Press review? - not really

There is an interesting story in today’s Christian Science Monitor . It’s about Marines training to go to Iraq as a Civil Affair unit. CAs interact with the citizens to find what their concerns are and pass them on up the chain. (I know that it’s more complex than that but time is of the essence on Monday mornings.) As I read it I alternatively thought that it was a fair look at training, message controlled well, and cliché. Those of you who read military blogs (Those that use neologisms such as “milblogs” on this blog will be swiftly condemned to be hanged, quartered, burned, and drowned. Trial by fire might be offered as an alternative for those deeply convinced of the righteousness of their cause.) will know that war supporters have been advocating for better message control on the part of the armed forces. The term of art is psyops. The idea is to present our actions in Iraq in a more positive light. It also requires troops to be kept “on message” during their contact with the press.

The article is a fair look at training because it describes the operation taking place in a small North Carolina community in what I thought was a clear, detached manner. It’s a single byline but the reporter seems to have been around all the members of the unit. He gives the reader the whole picture.
Message control on the part of the Corps is great. The writer concludes with this quote by a Cpl. "I would have been disappointed if I had spent four years in the Marines without going. I want to do something with all this training I have." Marines know what they want. Contrast that with this story in today’s Washington Post where an army SSgt says, "I don't know who I'm fighting most of the time, I don't know who is setting what IED." While the statement is true, how are you supposed to know who’s planting IEDs or shooting at you, it does give the impression that this SNCO is completely lost. Not exactly something to be chalked under good PR. Some people will undoubtedly blame it on The Post. They are wrong. The blame for this kind of statement is on individuals who don’t think through what they say, but mostly on the institution for not providing them with guidance. Is it the groundpounder’s job to deal with the press? No. But it’s his boss’ job to give him guidance on how to deal with the press correctly.
Finally, let’s talk about the clichés in the CSM. "It's easy to go kick down a door, and marines love that, so this is actually much harder for them." We are not all brainless apes who thrive solely on blowing stuff up. Do we really need to perpetuate this image? All it does is that when Marines like me go to job interview we end up being asked, in a very PC kind of way: Can you think for yourself? And last but not least let us not forget the obligatory paragraph dedicated to women ogling the Marines while lunching.