Soldier or Reporter?

One of the headlines on MSNBC.com is the following: "Troops in Iraq see flaws in Bush plan".

The article goes on to recount the reporter's experience tagging along with a Stryker Company on a mission to Hurriyah. The reporter quotes several soldiers expressing their opinions on the state of affairs, their projections for success, and so forth. But this is not a soldier's responsibility! They are not there as employees of a media company's Mid East news bureau. They are not tasked to fight a war and opine about it.

Soldiers can most certainly have an opinion about the war, but they should not be allowed to publicly express it. A soldier, much less a non-commissioned officer, should never be allowed to publicly doubt a president (no matter how bad that president is). It only contributes to disorder, chaos, and insubordination. Plus, the media seizes on anything controversial. The more fuel they can add to the fire raging across the country over this war, the better it is for their margins. The information can be used to distort the realities of a war. This war is clearly failing, but Americans know that already. Those who won't believe that never will anyway.

One might argue "the soldiers on the ground know how it is really going and if they dont speak then Americans would never know". It's the job of reporters to enlighten the American public. That is why they exist, to act as a conduit of information. Americans don't need to hear from a soldier that his recent mission was "a debacle". We are fully capable of measuring the success of war when we receive statistics like "more than 3,000 dead" or "71% of Iraqis want Americans to leave" or "61% support attacks against Americans". It is the soldier's job to fight. Period. When he retires he is free to write any number of books or give any number of interviews he wishes.