with the war primarily an air campaign or involving famously secretive special operators, that access isn’t available. There are no extra seats on the fighter jets for reporters, and the furtive special forces now training Iraqi troops aren’t allowing journalists to join them.| I'd say the special forces have learned from experience. |
While the U.S. military has discussed embedding reporters, as it did during the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it’s unclear how such an embed would work with no major troop presence in Iraq and none in Syria. The Iraqi military, which is supposed to be leading the fight, has shown no interest in allowing foreign reporters access to its forces.| And the Iraqis learned something from the last war or two as well... |
It’s not just journalists, however, who report difficulty gaining a picture of what’s going on in the conflict. In Congress, legislators who receive classified hearings on the U.S. effort said they, too, didn’t get definitive details on the effects of the air and ground campaign.
Pentagon officials privately concede that they could release more, and more timely, information. But the problem, they say, ultimately is a lack of a strategy. President Barack Obama said in a White House address Sept. 10 that the goal was to “defeat and destroy” the Islamic State, but the military approach so far is more of a containment policy. Releasing more details about the strikes would expose that divide, critics said privately.| And the media can't let that happen now, can it? |
Lauren Squires, a counterterrorism analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, which tracks the anti-Islamic State campaign, said the delay and lack of specificity from the Pentagon had consequences. The cost of less detail is that the American public is lulled into a false sense that not much is happening.
“There is a false sense of distance. Unless there are embedded reporters, there is a distance and less understanding how ubiquitous this group can be,” Squires said, referring to the Islamic State. “Just because we ignore it doesn’t mean the threat will go away.”
Sorry, lady. Much as I agree on the need for reporters, I don't trust them. The media needs a professional housecleaning and a serious search for ethics. Substitute "White House" for "Pentagon" and see how it reads. |