Marines' "Searing View" Of The Press
The Marines charged three enlisted men with murder for the Haditha killings late last year. This memo was an internal communication sent to the Second Division from its Third Battalion in response to McGirk's inquiry, which came in early 2006. It became public after a hearing for an officer charged with dereliction of duty in the incident.
The memo offers a rare glimpse into the distrust that some military officers have for the press, and it's an amazing document. Much of the excerpts show the authors outlining what they believe to be McGirk's view of the world and his possible intentions. "In the reporter's eyes, military officers may represent the U.S. government and enlisted marines may represent the American People," they write.
Later, they add: "We must be on guard, though, of the reporter's attempt to spin the story to sound like incidents from well-known war movies, like 'Platoon.'" This is followed by a description of "Platoon" and a discussion of how a reporter could adapt the movie's storyline to characterize the Haditha killings, "which could be expanded by the general press as a testament for why the U.S. should pull out of Iraq."
Not that I should write the word "killings," according to the memo: the term, which McGirk used in his inquiry, is an "attempt to stain the engagement with [a] misnomer." The response to this question – "Were there any weapons found during these house raids — or terrorists — where the killings occurred?" – begins like this: "Again, you are showing yourself to be uneducated in the world of contemporary insurgent combat."
And the Times excerpts close with a comment on what the authors believe to be the nefarious manipulation of language by reporters. McGirk asks if "the marines in this unit [are] still serving in Haditha." Here's the response:
Yes, we are still fighting terrorists of Al Qaida in Iraq in Haditha. ("Fighting terrorists associated with Al Qaida" is stronger language than "serving." The American people will side more with someone actively fighting a terrorist organization that is tied to 9/11 than with someone who is idly "serving," like in a way one "serves" a casserole. It's semantics, but in reporting and journalism, words spin the story.)What's so striking about this document is both its level of sophistication – that last bit of semantic quibbling would make Frank Luntz proud – and its revelation of the degree to which some officers view the press as an enemy. There is real contempt for McGirk (and all reporters) on display here, not to mention an inclination to dismiss questions like this as the antagonistic and ill-informed efforts of a press corps eager to undermine the war effort.