October
23, 2002, 10:45 a.m. Treacherous
Times
Does the enemy
have the New York Times on retainer?
By Gabriel
Ledeen
he
New York Times once again displayed disregard for American servicemen
with an article coauthored on Tuesday by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker
entitled "U.S.
Refines Plan for War in Cities," an in-depth analysis of our
military's preparations and plans for the rapidly approaching war with
Iraq. Only one day earlier the Wall Street Journal's Brendan Miniter,
writing on the benefits of media ignorance in the sniper saga, spelled
out exactly why the New York Times should never have published
its latest disclosure. Miniter concludes his article with the following
line: "What we don't need is a bunch of media yahoos mucking it up
in Washington, getting in the way and handing the sniper all the information
he needs to stay one step ahead of the police." While the public
still desires to know the whole story, this hunger for information is
tempered by concerns for maintaining the integrity of the ongoing investigation
to hasten the arrest of the killer and forestall further tragedy. Evidently
the Times doesn't follow the logic of this decision, or, even worse,
feels that there is something more appealing in releasing the potentially
significant material.
Whether or not the
information contained in the Times's article can be obtained from
other sources is almost irrelevant, for the simple fact that the Times,
in choosing to release the information, decided to be its primary disseminator.
The question that needs to be asked is simply: Why would they ever publish
this? There are two reasons why the Times would release this article:
They felt that the material was new and compelling, or, if it was not
exclusive, they felt that it would serve some end to bring the information
out in the open. The former case runs headlong into Miniter's argument
that releasing the information is despicable because it hinders the military's
ability to carry out its duties and potentially prolongs or increases
the suffering of our fellow Americans. Certainly this reflects poorly
on the Times, and is a telling demonstration of its institutional
character. The latter case is more troubling, since it implies that the
Times, knowing full well the implications of such an action, took
the story to score some sort of a victory for its own cause.
This underlying cause
is presented in such a flagrant manner that it appears intentionally provocative.
The entire piece, by its very existence and by the nature of the subject
matter, seeks to undermine the approaching military campaign, and to exert
political pressure on those making the high-level decisions for those
who are to be in harm's way. The Times's theme is summed up nicely
by the authors: "Even if Baghdad fell, a bloody urban battle with
a high civilian toll could be seen as a political failure for the Bush
administration — at home and throughout the Middle East." This
sarcastic cynicism is almost as sickening as the sense one gets that this
is indeed what the authors desire. To make matters worse, Times
releases information about how we are preparing to face the enemy, what
methods we plan on using, what weapons we could use, what factors work
against us, what our targets would be, and where our weaknesses are.
Miniter is right:
"Media ignorance in [the sniper] case is a good thing," because
it allows the police to work more effectively to catch the killer, thereby
preventing more victims. Helping the sniper is an unthinkable act of betrayal
to one's brothers and sisters, friends and neighbors, who would, as a
result, face greater danger. The same is true for the Times and
those who would follow in its treacherous footsteps, for in the end, the
men put in harms way will be the true victims of this betrayal, and they
too are our brothers.
—
Gabriel Ledeen is a student at Rice University and an officer candidate
in the United States Marine Corps.
<% dim printurl
printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%>
he
New York Times once again displayed disregard for American servicemen
with an article coauthored on Tuesday by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker
entitled "
