These young men, and women (certainly one fine young PFC) are our finest.
As for the media, it's a double-edged sword. Sure, the Pentagon saw some solid opportunities with the process. However, the nature of the war so far has not allowed for too many "celebration in Paris" moments or piles of unused gas shells.
The journalists were more than happy to report the impressions of the combat leaders around them that the resistance was tougher than expected and the war is "different" than expected; that perhaps we could have used more forces on the ground; that warning shots might not have been fired in the checkpoint incident; that not all Iraqis are welcoming coalition forces as liberators, etc. Obviously, blur just takes from the coverage that which reinforces his preconceived positions, choosing to see what is a half full/half-empty glass as completely empty. Just another chirping bird, of which many can be found on both sides of the war debate.
In fact, should we take heavy casualties in the fight for Baghdad (and hopefully we won't), you can expect the embedding process to highlight the true cost of war to many American's who have never served in the military, or who do not have immediate family and friends serving in the military. In this case embedding would not likely be seen as a positive choice.
As a side note, one good thing in general is that pampered Ivy League broadcast journalists (and some similar print journalists)are learning what the military is all about. Hopefully this will translate into better coverage down the road with fewer ingrained stereotypes underlying the tone of the reporting.
Charon
