The Pentagon's new concept of allowing national media to operate while embedded within military fighting units on a battlefield has met its first test. The whole world watched in awe, more than shock, as on-the-scene video with behind-the-scene narration provided a front row seat to the sights and sounds of battle. Exciting as it was, it should be remembered that this first test of the "Embedded Media" concept was conducted under battlefield conditions that would be considered a "best-case scenario" wherein the initial ground attack forces advanced over 100 miles to the door of Baghdad in just eleven days while experiencing relatively minor ground opposition and no air opposition.

As expected, military forces operated superbly, responding measuredly to enemy opposition with poise, knowledge and confidence of their capability to respond to much greater opposition if required, all owing to the best of equipment and training and all the while babysitting their newly embedded excess baggage.

The "Embedded" forces, new to the battlefield concept, could be seen attempting, sometimes awkwardly, to gain their battlefield "legs" and made to appear more awkward amongst the poise, knowledge and confidence exuded by their host troops. This first battlefield test doesn't bade well for the "Embeds", especially since their performance in even a "best-case scenario" battlefield environment was lacking. To their deficit, their shortcomings were magnified by their mere association with the likes of their host troops who live a life of "teamwork". That magnification became larger as the Embeds began displaying the antithesis of teamwork; best described as "Embedego".

The first day's battlefield video cam coverage with background narration was awesome. The world was able to see and hear the excitement of the battlefield as though they were there. From the first day forward, however, this awesome presentation was to become only a remote background to a full length, animated "Embedded" figure who had moved in front of the camera, dressed from cool flight suit adorned with assorted patches, to the latest in "Rambo" garb and commandeering "Embedmobiles" and such. Infatuated by the awesomeness of it all and their personal on-site role, the "Embedded" began reporting as much about themselves and fellow "Embeds" as the war. Yep, "Embedded Media" now had become embedded in "Embedded Media". Fellow "Embeddeds" who were killed or injured enjoyed major media exposure that overshadowed that of the killed or wounded troops about whom they were sent to report.

This first test of the concept of "Embedded Media" while operating under the best of scenarios indicates that the concept appears somewhat acceptable as long as the battle is being won, but the concept becomes questionable at the first hint of unexpected enemy opposition or alteration of battle plan. At this point, media tantrums begin. The "Embedded" tended to get over-excited to the point of panic at any point during which our forces didn't appear to be constantly advancing a la "John Wayne". Recent instances in the first 12 days indicate that even minor "pauses," changes in tactics, etc., by the maneuvering force have been perceived by the embedded, untrained, civilian photographers and newsreaders to be "failures," and have been reported and highlighted worldwide and to the enemy as failures - to the detriment of the troops and to the comfort of the enemy. One can imagine the chaos to be presented by the "Embedded" were a bad or worst-case situation to be encountered. Media reporting of "failures", real or imagined, can result in the loss of troops, battles and wars.

Considering the "Embedded" operation's considerable relative value to the enemy with little or no reciprocal value to the host force during even this limited operation, one might shudder at the thought of the consequences of employing this concept during a major battlefield confrontation with a force of real contention.

Immediate reevaluation of this concept should be undertaken as it presents a real threat to future military operations as it pertains to the need for specified censorship of "Embeddeds"' reports and as pertains to critical conflicts with military psychological and propaganda operations.

As we now prepare to watch, ad nauseam, the reruns of battlefield "Embedrama", an "Embedded" invasion of the TV talk show circuit, countless "Embedded" interviews of fellow "Embeddeds", view the heroics again at the media awards ceremonies and media association bandquets, we need to remember that there were troops along on this whirlwind jaunt and that a serious look should be taken as to whether the military wants, needs or can afford "Embedded Media" with its questionable baggage.