All the Propaganda They're Told to Print

Hugh Hewitt, Grand Inquisitor, once again masterfully obtains an admission against interest from a proud member of the Aqua Net Martyr's Brigade, this time, Michael Ware:

HH: But I do think that that distinction between Islamists and insurgents has been well understood, and for a very long time. And I'd look for you to tell me when were you misled about that. But more importantly, going to the Islamists, about whom...you'll agree with me, they're evil. Won't you, Michael?

MW: Well, I certainly...I mean, one has to be careful that as the Islamic army of Iraq reminded just last week on Al Jazeera, the insurgent groups study very closely everything that we hear, say and write. And given that we're within their grasp, one always must be diplomatic. Suffice to say, it's very hard to relate to the goals or tactics that the hard-line Islamists employ.

HH: Now that's very interesting, because that would indicate that...and I understand it, but that fear is affecting your reporting, or your candor level.

MW: Well, it certainly affects the way you couch things. It doesn't stop you saying things. I mean, like I said for example, I came across a tape once of Zarqawi himself, on an audio cassette, instructing or giving a seminar to some of his recruits and fighters, somewhere outside of Baghdad. Now this was a tape that was meant purely for internal consumption, for ideological or for training purposes. Now by one means or another, that fell into my hands, and I published it. I published its contents. Now within that discussion, Zarqawi himself showed that there was great division between his organization and one of the leading Iraqi Sunni organizations, and you're hearing him criticizing this very important Iraqi leader. Now by me publishing that, that aired their dirty laundry. As a result of that, he threatened, or his organization threatened to kill me. I mean, one has to be careful about how you couch things, but it doesn't stop you reporting the facts.

HH: No, but it does, however, get to the question of whether or not media from the West should be...what's the right word, Michael Ware? It's not assisting, but providing information flow to the jihadis about whom I'm quite comfortable, and I think most Westerners are quite comfortable, just declaring to be evil, because they kill innocents, and that killing of innocents is evil, is it not, Michael?

MW: Well, absolutely. And I think you'll find that that's the source of one of the greatest divisions amongst all the insurgents here.

HH: And so, is it easy for you to do good journalism with the threat of reprisal hanging over your head, perhaps even greater, because you've been given access over and over again to the bad guys?

MW: Well, yeah, it's still more than able to be done. Nothing is easy in this country. But it's just like how when you're writing about, let's say, an American unit that you're embedded with. You get into some very heavy, some very nasty combat. And I've done that so many times, I can't even begin to count. And something happens, something that may not exactly play well back home. And yet, it's something that you know, well, people outside of this experience would never understand that. I mean, how do you relay that without betraying the trust and the confidence of the troops? And for some journalists, they have to bear in mind well, if I write a negative story about the military on this embed, will they give me another embed? So there's always these pressures from all the players. For example, I wrote a story last year that reflected very, very badly on the Iraqi government, or very significant parts of the Iraqi government. And I was discussing and exposing through documents smuggled out of Iran, their links to the regime in Tehran. Now that resulted in elements of the government showing up at my house, demanding the production of these documents, which clearly we refused to do. So you're always at risk from everyone, either directly or indirectly, through self-censorship or through direct intervention.

HH: Michael Ware, what is the difference between what you've been doing, especially with the jihadists, though to a certain extent with the insurgents as well, and say a World War II-era reporter making numerous trips to the German side to talk with the Nazis, and then coming back and being ambivalent about reporting on the Nazis, or being candid about the Nazis.

MW: Well, I mean, I think we're talking about very markedly different experiences. I mean, for example, during World War II, there was very clearly delineated front lines that simply were not crossed in a fashion like that. It wasn't a guerilla war. It wasn't an insurgency that's fought amongst the mix of a civilian population. So that simply wasn't able to be done. Plus, there was also a very great understanding about the nature of German expansionism, and German nationalism. Hitler had very much outlined his intentions for a decade before the war. So I don't think there was any great mystery there. There was no great unknown to the extent that there is here, that people just don't know what this war is really about. And getting to the bottom of that is extremely difficult, and requires you sifting through any number of filters that all of these players want to throw at you.

HH: But as you said at the beginning, the jihadis consider this to be one battlefield of a vast war. And the jihadis...

MW: Yeah, as does the West. Exactly.

HH: And the jihadis are very prolific in their statements from Osama through Zawahiri down to Zarqawi. So we really know what they're about. Given that you're arguing geography is the reason you do this, I want to go back to the nature of actually doing it, and whether or not if, in fact, in World War II, someone had been offered in Portugal an assistance from the Abwehr to go back and forth to Germany to visit various Nazi encampments or policies, would that have been acceptable in World War II, Michael Ware?

MW: Well, I think the values would be different back then. But let's think about it. What would be the value of doing that? I mean, imagine, okay, we know what we know about the German regime, or the Nazi party. We are inundated with their propaganda. We're listening to their chatter. We're getting their side of the story. Could you imagine having an objective view, go in and come out, and say this is what is really looks like? this is what it really feels like? This is what people in their quiet moments behind closed doors will actually tell you. Now imagine the value of that.

HH: So you would have encouraged such reporting, had it been possible in World War II?

MW: Well, I don't know. I wasn't around in World War II, so I'm not sure I'm really in a position to determine. All I can talk to about are the circumstances that have presented themselves to me, and the wars I've found myself in.

HH: I'm really fascinated by the question of whether or not it's ever good journalism to consort with the enemy in search of interesting stories. And there's not denying, Michael, where you get scoops. It's fascinating to read. You've got a great deal of courage, of physical courage, in doing this. So no one's denying that. I'm just wondering whether or not there's a line that you have in your mind reconciled yourself to crossing not once, but scores and scores of times, to report on the enemy, and whether or not that's a good thing. And you think it is, I think I hear you saying, because the public will not otherwise know what it is that you're reporting. Is that a fair summary?

MW: That is fairly accurate, and let's look at it this way. I mean, you're sitting back in a comfortable radio studio, far from the realities of this war.

HH: Actually, Michael, let me interrupt you.

MW: If anyone has a right...

HH: Michael, one second.

MW: If anyone has a right to complain, that's what...

HH: I'm sitting in the Empire State Building. Michael, I'm sitting in the Empire State Building, which has been in the past, and could be again, a target. Because in downtown Manhattan, it's not comfortable, although it's a lot safer than where you are, people always are three miles away from where the jihadis last spoke in America. So that's...civilians have a stake in this. Although you are on the front line, this was the front line four and a half years ago.

MW: Absolutely, and I think that's really the reason that a lot of us are doing what we're doing. I mean, it's because of that horror that so much has ensued. It is because of this fight that these people came and picked, that so much has happened. But I mean, what I'm saying to you is that if you think anyone would have the right to complain or to take umbrage at what I do, it would be the troops here on the ground. It would be U.S. military intelligence. It would be the U.S. military. You'd think that they wouldn't give me embeds, wouldn't you? You'd think that they wouldn't grant me backgrounders, or wouldn't take me out on special events. You'd think that they wouldn't give me access to the generals, or to military intelligence. You know, in this war alone, I've been in combat with virtually every kind of U.S. fighting force there is, from the SEAL's, to the Green Berets, to Delta, to Infantry, Airborne, Armored, Mechanized. I mean, I've been there, done that in combat. I've been in every major battle of this war, except from Najaf and the first battle of Fallujah. That includes the battle of Tal-Afar, the Battle of Samara, and the Battle of Fallujah, with front line units. I witnessed an event that the Pentagon subsequently asked me to write about as a witness, which is now a matter for the Congressional Medal of Honor nomination. And I am mentioned in that citation. So if anyone would have a problem with what I do in exploring the issues of this war, you'd think it'd be the military. Yet strangely, they don't.

So let's recap:

1. Michael Ware has spent a lot of time riding around Iraq with the U.S. military on patrol against terrorists.

2. Michael Ware has spent a lot of time in the company of jihadists and ex-Ba'athist officers.

3. Michael Ware admits he censors his reporting to avoid offending the jihadists.

Now, I confess that as I read this transcript, I found myself wondering why the jihadists would leave this man alive, whereas they have slain many a Western journalist, so many, in fact, that few dare venture out of their hotel rooms.

By the time I got to the end of Hugh's interview, I wasn't wondering anymore.

The real question is why American troops continue to allow someone so cozy with the enemy to continue to gain valuable intelligence as to our tactics and aims.

Update:

A View from a Height makes an excellent point:

Actually, William Shirer & other journalists did report from Germany during the war. But they did it 1) when the US wasn't a belligerent, and 2) while reporting that they were under Germany censorship. Neither of those conditions obtains with Michael Ware.

Like it or not, when the war broke out, the Germans didn't make it a habit to kill foreign correspondents; they deported them. Once the war started, any newspaperman wandering across the front lines to hang out with the Germans on maneuvers would have been shot as a spy. And for good reason. The mere fact this is at least a matter of dispute amongst the councils of our current enemy should tell you something about the service that Mr. Ware is performing.

Remember, too that normal military censorship has relatively well-known rules. Talk about morale if you like, but the troop train schedule is off-limits. Ware's admitted to being "careful," but without careful questioning after each story, it's impossible for a reader to figure out what kind of restraints he's putting on himself.

I might give Ware the benefit of the doubt if he was as critical of Zarqawi misleading the world as he was of the coalition supposedly doing so. His selective outrage is curious indeed---I don't trust his moral compass as a result.

The Asylum liveblogged the interview.

Cockalorum zeroes in on a big inconsistency---how can one claim to be objective when they admit to shade the truth out of fear?

Hugh asked him at one point if he didn't see these fighters as the bad guys, since they were bombing innocent civilians and policemen, and he sidestepped the question, with the suggestion that if he said yes, his ability to continue reporting might be endangered. The thing is, that people here in the U.S. do see these people as bad guys, with the exception of the Chomskyites who think that any enemy of America is a noble freedom fighter. To the extent one feels that he has to be careful in how he writes so as not to make the terrorists angry is not objective anymore no matter what he says.

The coalition isn't getting the benefit of Ware's editorial judgment, that's for sure.

Our Kitchen Table has the glorious audio---save it for the grandkids.

Just A Woman roars:

To whom is Michael Ware accountable? What stake does Time have in this war? And, how many other journalists could be out there compromising the effort by befriending the enemy?

Clearly, Time wants to sell issues at the expense of American soldiers' lives. That's the gist of trying to undermine support for the war at home. Unthinkable in World War II, at least once the Russians became allies; de rigeur today.

Always Jason thinks Ware's pretty useless as a reporter. I think that depends on whether you want us to win or not. He's very useful to Zarqawi.

Immodest Proposals finds Ware to be arrogant, self-aggrandizing, and treacherous. Sounds like the man's on a rocket to the top of the LWM.

Little Green Footballs doesn't see much difference between the media and the enemy. I think that's going too far; after all, the enemy tends to run from a live camera and has goals which do not involve getting foot massages from Punch Salzburger.

One Destination thinks Ware's just another anti-American lefty.

Democracy Project thinks Ware doesn't know his history. I'd add he doesn't know his geography, as he seems to think he's a citizen of Iran or Syria.

The Real American dubs this one of the all-time best interviews. I agree. If Ware took apart jihadist propaganda the way Hewitt took apart Ware, I'd subscribe to Time in a heartbeat.

CBS News' Public Eye chooses sides---can you guess whose side they chose?

For "objective" journalists, it's funny how their biases only break one way, isn't it?