One benefit of closer proximity to the military—so much harder to come by now—is that after spending time with soldiers, you realize that for every comment like that one there’s a sergeant who knows more history than you do. Two years after Fallujah, during one of those interminable waits for a convoy, I listened in admiration to two noncommissioned officers explain to a third the definition of “wasta”— the
concept of using influence to get things done that is essential to understanding how things work in the Middle East.
But if the sophistication of the troops has increased, it’s not always mirrored among military public-affair officers, who tend to have far less contact with Iraqis. At a press event earlier this year at Saddam Hussein’s former palace at Camp Victory, a buffet laid out for the mostly Iraqi reporters prompted the usual question about what meat they were being served.
“It’s ham,” said the press officer. “How do you say ‘ham’ in Arabic?” The Iraqis politely demurred, backing away from the table.
Early this year, at the transfer-of-authority ceremony for the second-highest-ranking general in Iraq, responsible for all ground forces, only two Western reporters of the dozens in town decided it was worth the hours of waiting and security checks to cover the event, where the intensely private Lieutenant General Lloyd J. Austin III turned over his duties to the even more private Lieutenant General Charles Jacoby Jr. It was made clear to the American reporters who were there that they could expect even less accessibility from the new deputy commander. In fact, Jacoby’s first interview in Baghdad—three months after arriving there—was not with a journalist. It was with Stephen Colbert, during a taped appearance for The Colbert Report.
Some officials say the war is over. It isn’t. It is a different war and a much different story—one that Americans are being encouraged to forget.

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