Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

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.