Covering a 21st Century War

By Howard Kurtz Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 8, 2001; 8:42 AM

Everyone knew it was coming, yet somehow, it was still shocking.

The networks were ready for war, yet they were still reduced to covering it from afar.

And this is only the beginning.

There will be more media coverage of this attack on Afghanistan than of any conflict in human history, but reporters will have a tough time covering cruise missiles and commando raids. What we're likely to see instead is hopscotching around the globe and dueling news conferences – such as yesterday's bizarre spectacle in which Osama bin Laden's defiant taped statement followed real-time addresses by George W. Bush and Tony Blair.

If you've ever wondered what World War II would have been like with cable television – Larry King chatting up Adolf Hitler? – we're about to find out. Taliban officials also hold news conferences – and, once the bombing stops, they are certain to lead journalists to neighborhoods where civilians have died from the U.S. and British strikes. The Pentagon will be putting out its own version of collateral damage, and the propaganda war will be in full bloom.

Even without pictures (except for those grainy night-vision shots that resemble a cheap video game), yesterday's attacks were dramatic – though not dramatic enough, apparently, for Fox and most CBS stations to blow off NFL football.

The attacks on New York and Washington presented a high-stakes test for journalism – which, for a change, won high marks from the public – but the strikes against Afghanistan (and possibly other terrorist-harboring states) will be an even greater challenge. It's a global chess game with multiple levels – the impact on Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, Islam, not to mention possible retaliation against America – and news organizations are already struggling to keep pace.

You can read about the television coverage here. For now, let's go to the morning papers chronicling what the cover of the New York Post calls "TALI-BAM!"

The action is just starting, says the New York Times: "The strikes on the Taliban government opened what senior Pentagon and military officials said would be a weeklong, nearly day-and-night bombing campaign carried out by supersonic jets from aircraft carriers and heavy bombers flying from air bases as far away as Missouri.

"In a sign of the intensity and duration of the planned campaign, the Air Force's stealthy, bat-winged B-2 bombers did not return to their hangars at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., after striking their targets halfway around the world, but rather flew on to Diego Garcia, a British island in the Indian Ocean, where they will reload for more bombing runs. It is the first time the stealthy, sophisticated B-2, built at a cost of $2 billion each, has been based overseas for a combat mission.

"Today's strikes opened with a synchronized barrage of 50 cruise missiles fired from British and American ships and submarines, and continued through the clear, moonlit Afghan night, senior military officials at the Pentagon said. The attacks hit airfields where the Taliban military has a modest air force, air-defense gun and missile batteries and command centers across Afghanistan, including targets in the capital, Kabul, and in the center of the Taliban's political power, Kandahar, they said.

"Another primary target was the Taliban's defense headquarters on the outskirts of Kabul, they said. 'You don't attack the Pentagon and not expect your defense ministry to be destroyed,' one official said."

Still, the degree of bombing success – impossible to determine from scattered television reports yesterday – remains unclear.

The president never tipped his hand, says the Boston Globe: "During weeks of long-distance warnings to the Taliban, President Bush did not give any definite indication that his final deadline was this weekend, until he appeared on television yesterday morning to inform the nation that retaliation had already begun.

"Bush showed little trepidation about the decision, aides said, and he betrayed hardly a glimmer of anxiety during an appearance at a memorial service for firefighters yesterday morning. Though the planes were already in the air, he gave no hint during the service that he had launched his first major military attack as commander in chief. Later, when he returned to the Oval Office to prepare to address the nation, he appeared just as calm, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. 'I gave them fair warning,' Bush told Fleischer, referring to the Taliban regime.

"Bush informed congressional leaders about the military action at 7:30 p.m. Saturday, about the same time that US Air Force planes took off from Missouri for Afghanistan. Senior aides were already writing his address to the nation on Saturday afternoon."

Bush is surging – but that could be temporary, says Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles Times:

"George Herbert Walker Bush won the war and lost the peace. His son, President George W. Bush, appears determined to avoid the same mistake – if he possibly can.

"That will probably be a much greater challenge than it looks today, even as the bombs begin falling in Afghanistan. The younger Bush has good reason to fear the precedent. During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the elder Bush's job approval rate soared to about 90 percent – the same stratospheric level the son is inhabiting now. But as soon as the troops came home from Iraq, a weak economy relentlessly undermined the father's public support . . .

"Bush received a bigger boost in his approval rating – from about 50 percent to 55 percent before the Sept. 11 attacks to as much as 90 percent after – than any of his predecessors, even before he launched Sunday's military action. That gives him a bigger cushion against future erosion. The amorphous, open-ended nature of the conflict against terrorism could extend the rally-effect for a longer time. And Bush's resolute but measured performance in the crisis could produce an irreversible political benefit by permanently reducing the number of Americans who doubt he's really up to the job.

"Yet, for all that, Bush can't afford to lose sight of trouble at home as he deploys his response in Afghanistan. The political danger for Bush is real--and growing. Voters judge presidents above all on the state of the nation, and the economy always looms large in that judgment. All signs suggest the U.S. is heading for a winter of economic discontent."

USA Today is on the job with an insta-poll: "Americans overwhelmingly continue to rally around the flag and their president now that the United States and Great Britain have launched air strikes against terrorist positions in Afghanistan, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

"A nationwide survey taken several hours after the attacks began on Sunday showed that nine of 10 (90 percent) approve of the decision to order military action and 92 percent approve of President Bush's overall handling of the national security crisis.Such strong support for forceful action comes even though more than eight of 10 believe that further terrorist attacks in the U.S. are likely in the next several weeks . . .

"The poll further showed that nearly eight of 10 also say the United States should take military action not only against Afghanistan, but also against any other country that harbors or supports terrorists. The poll numbers suggest that those Americans publicly protesting a U.S. military response are a tiny minority."

The Washington Post also does a quickie poll: "President Bush received immediate, strong and overwhelming public support for his decision to launch airstrikes against terrorist sites in Afghanistan.

"Most Americans said the attacks mark the start of a long war and likely will prompt additional terrorist attacks directed at the United States, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey found that 94 percent said they supported the U.S-led military action in Afghanistan, and just as many Americans continue to endorse the way that Bush is handling the response to last month's terrorist assaults on the World Trade Center and Pentagon."

The Post's David Broder sees American unity – for now: "The United States entered its first war of the 21st century yesterday, with a firm resolve expressed by leaders of both parties to defeat the threat of terrorism but a palpable public nervousness about the risk of further attacks here at home.

"The strong wave of public and political support for the actions ordered by President Bush is exactly what historians expected. Whenever landmark targets have been attacked in the past, the call for military action has been swift and strong. It happened after the Japanese assault on naval and air forces at Pearl Harbor, which brought the United States into World War II. It happened earlier when the battleship Maine was blown up, precipitating the Spanish-American War, and when the bombardment of Fort Sumter triggered the Civil War.

"And so it was yesterday when the retaliation Bush had promised – and Congress had endorsed with only a single dissenting vote – began at midday, Washington time, with missiles and bombs hitting targets in Afghanistan.

"What may be different this time is the skittishness some legislators and others have found about the possibility of further terrorist strikes in this country. The last few days' headlines have quoted members of Congress, who had been briefed by intelligence officials, as warning that 'there is a 100 percent chance' of further attacks to retaliate for military action against Taliban forces."

The Wall Street Journal examines the home front: "With security already historically high across the U.S. in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, authorities struggled to turn their alert status up one more notch Sunday – while encouraging citizens to go on with their normal Sundays.

"Sports fans, travelers and shoppers turned away, at least momentarily, from their afternoon activities to see the start of the long-anticipated U.S. strikes in Afghanistan, while the Federal Bureau of Investigation through its National Threat Warning System urged law-enforcement agencies nationwide to move to their highest level of alert – if they weren't already.

"New York City increased security at its tunnels and bridges, and added police and National Guard troops at airports and other possible targets of terrorists. Los Angeles police called a 'tactical alert' to keep officers on past the end of their shifts, while Chicago deployed additional forces in the downtown Loop and near the city's mosques and synagogues. A live telecast of the Emmy awards was canceled for a second time since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, but it was because of concern over decorum – not security.

"Airports, already patrolled by the National Guard, went on an unspecified 'increased alert,' according to the Transportation Department, but flights followed their normal schedules. Vice President Dick Cheney was moved to an undisclosed secure location outside the White House."

All that is less reassuring, though, after this report in yesterday's New York Daily News:

"Despite a nationwide security crackdown, two Daily News reporters were able to slip potentially deadly carry-on items such as knives, razor blades and scissors past checkpoints at 10 major airports last week as part of an investigation by the paper.

"One News reporter carried a razor-blade cutter, similar to the weapons used in the Sept. 11 hijackings, aboard a flight from LaGuardia to Washington.Another News reporter cleared security at Newark Airport toting pepper spray, a utility knife and scissors. Guards at Kennedy Airport failed to catch a camping knife with a 2 1/2-inch steel blade.

"At the three airports where hijacked flights originated – Newark, Boston's Logan Airport and Washington's Dulles International – News reporters were able to get dangerous items past security.

"'We don't have better airport security in this country,' said Michael Boyd, an aviation consultant from Evergreen, Colo., when told of The News' investigation. 'This kind of test proves it. All we have is more inconvenient security.'

"The Federal Aviation Administration, which oversees airport security, said it would immediately investigate the lapses identified by The News."

Speaking of Cheney, as we were a moment ago, whatever happened to the Most Powerful Vice President in History? The New York Times takes a look:

"Five days after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, Vice President Dick Cheney gave a riveting account on television of his role in the first hours of the crisis, including how President Bush followed his advice to order fighter jets to shoot down any rogue airliner that threatened the Capitol or White House.

"Since then, Mr. Cheney has all but vanished from public view, leaving Mr. Bush and his cabinet secretaries to spell out the administration's goals in the war on terrorism. In a rare public appearance on Friday, Mr. Cheney stood dutifully next to Mr. Bush at a Rose Garden ceremony as the president announced the administration's new tax cut proposal.

"Mr. Cheney looked more rested than Mr. Bush, but he left all the talking to his boss. The television appearance the Sunday after the attacks may have left the impression that the vice president was the man in command at the White House, an image he has apparently sought to dispel by keeping a low profile since then. But behind the scenes, Mr. Cheney continues to play a major role as war minister, uber diplomat, political adviser and consigliere to President Bush, lawmakers, military officials and top White House aides say."

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard, writing before yesterday's assault, feels optimistic: "Does anyone but me feel upbeat, and guilty about it? I feel upbeat because the country seems to be a better place than it was a month ago. I feel guilty about it because I should be feeling pain and horror and anger about the recent events. But there's so much to cheer one up.

"In the first place, there are flags everywhere. There are even indications that the most reactionary liberals amongst us are capable of change. For example, a year ago, Bruce Springsteen wrote a song called '41 Shots' in which he depicted New York policemen as racist, gun-mad goons. But there he was on that TV tribute to heroes celebrating those same cops. Then there was a dinner I attended a week or so ago with a bunch of liberal literati. This was a group that would normally be expected to genuflect reverentially at every gesture from Susan Sontag. But all of them were contemptuous of Sontag's sour essay in the New Yorker, in which she condemned what she depicted as the crude moralism of America's response to the September 11 attacks.

"All of us on the right have been enjoying the spectacle of liberals one after another--from Michael Moore to Edward Said--making fools of themselves over this. But I'm struck by the fact that a gulf is opening between these left-wing loons and normal liberals and Democrats, who so far have remained hawkish and unabashedly patriotic."

Beyond the Beltway

The New York Post: "Mayoral candidates Mark Green and Fernando Ferrer got personal in their final debates yesterday, bickering over who was first to 'go negative' and who can best lead the city following the World Trade Center attack.

"During much of the two televised showdowns on WNBC and WABC, Green went after Ferrer on several fronts, charging he was inconsistent on the death penalty and abortion, and ill-prepared to deal with the city's recovery. Ferrer's strategy was to complain that his rival was simply engaging in negative attacks.

"'I've counted before I walked onto this stage – from Mark and his campaign – 19 separate attacks,' Ferrer said near the outset of the first debate. 'It is essential that we compare our leadership now,' Green said. 'That's not attacks, Freddy. It's facts.'

"Later, in the second showdown, Green told Ferrer: 'If you can't take the heat, you shouldn't be in the debate.' 'Mark, I can certainly take the heat, but I'm not going to allow you to stand there and distort,' Ferrer testily replied. Green's tactics reflected the feeling by some in his camp that his support has been slipping and that Ferrer is even – if not ahead – in the tumultuous Democratic primary race that ends with Thursday's runoff."

© 2001 The Washington Post Company

-- Anonymous, October 08, 2001