Subject: (no subject)
From: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 16:04:03 -0700 (PDT)

Oliver North  
April 20, 2001  
Military illiteracy  
Washington, DC -- The April 1 collision between a People's Liberation Air  
Force F-8 fighter and a US Navy EP-3 over the South China Sea has revealed a  
striking military weakness. As the 11-day standoff over the fate of 24 of our  
military personnel detained by the communist Chinese unfolded, the masters of  
the media went into high gear to explain to the American people what was  
going on. The potentates of the press did an adequate job of reporting on the  
political dynamic in our nation's capital; on the diplomatic exchanges  
between Beijing and Washington; and on the anxieties of loved ones waiting at  
home. But when it came to reporting on the military aspects of the incident,  
they failed miserably. Strangely enough, almost no one noticed -- in large  
part because the American media and the American people suffer from the same  
malady: military illiteracy. Some examples: From the day of the collision  
onward, nearly every US media outlet referred repeatedly to the damaged US  
aircraft -- a 45-year old, four-engine turbo-prop -- as a "spy-plane." It's  
not. A "spy plane" (the U-2 or SR-71, for example) is designed to overfly an  
adversary's territory. The sturdy old EP-3 however, is designated as a  
"reconnaissance and surveillance" aircraft, and it conducts its mission of  
collecting electronic emissions by flying in international airspace or over  
"friendly territory." The difference between "surveillance aircraft" and "spy  
plane" is not a simple matter of semantics -- it is an important distinction  
that affords the EP-3 and its crew protections in international law. Not  
unexpectedly, the use of the term "spy plane" in the US media was immediately  
picked up by the international press and Communist China's propaganda  
machine. A less egregious example of military illiteracy is evident in  
listening to what the media call those who serve in the Armed forces. At  
various times during the 11 days our 24 military personnel were detained,  
network newsreaders referred to them as "soldiers" or "troops," and  
occasionally as "intelligence specialists." The cable "news hounds" made  
similar errors last October, when terrorists attacked the USS Cole in Yemen  
and the masters of the media repeatedly described the sailors killed and  
wounded aboard the vessel as "soldiers." It is tempting to ascribe these  
inaccuracies to media malevolence, an undercurrent of antipathy toward the US  
military. And members of the armed forces can perhaps be forgiven their  
paranoia when they are treated to "investigative reports" like CNN's  
"Tailwind" broadcast, in which it was falsely alleged that US forces employed  
Sarin nerve gas against US "defectors" in Vietnam. But in fact, it appears  
that most of the factual errors in today's media coverage of our military  
stem less from malice than from ignorance. And that's not just a media  
problem -- it's becoming a national predicament. How is it that so many know  
so little about military life today that they cannot distinguish between a  
"soldier" and a "sailor"? The answer lies in part with the "success" of the  
"all volunteer force" -- now in its 26th year. Once we abandoned selective  
service -- the draft -- military recruiters were forced to appeal to an  
increasingly narrow cross-section of young Americans to fill the ranks. Gone  
is the challenge of patriotism and service that had motivated young men from  
all walks of life to join the military. Douglas MacArthur's "Duty, honor,  
County" was replaced with a bald bounty system. Sheer greed -- cold hard cash  
-- became the Pentagon's answer to enlisting those with critical skills  
essential to today's increasingly complex and technology-based military. In  
1963, when my Naval Academy classmates and I first swore to "support and  
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and  
domestic ..." it was the commander in chief who administered the oath. Many  
have found fault with John Kennedy since that day, but not in his appeal that  
we should "ask not what our country can do for you, but what you can do for  
your country." That sentiment is heard no longer. And the effect is seen not  
just in military recruiting shortfalls, but throughout our society. General  
James L. Jones, commandant of the Marine Corps, recently noted that, "The  
average citizen, even the average congressman, neither knows nor cares about  
national security ..." and that "congressmen and senators no longer vie for  
seats on the House or Senate Armed Services Committees." He's right. Fewer  
than one in 10 new recruits even knows a military veteran, and only four out  
of 100 Americans personally know someone in uniform. It should be instructive  
that the military hero of the moment, Navy Lt. Shane Osborn, who saved the  
lives of his EP-3 crew by successfully piloting his badly damaged aircraft to  
a safe landing, says that he was motivated to become a flyer by his high  
school football coach, an Air Force veteran. But Osborn's experience is  
increasingly rare. Today, many educators, especially those who came of age  
during the "Vietnam era," remain hostile to military service and even go so  
far as to deny military recruiters access to high schools. George Orwell  
wrote, "We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night  
to visit violence on those who would do us harm." If we expect to remain safe  
in our beds, we would do well to get smart about our armed forces