Homeland Security Watch

News and analysis of critical issues in homeland security

May 17, 2011

Why It Feels So Good to Be Embedded with the U.S. Military

Filed under: Media — by Christopher Bellavita on May 17, 2011

I saw this post initially on TomDispatch.com.  It was written by Peter Van Buren, an American foreign service officer who spent a year leading a reconstruction team in Iraq.  His argument is “we need journalists who are willing to type with both hands, not just pass on their own wet dreams to a gullible public” when reporting about war and the people who fight them.  It is also his “warning for you to take care when you’re hanging out with, or reading, our warrior-pundits.”

Van Buren is the author of  ”We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,” scheduled to be published later this year.  His blog of the same name, We Meant Well, can be found at this link.

According to the publisher’s description, Van Buren’s book “is his eyewitness account of the civilian side of the surge—that surreal and bollixed attempt to defeat terrorism and win over Iraqis by reconstructing the world we had just destroyed. Leading a State Department Provincial Reconstruction Team on its quixotic mission, Van Buren details, with laser-like irony, his yearlong encounter with pointless projects, bureaucratic fumbling, overwhelmed soldiers, and oblivious administrators secluded in the world’s largest embassy, who fail to realize that you can’t rebuild a country without first picking up the trash.”

Van Buren notes the views in the essay that follows “are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, or any other entity of the U.S. Government. The Department of State has not approved, endorsed, or authorized this post.”

 

The War Lovers

Why It Feels So Good to Be Embedded with the U.S. Military
By Peter Van Buren

Objective reporting on the SEAL team that killed bin Laden was as easy to find as a Prius at a Michele Bachmann rally. The media simply couldn’t help themselves. They couldn’t stop spooning out man-sized helpings of testosterone — the SEALs’ phallic weapons, their frat-house, haze-worthy training, their romance-novel bravado, their sweaty, heaving chests pressing against tight uniforms, muscles daring to break free…

You get the point. Towel off and read on.

What is it about the military that turns normally thoughtful journalists into war pornographers? A reporter who would otherwise make it through the day sober spends a little time with some unit of the U.S. military and promptly loses himself in ever more dramatic language about bravery and sacrifice, stolen in equal parts from Thucydides, Henry V, and Sergeant Rock comics.

I’m neither a soldier nor a journalist. I’m a diplomat, just back from 12 months as a Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) leader, embedded with the military in Iraq, and let me tell you that nobody laughed harder at the turgid prose reporters used to describe their lives than the soldiers themselves. They knew they were trading hours of boredom for maybe minutes of craziness that only in retrospect seemed “exciting,” as opposed to scary, confusing, and chaotic. That said, the laziest private knew from growing up watching TV exactly what flavor to feed a visiting reporter.

In trying to figure out why journalists and assorted militarized intellectuals from inside the Beltway lose it around the military, I remembered a long afternoon spent with a gaggle of “fellows” from a prominent national security think tank who had flown into Iraq. These scholars wrote serious articles and books that important people read; they appeared on important Sunday morning talk shows; and they served as consultants to even more important people who made decisions about the Iraq War and assumedly other conflicts to come.

One of them had been on the staff of a general whose name he dropped more often than Jesus’s at a Southern Baptist A.A. meeting. He was a real live neocon. A quick Google search showed he had strongly supported going to war in Iraq, wrote apology pieces after no one could find any weapons of mass destruction there (“It was still the right thing to do”), and was now back to check out just how well democracy was working out for a paper he was writing to further justify the war. He liked military high-tech, wielded words like “awesome,” “superb,” and “extraordinary” (pronounced EXTRA-ordinary) without irony to describe tanks and guns, and said in reference to the Israeli Army, “They give me a hard-on.”

 

Fearing the Media vs. Using the Media

Such figures are not alone. Nerds, academics, and journalists have had trouble finding ways to talk, write, or think about the military in a reasonably objective way. A minority of them have spun off into the dark side, focused on the My Lai, Full Metal Jacket, and Platoon-style psycho killers. But most spin in the other direction, portraying our men and women in uniform as regularly, daily, hourly saving Private Ryan, stepping once more into the breach, and sacking out each night knowing they are abed with brothers.

I sort of did it, too. As a State Department Foreign Service Officer embedded with the military in Iraq, I walked in… er, deployed, unprepared. I had never served in the military and had rarely fired a weapon (and never at anything bigger than a beer can on a rock ledge). The last time I punched someone was in ninth grade. Yet over the course of a year, I found myself living and working with the 82nd Airborne, followed by the 10th Mountain Division, and finally the 3rd Infantry Division, three of the most can-do units in the Army. It was… seductive.

The military raised a lot of eyebrows in my part of the world early in the Iraq invasion with their policy of embedding journalists with front-line troops. Other than preserving OpSec (Operational Security for those of you who have never had The Experience) and not giving away positions and plans to the bad guys, journalists were free to see and report on anything. No restrictions, no holding back.

Growing up professionally within the State Department, I had been raised to fear the media. “Don’t end up on the front page of the Washington Post,” was an often-repeated warning within the State Department, and many a boss now advises young Foreign Service Officers to “re-read that email again, imagining it on the Internet, and see if you still want to send it.” And that’s when we’re deciding what office supplies to recommend to the ambassador, not anything close to the life-and-death stuff a military embed might witness.

When I started my career, the boogieman was syndicated columnist Jack Anderson, then Washington Post columnist Al Kamen.  Now, it’s Jon Stewart and Wikileaks. A mention by name in any of those places is career suicide. Officially, State suggests we avoid “unscripted interactions” with the media. Indeed, in his book on Iraq and Afghan nation-building,  Armed Humanitarians, Nathan Hodge brags about how he did get a few State Department people to talk to him anonymously in a 300-page book with first-person military quotes on nearly every page.

So, in 2003, we diplomats sat back and smugly speculated that the military didn’t mean it, that they’d stage-manage what embedded journalists would see and who they would be allowed to speak to. After all, if someone screwed up and the reporter saw the real thing, it would end up in disaster, as in fact happened when Rolling Stone’s Michael Hastings got Afghan War commander Stanley McCrystal axed as a“runaway general.”

We were, however, dead wrong.  As everyone now agrees, journalists saw what they saw and talked to whomever they chose and the military facilitated the process. Other than McCrystal (who has since been redeemed by the same president who fired him), can anyone name another military person whacked by reporting?

I’m waiting.

I saw it myself in Iraq.  General Ray Odierno, then commander of all troops in Iraq, would routinely arrive at some desert dump where I happened to be, reporters in tow.  I saw for myself that they would be free to speak about anything to anyone on that Forward Operating Base (which, in acronym-mad Iraq, we all just called a FOB, rhymes with “cob”). The only exception would be me: State had a long-standing policy that on-the-record interviews with its officials had to be pre-approved by the Embassy or often by the Washington Mothership itself.

Getting such an approval before a typical reporter’s deadline ran out was invariably near impossible, which assumedly was the whole point of the system. In fact, the rules got even tougher over the course of my year in the desert.  When I arrived, the SOP (standard operating procedure) allowed Provincial Reconstruction Team leaders to talk to foreign media without preapproval (on the assumption that no one in Washington read their pieces in other languages anyway and thus no one in the field could get into trouble). This was soon rescinded countrywide and preapproval was required even for these media interactions.

Detouring around me, the reporters would ask soldiers their opinions on the war, the Army, or even controversial policies like DADT.  (Do I have to freaking spell it out for you? Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.) The reporters would sit through the briefings the general received, listening in as he asked questions. They were exposed to classified material, and trusted not to reveal it in print. They would go out on patrols led by 24-year-old lieutenants, where life-and-death decisions were often made, and were free to report on whatever they saw. It always amazed me — like that scene in The Wizard of Oz where everything suddenly changes from black and white into color.

 

Fear Not: The Force Is With You

But the military wasn’t worried.  Why?  Because its officials knew perfectly well that for reporters the process was — not to mince words — seductive. The world, it turns out, is divided into two groups, those who served in the military and those who didn’t. For the rare journalists with service time, this would be homecoming, a chance to relive their youth filtered through memory. For the others, like me, embedding with the military felt like being invited in — no, welcomed — for the first time by the cool kids.

You arrive and, of course, you feel awkward, out of place. Everyone has a uniform on and you’re wearing something inappropriate you bought at L.L. Bean. You don’t know how to wear your body-armor vest and helmet, which means that someone has to show you how to dress yourself. When was the last time that happened? Instead of making fun of you, though, the soldier is cool with it and just helps.

Then, you start out not knowing what the hell anyone is saying, because they throw around terms like FOB and DFAC and POS and LT and BLUF and say Hoo-ah, but sooner or later someone begins to explain them to you one by one, and after a while you start to feel pretty cool saying them yourself and better yet, repeating them to people at home in emails and, if you’re a journalist, during live reports. (“Sorry Wolf, that’s an insider military term. Let me explain it to our viewers…”)

You go out with the soldiers and suddenly you’re riding in some kind of armored, motorized monster truck. You’re the only one without a weapon and so they have to protect you. Instead of making fun of you and looking at you as if you were dressed as a Naughty Schoolgirl, they’re cool with it. Bored at only having one another to talk to, fellow soldiers who eat the exact same food, watch the exact same TV, and sleep, pee and work together every day for a year, the troops see you as quite interesting. You can’t believe it, but they really do want to know what you know, where you’ve been, and what you’ve seen — and you want to tell them.

Even though you may be only a few years older than many of them, you feel fatherly. For women, it works similarly, but with the added bonus that, no matter what you look like, you’re treated as the most beautiful female they’ve seen in the last six months — and it’s probably true.

The same way one year in a dog’s life equals seven human years, every day spent in a war zone is the equivalent of a month relationship-wise. You quickly grow close to the military people you’re with, and though you may never see any of them again after next week, you bond with them

You arrived a stranger and a geek.  Now, you eat their food, watch their TV, and sleep, pee, and work together every day. These are your friends, at least for the time you’re together, and you’re never going to betray them.  Under those circumstances, it’s harder than hell to say anything bad about the organization whose lowest ranking member just gave up his sleeping bag without prompting because you were too green and dumb to bring one with you.

One time I got so sick that I spent half a day inside a latrine stall. What got me out was some anonymous soldier tossing a packet of anti-diarrheal medicine in. He never said a word, just gave it to me and left. He’d likely do the same if called upon to protect me, help move my gear, or any of a thousand other small gestures.

So, take my word for it, it’s really, really hard to write about the military objectively, even if you try. That’s not to say that all journalists are shills; it’s just a warning for you to take care when you’re hanging out with, or reading, our warrior-pundits.

And yet having some perspective on the military and what it does matters as we threaten to slip into yet more multigenerational wars without purpose, watch the further militarization of foreign affairs, and devote ever more of our national budget to the military.  War lovers and war pornographers can’t offer us an objective look at a world in which more and more foreigners only run into Americans when they are wearing green and carrying weapons.

I respect my military colleagues, at least the ones who took it all seriously enough to deserve that respect, and would not speak ill of them. Some do indeed make enormous sacrifices, including of their own lives, even if for reasons that are ambiguous at best to a majority of Americans. But in order to understand these men and women and the tasks they are set to, we need journalists who are willing to type with both hands, not just pass on their own wet dreams to a gullible public.

Civilian control of our military is a cornerstone of our republic, and we the people need to base our decisions on something better than Sergeant Rock comic rewrites.

 

Copyright 2011 Peter Van Buren

 

 

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Google Bookmarks
  • email
  • Print
  • LinkedIn

6 Comments »

Comment by William R. Cumming

May 17, 2011 @ 4:54 am

The militarization of American Society not only continued unabated but accelerated under the propaganda efforts of DOD and Hollywood aimed at the American polity after the ending of the draft in 1973. Although many like me “volunteered” for the military only to slightly benefit our positioning within over entering as a draftee in fact most of the military at one time had entered as draftees or forced military service– General Tommy Franks a great example.
The Greatest Generation has been hagiofied by its sons as like Tom Brokaw but my own father and other veterans of WWII in more somber moments expressed their view that war was not really a victory or defeat process but like the movie (one of my favorites) The Americanization of Emily glorification of warfare should have been made obsolete long ago.

It is unfortunate that the nation-states of the world still need organized violence to settle some of their critical affairs. But personally I think a thorough analysis would indicate the predominate use of the military by nation-states since WWI have been against their own people.

I have long advocated that the Service Academies be made Graduate schools and ending the cliquishness and indoctrination they induce in the military should have been ended long ago.

Too many FLAG RANKS is another problem. Many occupy slots that field grades could more than handle. Well we have now had three domestic oriented PRESIDENTS that largely out of ignorance of the military have glorified them in ways that are not conducive to democracy in the long run. Clinton, Bush, and Obama never really had a clue as to the core values of military civil relations in a democracy. Looking back from some future point in time this will be made crystal clear by US history. We don’t need to have a militarized foreign policy nor outspend the rest of the world so that the military/industrial complex can continue to erode the underlying sinews of national security and preparedness in the USA. Check the writings of the deceased Chalmers Johnson and now his able replacement Professor Andrew Bachevich for analysis.

Comment by William R. Cumming

May 17, 2011 @ 5:04 am

An entirely separate area that should be of major concern is the dramatic militarization of the “civil” sectors “policing” since the end of the Viet Nam War. The attitude that the best police units are those equipped like SOFs as opposed to the friendly cop on the beat (and yes get them onto bikes and out of those cars) is tragically undermining respect for those who do the necessary policing in the USA. Sales of nonlethal weaponry worldwide is led by guess who–USA!

Comment by Dave Hall

May 17, 2011 @ 11:14 am

As an old retread Armor Cav officer who served in Europe during the 70s, and returned to the Army Reserve in time to be deployed to Iraq for a year, I think Mr. Van Buren’s observations about the “Military Mystique” are right on target. Face it, when only 1% of our nation’s population goes to war, it’s easy to treat our warriors like contestants on “American Idol”. While I feel privileged to have served in Iraq, it isn’t because I feel this was a necessary war,(it isn’t!) but rather because I did my job competently, and didn’t let my fellow soldiers down. If more of our citizens had the opportunity to serve, they’d understand this de-glorified perspective. It seems like the right time to bring back the draft, with a non-military National Service component, to help break down the gulf between our warriors and the rest of the nation.

As an aside, I agree whole-heartedly with Mr. Cumming’s comment about the SPECOPS militarization of our civilian police forces. As a retired civilian cop, I have seen the benefits when peace officers are embedded with their communities. It’s the essence of “Community Policing”, and it works.

Comment by Potomac

May 17, 2011 @ 12:24 pm

Another consideration is the militarization of the Homeland Security organization/culture with current veterans’ preferences and hiring practices.

Comment by christopher tingus

May 18, 2011 @ 10:28 pm

A terrific article and comments, however – breaking news – for me atleast –

Is it true that the Iranians and maybe the Russians are helping -Venezuela – to build missile launchers supplying missiles pointed towards the US and would this not now bring into position – the Monroe Doctrine – and why are we not talking about this and addressing this southern neighbor and getting this straightened out — especially before the “Brutes of Tehran” secure their WMD within the year —

Sorry, not meaning to detract and maybe this is a rumor, however if not, very worried here on Main Street USA — pls discuss in near future article(s) as this is very disturbing news– if accurate — and the Russians helping the Iranians — “KGB Putinites” as I refer to them — none to be trusted whatsoever —
Christopher Tingus
chris.tingus@gmail.com

Comment by 49ers Jersey

August 15, 2011 @ 8:31 pm

As an old retread Armor Cav officer who served in Europe during the 70s, and returned to the Army Reserve in time to be deployed to Iraq for a year, I think Mr.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>