Ah, the happy world of Iraq, as seen through U.S. military press releases. Iraq could be exploding—in fact, parts of it still regularly are—but the press-release view would still be that of policemen graduating, officials cutting ribbons, and grateful citizens leading security forces and their U.S. advisers to weapons caches. The few press releases that do bear any relation to the reality we reporters see on the ground (“Iraqi Special Operations Forces Continue Operations Despite Budget Challenges”) are almost instantly recalled. The regular background briefings and press conferences that once helped put the ongoing violence into context are so last year. In a country with 130,000 U.S. troops fighting a war that still costs tens of billions of dollars a month, the military might as well be invisible. And for the most part, it seems to want it that way.
This wasn’t the case a short time ago. From early 2007 to late 2008, when Colonel Steven Boylan, the public-affairs officer at the U.S. Army’s Battle Command Training Program at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, was General David Petraeus’s spokesman in Iraq, part of his job was to lay down a more realistic scenario for the American public. Faced with the certainty of more American casualties as the U.S. launched offensive operations as part of its military “surge,” the generals told their officers to engage with the media.
Petraeus “told the commanders that sixty percent of the fight was to be for and about information,” says Boylan. “In the area of media, he expected that the commanders would be open and accessible to the me-
dia. If needed, they would send their helicopter to LZ [Landing Zone] Washington, pick up the reporters, meet the helicopter when it landed in their area, talk with them, make sure they saw what they wanted to and needed to, and then fly them back to LZ Washington so that they could file their stories.” Boylan’s
other goal was to improve trust with a press corps disillusioned by talking points that, in earlier phases of the war, consistently contradicted what they could see with its own eyes.
That effort to court the media seems extraordinary now. On January 1, 2009, the end date of the U.N. resolution that was the legal basis for the presence of U.S. troops, Iraq assumed full sovereignty, and American soldiers became heavily armed guests. Next came the June 30 deadline for U.S. combat troops to withdraw from populated areas. These shifts seemed to leave military public-affairs officers, and many commanders, at something of a loss to explain the role of the thousands of troops still in the country. With the main military effort shifting to Afghanistan, the military finds itself in the disconcerting position of still being heavily involved in Iraq but unwilling to acknowledge it.
Mostly they’ve retreated into non-communicativeness, and worse. Reporters who visited an Iraqi camp
near Baghdad after January 1 were asked by the military not to photograph the U.S. soldiers supporting the Iraqis, to avoid giving the “wrong impression.”
Does this matter? Yes. This is more than journalists’ angst at a declining story or a residual sense of entitlement fostered by what now seems a golden age of military-media relations. At a minimum, most of us who have covered this war for the past six years want to make sure its painful lessons aren’t lost, and
that we don’t forget the ongoing cost. Forgetfulness is a danger. According to the Pew Research Center, by March 2008, only a little over a quarter of Americans knew that more than four thousand U.S. servicemen and women had been killed in Iraq, let alone more than thirty thousand injured. (As of mid-August, the total number of Americans killed was 4,318.)

They (the media that you represent) are so interested in the blood and guts and anything negative that press releases have to be used as positive reinforcement. Otherwise would those stories be covered at all? Yes there is still violence but it is still important that the American public know that the police are being trained and that officials cut ribbons to schools being rebuilt etc. Servicemembers put themselves in harms way enough, why should they put themselves out any further to whiney journalists on some thrill seeking mission.
#1 Posted by SCrumes, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 10:40 AM
Maybe the change has something to do with the change in the Commander In Chief? Certainly that's an avenue worth exploring.
#2 Posted by Joe, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 03:23 PM
We were begging for embeds. We had a number of outlets that wanted to embed with us but couldn't put the dollars together. One was told their insurance would be cancelled if they sent their journo into country. Of course - our unit was doing logistics - so that wasn't sexy enough for most journalists - even though our 17000+ Soldiers were out there every day just like everyone else. Training Iraqi mechanics isn't all that interesting either.
#3 Posted by Paul, CJR on Tue 22 Sep 2009 at 04:16 PM
Interesting assertion: The media wants to embed but isn't welcome. As far back as '05 the number of embeds had dwindled from somewhere around 700 down to roughly two dozen. Reason wasn't because we didn't welcome them -- it was because they weren't interested.
#4 Posted by Cliff W. Gilmore, CJR on Tue 24 Nov 2009 at 02:56 PM