God save us from the media

The question begs, "To whom does embedded media contribute?" So far, we've witnessed its obvious psychological and propaganda contribution to the winning force as it marched essentially unopposed to Baghdad in just 11 days. Would this same embedded media contribute to a losing force? Or could it become a losing force's largest detriment - to the point of highlighting the already losing force's vulnerabilities while restoring the confidence of the enemy force, and to the point of turning national and world opinion against the pursuit of a legitimate war?

Recent instances in the past 12 days indicate that even minor "pauses," changes in tactics, etc., by the maneuvering force have been perceived by the untrained, embedded, civilian photographers and newsreaders to be "failures," and have been reported and highlighted as failures - to the comfort of the enemy and to the detriment of the troops.

Before "embedded media" became the greatest contribution to the battlefield since the introduction of gunpowder, the greatest contribution was "media" - as witnessed in Somalia and in Vietnam, wherein the media became the most powerful force, overshadowing military forces and dictating the outcome of those conflicts.

It has also become Saddam Hussein's last best hope for winning this war.

Considering that our national media dictated the defeat of our country's efforts in Somalia and Vietnam, I shudder at the thought of having these liberal, politically correct and obnoxious malignancies embedded with our troops. God save our troops from these "embedded" warfare critics.

Armond "Si" Simmons,

Pell City, Ala.