[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 6798]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              PRESS FORCES A RETREAT IN THE WAR ON TERROR

                                 ______
                                 

                              HON. TED POE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 23, 2008

  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, recently coalition forces were forced to 
retreat in their campaign against insurgents in Afghanistan when the 
British Ministry of Defense extracted Prince Harry from his front line 
duties. As third line in line to the British throne, Harry carries a 
certain amount of importance about him, especially when he is risking 
his life to make the lives of the British people and their allies 
safer. Military service is not something new for the Royal Family, as 
they have a long tradition of serving in the armed forces, including 
direct combat duties. But why did the British military, one of the most 
disciplined and well respected organizations in the world, have to pull 
back? The answer was that it was betrayed by friendly fire in the 
press.
  An Australian magazine entitled New Idea leaked Harry's mission in 
Afghanistan in late February. While the magazine has apologized, it 
broke an informal agreement with the British Ministry of Defense that 
called for a global media blackout on the story. Harry had been 
successfully calling in coalition air-strikes against Taliban 
insurgents. But with his identity and location compromised, Harry's 
security became jeopardized because of the possibility that he and his 
command would become specifically targeted.
  Here is a ``New Idea'' for the press: exercise some common sense. 
While it is important that we as a democracy stay abreast of what is 
occurring in the military, there is a fine line where we have to stop 
and let the military do its job. This example involving the Prince of 
Wales shows the great security issue involving the press and the 
military. Not all information can be given to the general public, and 
when supplied with details, the press needs to be responsible and 
exercise basic common sense.
  Here is some advice for the press to follow when given military 
information. Ask the question, ``Will this information possibly 
endanger lives and missions?'' If the answer is even close to being 
``yes,'' then it is probably not best to publish it. What would happen 
if our high ranking generals and civilian leaders had their locations 
and missions revealed? We would have to completely rethink our strategy 
and decisions. Missions and lives would become compromised, just as 
they did for the British with Prince Harry. We need to let the military 
do its job without interference.
  And that's just the way it is.

                          ____________________