Author Archive E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

July 23, 2002 8:45 a.m. Reckless Reporting? Loose lips in times of war.

he London Daily Telegraph crossword puzzle prepared for June 2, 1944, four days before D-Day, contained the words "Overlord" and "Neptune." The first was the codeword for the Allied invasion of northern Europe, the second the code for the naval component of D-Day. The previous weeks' puzzles contained the words "Utah" and "Omaha" — the American landing beaches — and "Mulberry," the codename for the top-secret temporary harbors to be deployed to support the invasion. The Telegraph's senior puzzle designer, Leonard Dawe, a 54-year-old schoolmaster from Surrey and World War I veteran, found himself the center of MI5's attention when senior military officers spotted Utah and Omaha in the same puzzle. It turned out to be a coincidence, but it gave the D-Day planners a few sleepless nights.

I thought about that historical tidbit when I read Eric Schmitt's article, "U.S. Plan for Iraq Is Said to Include Attack on 3 Sides," which appeared in the July 5 New York Times. The article was based on an extensive set of preliminary plans entitled "CentCom Courses of Action," which Schmitt had obtained by methods unknown. The 1944 incident seems quaint by comparison — "tweedy English schoolmaster accidentally stumbles across codewords for greatest invasion in history while assembling puzzles" versus "irresponsible journalist reports on highly classified war plans for no apparent reason." Schmitt writes that the document "offers a rare glimpse into the inner sanctum of the war planners assigned to think about options for defeating Iraq." That's right, it is a rare glimpse, and rare for a reason. No one outside military-planning circles needs to know about it. It is like a periodic view into how to manufacture weapons of mass destruction or an occasional look at the names of deep-cover operatives — it serves no useful purpose, and could be distinctly harmful. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld stated in a July 12 Defense Department memo, leaks of this nature are "wrong ...against the law ...cost the lives of Americans ... and diminish our country's chances for success."

Naturally, the Times defended publication of the article with some lawyerly boilerplate, but the statement does not stand scrutiny when interlaced with a few commonsense questions: "We are satisfied that the article ... was consistent with responsible citizenship...." How is this responsible, or representative of citizenship? If this is responsible, what would irresponsible citizenship look like? Or recklessness? "We took appropriate steps to determine that while addressing matters of legitimate public concern..." What steps were taken and how were they appropriate? How are the highly secret specifics of war planning a legitimate public concern? "...we were not jeopardizing current or prospective military operations." How can this not jeopardize a prospective military operation, particularly the attack scenario they compromised? How is the New York Times even qualified to make that assessment, especially without consulting the DOD? For all the Times or any of us in the outside world knows, they could have blown the entire invasion plan right then.

The precise phrasing of the Times statement may be have been dictated by the folks in legal with a view towards liability, but as an affirmative argument it is intellectually bankrupt. I doubt Schmitt's article could even pass muster on First Amendment grounds. Not all classified information is legally publishable once in the hands of the press. In an NRO piece I wrote on a similar topic last October, I suggested that prospective war reporters consult the 1931 Supreme Court decision Near v. Minnesota in which Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "no one would question but that a government might prevent … publication of the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops." As I wrote then, Hughes "held operational security (OPSEC) to be a self-evident truth that 'no one would question.' The safety of the men on the frontline is such an overriding countervailing state interest that it even passes the test for prior restraint — not simply denying access to troops, but banning publication of their whereabouts. This principle was upheld even in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Pentagon Papers case, which in other respects gave great latitude to the press." The latter case is particularly important in this respect because it dealt with internal DOD documents published after the fact, not, as in this case, when exposure could lead to possibly deadly consequences for our men and women in uniform. Another D-Day tale has it that some invasion planning documents blew out a window at one point and were never recovered. Would they have been fair game for publication as a legitimate public concern? Or would that have been at best criminal stupidity, at worst punishable treason?

An important mitigating factor in this affair is the fact that the Iraqi leadership is both pathologically paranoid and habitually unable to comprehend American culture, so it will never take the article at face value. The war plan cannot be genuine, they will reason, by the very fact that it was divulged. It was not really leaked, but intentionally made public as part of a misinformation plot. On the other hand, perhaps it is genuine, and was published to make Saddam think it isn't. Or, knowing they would figure out that much, a fake plan was leaked to make them think it is the real plan in disguise. Or, perchance the reverse. Such theories are already rampant in the Muslim world. An Iranian commentator said that the Times, "which tends to reflect the views of the Republicans" (see, they just do not get us) published the piece to pressure the Iraqis at the negotiations being held that week in Vienna to accept U.N. inspectors. Iraqi Foreign Minister and chief negotiator Naji Sabri at first dismissed the article, stating the Americans have already been attacking Iraq for eleven years, but observers later claimed that the article made it impossible for Sabri to seek a rapprochement, thus scuttled the talks. So the "plan" worked — or failed — or maybe both — depending on which conspiracy theory you choose to believe. Other reports noted the coincidence of Schmitt's article with the meeting of Iraqi opposition groups in London, or Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz's trip to Turkey. The Times piece was intended to harm or help one or both, again depending on one's conspiratorial premises. The London Observer published a lengthy analysis on July 14 that looked at several theories of intrigue, from the White House using the plan to divert headlines from financial scandals to the alleged State/DOD rivalry. And of course my article today only feigns indignation — or does it?

Schmitt's article states that the real reason the documents were leaked was because his frustrated source felt the war planning was "insufficiently creative." Hard to see how this operational innovator will bring about the creative change he wants by compromising the planning process, but perhaps he is too smart for the rest of us. And he had better be, for his sake. The Secretary of Defense has stated publicly that he would "dearly like" to find the source or sources, and if found, they will be imprisoned. According to yet another recent leak, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations has been tasked with finding the person or persons who handed over the planning document. Anyone think the NYT would like to display some responsible citizenship and cooperate in this investigation? Nah, me neither.

— James S. Robbins is a national-security analyst & NRO contributor.