If Eason Jordan Were Right...

And we were intentionally targeting journalists, would it be a bad thing?

I know that sounds bad, but hear me out.

As any student of war can tell you, wars are won in the mind of your enemy as much as on the battlefield. Because of this, there is an aspect of military operations known as Information Warfare. INFORMATION IS A WEAPON!

When a journalist with a political agenda fails to tell the whole story or slants the story toward one side or the other, it is the use of an information weapon. In times where the conflicting populations are united against each other, it has negligible effect. But in the current war it's different. This is a highly divisive war, both in the US and in Iraq as well as Europe. What would Iraq be like today if all the good news was broadcast as effusively as the bad news? What if Al-Jazeera was supporting the US effort and reconstruction? (but also telling the full truth)

Arguably, there would be less resistance, less anti-Americanism, more security, more Iraqi willingness to step up and more international help. You can argue that the press that wanted a broader coalition is actively helping the forces that are keeping it from happening. By providing coverage and encouragement to the insurgency, they are also costing American lives.

I repeat: There are Anti-American attitudes in the press that are costing American Soldiers their lives.

Under the Law of Armed Conflict, you can engage almost anyone on the battlefield that has a weapon unless they are trying to surrender. However, our current rules of engagement don't permit it unless there some hostile intent in most situations.

Let's see; "A person on the battlefield with the ability to employ an information weapon designed to cause the US to fail in Iraq." Sounds like a legal target to me. "All enemies, foreign and domestic". I know our troops would never do this nor would the leadership condone it but a shot at Michael Moore would tempt all of us.

In the 21st century battlespace, a hostile reporter can do the campaign more harm than a hundred nit-wits with suicide vests.

But Eason Jordan is a vacuous morally vacant product of liberalism. He believes what he wants to believe in spite of the evidence. (or lack of it)

Move him to the top of the Target List just in case we get the green light.
See Day By Day to see why CNN reporters are safer than the others.

Hoo-Hah!