It's a good move. However, I share some of the author's uneasiness about our total dependence on the military for almost any hard facts about this struggle, but with lives at stake, to say nothing of the outcome of the battle, it's a situation we'll have to endure.

Generally, I oppose attempts to stifle the flow of information from the war zone. There may be some increased risk to our forces, but a greater risk, I feel, is an American public totally at the mercy of the powers that be for information. By virtue of this information management, the American public might possibly be kept in the dark about actual events, while viewers/readers in foreign capitals might be getting a much clearer picture about what is really happening.

If it happens that misinformation is being passed to the American public, the foreign press will have a field day with it, and the American public will soon lose faith with - and perhaps even turn on - those who have misled it.

Something of this sort happened with Vietnam, where the initial, almost unanimous domestic support for our efforts in SE Asia withered in the face of the notorious Credibility Gap.

It's a fine line, but one which cuts deeply.

sp