Desperado,
There's no question of superiority, overall. Just difference. Including different strengths and weaknesses.
And I don't want it both ways. You say: "You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait."
It may surprise you that I agree that the camera shouldn't have been there in the first place. I can quite see that Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether or not they whoop and holler. I can see that criticism "by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse" might undermine morale. (AK 47 or AK 74 or AKM, though? I wouldn't be able to differentiate by feel - especially not there, but I have had one shoved up my left nostril). But in a modern campaign like this one, which deliberately includes an information/propaganda element, there are considerations beyond the frontline. Perhaps there should not be.
In many ways I think it would be much better if the UK Forces had service photographers and video teams (combat camera style) providing imagery to the media (who would stay well back), with the MoD providing material in a managed way to the media. I'm atypical among journos here, I suspect, but I can see that the Frontline is no place for civvies to be (they can only get in the way), nor even for civilians to see in an uncensored, full-on way.
But if we are going to see it, then account has to be taken of this information war and its requirements.
And sorry about the "Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk".....
