Over the years I have written that the strategy and tactics of Al Qaida and the Taliban were geared toward affecting media coverage of the wars.

The best chance of the US and Coalition withdrawing from Iraq or Afghanistan was not through military force employed by the Taliban or Al Qaida, but through an erosion of political will on the part of the American public and members of Congress.  The will of the public is affected by what it sees in the media, therefore, the media has always been the target of action.

This is 4th Generation Warfare.

A line in a report about the kidnapping and detention of New York Times reporter David Rhode caught my eye and is excerpted by Powerline .

The key line in the excerpt:

"The kidnappers initially said as much."

The Taliban, normally not ones to shy away from publicity wanted the kidnapping to fly below the radar.

If the ransom to be negotiated was money, the Times, even in its current straights, could cough up enough to purchase release.

But going back to the Taliban and Al Qaida's primary strategy of attacking American public opinion, what if the ransom was not cash but news coverage?

This is not to say that the Times yielded and shaped their coverage to the demands of the captors--I sincerely doubt they did.  The Times may be many things, but from my contacts with its reporters, it is not the type to negotiate coverage with terrorists.  Even they are smart enough to realize if you do it just once--you are gonna have to do it forever.  Which is why you do not negotiate with terrorists.

But, I can definately see the Taliban wanting to put that option on the table.  And if that option was on the table, broad public knowledge of a reporter for the Times being held hostage would make it more difficult to get the editorial ransom from the Times.  A shift in tone of coverage coinciding with kidnapping would deminish the effectiveness of the Taliban's editorial demands.

In modern 4th Generation Warfare, the media is the target of many actions.  If I was the Taliban, I would kidnap reporters and demand editorial ransom.  Many things can be purchased with cash from opium or other criminal enterprises ran by terrorist organizations, but editorial coverage is too tempting not to ask for.

In the modern media battlespace we have already seen media outlets capitulate to threats of violence--the cartoons & Fitna come to mind.  CNN traded access for self censoring editorial in Iraq under Saddam's regime.  And of course there is Walter Duranty.

As the threat enviorment and 4GW grows, editors and publishers will have to steel themselves to the new environment.  The public will have to be aware of how modern terrorists and insurgents target them through the media.

---