SPECIAL REPORT: Original 'Embeds,' Three Years On, Discuss Iraq War Coverage, Then and Now

By: Joe Strupp Three years ago, a reporter using the term "embedded" most likely was referring either to some kind of medical condition or an e-mail attachment. But since late 2002, when the first plans were announced for military "embeds" to join troops headed for Iraq, the term has assumed an entirely new meaning.

For many of the more than 700 journalists who hitched a ride during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003, life has changed drastically as well. As the first group of newspeople placed by the Pentagon in such large numbers alongside combat troops -- in exchange for agreeing to dozens of rules -- these reporters represented a historic shift in war journalism. Most of those who cover military conflicts and the officials who oversee them contend that embedding is a step forward, and here to stay.

But three years after the first groups of would-be war reporters began donning gas masks (unneeded, in the end) at training sessions for the inevitable invasion, both the Iraq military operation and the way reporters cover it have changed. The military force of 2003, whose mission was to drive Saddam Hussein out and take control, is now the occupying force of 2005, whose mission -- at times unclear -- is to keep order, battle an insurgency, and rebuild the country.

The number of embedded journalists neared 800 in mid-2003, but now averages about 35 on a good day, according to Defense Department officials. Most reporters and photographers in the region today are not embedded; they are either sheltered in a Baghdad hotel to avoid an increasingly dangerous urban situation, or are traveling around the countryside on their own looking for stories.

So where are the original Iraq invasion embeds? What do they think of the war and its coverage now? How many went back for more combat coverage after that first tour of duty? And how has the embed experience affected them personally, professionally, or psychologically?

E&P tracked down 16 of the original embeds hailing from the largest national papers and smaller, hometown dailies. Nearly all of them say the time spent with troops marked a career high point, although many were glad to get back to Western civilization. At least one photographer dropped out of the daily news business as a result, while one reporter admits she needed a year to get over her adventure, which included a physical assault by Iraqi men. But there were just as many who have returned time and again to get more of the experience, and who say with each visit they gain a better understanding of the war and those who are fighting it.

Few would offer their personal views of the war as right or wrong, but more than half say they never thought it would drag on this long, convinced during the first mission that U.S. troops would wrap things up quickly. Most also cite examples of how reporting in Iraq has affected their approach on stories since, both war-related and not. In every case, though, it is clear that life after embedding is not the same.

The Beat Goes On

Sig Christenson admits he didn't support the war when he signed up to embed with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which joined in the initial Iraq offensive in March 2003. The military affairs writer for the San Antonio (Texas) Express-News believed even then that the U.S. military effort would be a long haul. "I may have been the only one who said this war would not be quick and easy," says Christenson, who has since returned to the war zone twice as a non-embed. "I knew the Iraqis would not welcome you, and I knew what we were getting ourselves into. I always feared the insurgency."

Christenson's prediction of a drawn-out operation appears to be sharply in the minority among embeds who spoke with E&P. John Kifner of The New York Times, who embedded with the U.S. 1st Marine Division, is another who says he always felt it would be " a mess." But the vast majority expected a quick resolution to the war.

"I was sure there were WMDs over there," says John Koopman of the San Francisco Chronicle, a former Marine who also traveled with the 1st Marine Division. "I could imagine troops still being there [now], but not like this. An insurgency, continued fighting, and car bombs? This wasn't Vietnam." The Los Angeles Times' Tony Perry, who first embedded with a Marine unit and has returned several times, echoes that view. "I had a sense it was over when we went home in 2003," he says. "It was working."

For Alexandra Zavis of the Associated Press -- who embedded with the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing of the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, then later covered Baghdad as a unilateral -- the story is similar. "I certainly didn't think it would be over in six weeks, but I don't think anyone foresaw this," she says. "It surprises me that every time I have gone back, it has gotten worse."

The Washington Post's Peter Baker, who traveled with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force after four years as a Moscow correspondent, blames some of that nearsighted view on not looking enough into the issues surrounding the military's push at the time. "A lot of people made the point that the postwar would be more of a challenge than the combat beginning," he recalls. "They should have been listened to."

'You Have to Pick Your Cage'

Since the first days of embedding almost three years ago, a lot of war has been fought and many reporters have come and gone -- both embedded and not. A few hearty souls, such as Tom Lasseter of Knight Ridder and John Burns of The New York Times, have stuck around for years, working out of Baghdad bureaus.

Lasseter has been in and out of Iraq since 2003. During his first trip he tested positively for exposure to Sarin, broke out in spots, and had to wait days back in the States for results of a medical test that cleared him. "But I felt I just had to go back," he declares. He says his family and fiancee remain concerned for his safety, but they have gotten used to it: "They worry, but it's what I do. I get on planes and go off to Iraq."

While reporters and Pentagon officials alike declare the embed program a success overall, better relations with the military do not necessarily mean full coverage. Back home, accusations of bias or incomplete reporting have increased -- as has opposition to the war. Original embeds remain mixed on how the war has been reported since they first went into action.

Ron Martz of The Atlanta Journal- Constitution, who joined the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in March 2003, says "Unilaterals stuck in Baghdad have a narrow view, and the embeds there now are not able to provide a real view because of security issues."

When asked if more embeds should be deployed, the reporters say yes but caution that much of the story in Iraq cannot be found solely through embedding. "The military is in a sense less relevant to what is going on in Iraq," says Jim Dwyer of the New York Times, who embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne Division. He warns that putting too many resources in embedding now risks missing the bigger story: "You have to pick your cage."

Perry of the Los Angeles Times, who has returned for several embed assignments, says the complications of the current story -- coupled with cutbacks in resources by many news organizations -- have had their effect on coverage. There was a marked shift when the first embeds went home in April 2003, he says, and a whole new group came in and lived in hotel rooms: "It is so difficult to get out and to know what the scoop is. It is so dangerous, and it is easy to fall into 'what is today's car bombing?'"

He adds that such limitations can prompt some of today's "negative" slant because reporters are unable to see much of the positive rebuilding going on. "They are quick to say it is not working," he says. "You cover an insurgency with a different view; you look at victims more than the warriors."

Greg Zoroya of USA Today first embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne Division in March 2003 and has returned five more times. He points to the changing story of the soldiers themselves. During his initial embedding, the coverage centered on the troops first going into battle. But during his most recent tour last June and July with a Marine unit, Zoroya looked at how the war had worn them down. The group was in its third tour of duty since 2003 and had suffered more deaths, 17 in six months, than during any of its previous tours. "These were hardened veterans," he notes. "Most had lost buddies and they were missing their re-enlistment quota. They did not see an end in sight and they were, frankly, tired."

Good News, Bad News

Ongoing coverage also has been criticized as being too negative, a point that elicits strong reactions among embeds who are mixed on whether the good news/bad news argument holds.

Jules Crittenden of the Boston Herald, who embedded with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division and is openly supportive of the war, says the good news is definitely underreported. "By and large, the news media has a glass-half-empty mentality, a bias against the war," he tells E&P. "They are against the administration and the effort over there."

Chantal Escoto, a reporter for The Leaf-Chronicle in Clarksville, Tenn., who embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division from nearby Fort Campbell, Ky., also notes a lack of good news but blames it more on circumstances than bias. "It is a problem now that not a lot of good stuff is being reported," she says. "It is sort of hurting morale, especially with what the American people think."

But most of the former embeds defend the coverage, saying that bad news is part of war -- and often the most newsworthy. Zoroya says, "I am always partial to, whatever happens, you tell what you see. I think we have an honest look at it." Former embed Graham Rayman of New York's Newsday adds, "I don't know how you can sugarcoat this."

Rex Bowman, who served as the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch's first war correspondent since the Civil War when he embedded in March 2003, contends that the full picture is being reported if people take the time to look. "I read plenty of stories with good news and plenty of stories with bad news," says Bowman, an Air Force veteran who was embedded with members of the 1st Marine Division. "I don't know how people can complain about that."

Admitting she had supported the war at the beginning, Escoto now says her view is changing. "I am a little more neutral, just because of the insurgency and the fact that the Iraqi people don't have the know-how to take over so quickly," she says. "What we know now and what we knew then has changed."

The Los Angeles Times' David Zucchino, however, has remained opposed throughout. "I didn't see any justifiable cause for the war," says Zucchino, a veteran of military skirmishes from Beirut to Uganda who embedded with the 101st Airborne in early 2003. "I never accepted the rationale by the administration, it has been bungled and mismanaged."

War, What Is It Good For?

Embed veterans, especially those who had never before covered combat, also say their Iraq experience has affected how they do their jobs in a number of ways, not just on military beats.

"It gave me great insight, a fresh awareness of the solidarity thing that exists in groups of people doing something difficult together, these tribes that have their own coded language," says the New York Times' Dwyer. He put that newfound insight to work while covering the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in September and found similar human traits: "It helps you piece together how that sense of obligation is so intense in that tribe during a tragedy, that sense of loss to these people."

Zucchino in Los Angeles also used his embed experience to gain new insight while covering Katrina's aftermath. But in his case, it aided his reporting on a big emergency operation. "It helped me to understand large, complex institutions," he told E&P via cell phone from Louisiana. "To get up close and watch it operate over time."

His colleague Tony Perry notes his new view of class struggles and under-covered groups, such as the soldiers themselves. He now seeks out such communities more often: "There are people out there who you don't see in the press, we have gotten narrow with who we cover. There are people, social classes, that we give the feature-story treatment to once a year, but that is it."

For some, such as Jack Gruber, a USA Today photographer who has embedded four times -- the first with the 3rd Battalion of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division -- the lesson was simply to bring backup equipment. A mortar attack near Karbala in 2003 destroyed his camera and wide-angle lens. "It took me a month to a get a new lens," he recalls. "I learned to double up on everything."

Crittenden of the Boston Herald says that the embed experience helped him gain trust with a trio of wounded veterans he interviewed last year in Massachusetts. "It was something that made a difference to them," notes Crittenden, now a city editor at the Herald. "They would say, 'well, you know.' I think it was a real comfort level for them."

The AP's Zavis, who is now based in South Africa, says her embedding background helped her gain contacts with military sources both in and out of Iraq. She cites her coverage of the 2003 rebel siege of Monrovia, Liberia, which included U.S. Marine support, saying the American forces there were quick to speak with her after learning she'd been in Iraq. "It broke a lot of ice," Zavis recalls. "They were more open and I definitely got different treatment than my colleagues who had not been embedded."

From the Foxhole to Porno

For several embeds, surviving in a war zone -- and believing they had covered it well -- provides a new boost in confidence for future assignments. "Everything else kind of pales in comparison. You are not easily intimidated by other stories," says Zoroya.

Koopman of the Chronicle agrees, noting the embed challenge was "the ultimate test. Now I feel less constrained on writing anything." He points to an assignment he received sometime after returning from Iraq and transferring to the Chronicle's features department: reporting on San Francisco's underground sex scene, a beat he covered for a year.

In another time he might have been hesitant, "but here I had just covered a war," he recalls. "I felt more comfortable letting myself go. Watching someone shoot a porno film is not as intimidating after you've been through a war." Not long after that, Koopman was assigned to write about suicide jumpers off the famed Golden Gate Bridge, and had to shadow a coroner. He says he even watched the autopsies: "Because of having the experiences I had, I was better able to handle it."

Some reporters gained confidence and a stronger stomach for some of the news industry's less attractive stories, while others found themselves spoiled by the excitement and adrenaline of war and less interested in their old beats. Peter Baker of The Washington Post, who covered the White House from 1996 to 1999 and returned to the beat last year after embedding, admits some lack of enthusiasm these days: "There is a lot of crap we write about at the White House which is, frankly, not interesting. It seems a lot less of an authentic experience."

Baker cites President Bush's Social Security reform campaign earlier this year, which included trips to different cities to promote the plan which eventually failed. "It is important," Baker says. "But as a reporter covering the 36th time President Bush had given the same speech, it is not the same as being in the desert with Marines in Iraq."

At least one former embed who spoke with E&P reveals the experience drove him out of the news business. Warren Zinn, a photographer with Army Times for four years, quit the newspaper in January 2004, less than a year after embedding with the Army's 3rd Squadron, 7th U.S. Calvary Regiment. He says he found war coverage too risky to return to, and found stateside stories too boring. Zinn, 27, has since gone into his family's real estate development business in Florida, where he still shoots sports events on the side but avoids daily news work. "Everything back home became mundane," he says. "It was hard to shoot congressional hearings in D.C. after being in a foxhole."

Personal and Psychological

Some effects of combat went beyond the professional to the personal. Several embeds acknowledge having any number of emotional or psychological reactions to the war, from simple fatigue or nervousness to post-traumatic stress. In at least one case, a veteran embed took his own life less than a year after his tour, with his editors admitting they may never know what role the overseas service played.

"We just have no idea, and I don't think we ever will," says Carl Fincke, an editor at The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, where former embed Dennis O'Brien was employed during his travels with a local Marine unit at the start of the war. Fincke adds, "He desperately wanted to go and volunteered. He was quite the hero here." O'Brien, 35, served as an embed from January 2003 to May 2003, then returned to the paper. He died in January 2004 after hanging himself from a tree in a public park.

While O'Brien's tragedy is an exception, other embeds reveal that they, too, have been emotionally affected by the war experience. One of the most severe is the Leaf-Chronicle's Chantal Escoto, who says she was physically assaulted by a group of Iraqi men in Karbala in April 2003. "The crowd was frenzied and some had been drinking and I got pushed, hit, and groped," Escoto recalls about the street-level incident. "I was screaming, and that was the most scary part." Although she eventually got away without serious injuries, Escoto says the experience stayed with her for a long time.

"It took me a good year to get back to normal," she reveals. "I started smoking again and had a real problem transitioning back to the U.S. I felt guilty for leaving the soldiers behind." She says images of dead bodies and destruction, especially those involving children, remain with her: "It was a vicious thing."

Shortly after her return, she contributed a chapter to the book Embedded, which included this paragraph: "I am now going through counseling, which I'd never done before, but I figure I don't need to try to win this war on my own. ... I am not sorry I went through this experience in Iraq. It's just that I didn't expect it to have the emotional damage that it did. I thought I could handle it. It messed me up."

Still, Escoto wanted to return -- and was scheduled to embed again with the same 101st Airborne unit in late November for a month until budget restraints forced her to cancel the trip just two weeks before. "This is something I do not want to be afraid of," she says about her reasons for wanting to return. "I can't let it scare me from doing my job."

Christenson of the Express-News, who returned to Iraq twice unembedded after his initial assignment, suffers from post-traumatic stress. "I think I've had a good deal of it," he says, adding that legendary war correspondent Ernie Pyle was one of his influences on the job. "I was some kind of a basket case the last time, and way more nervous. You go through a series of events where your life is in jeopardy and with each one, you get more scared." Christenson, who is president of Military Reporters and Editors, adds that he has sought psychiatric treatment and still finds himself "more intense" than before the war.

"I am probably more serious than before and I try not to be," he says. "I also found that the things I cared about I care about more, and those I don't care about mean even less, such as money." Zucchino of the Los Angeles Times, who has returned to Iraq several times, recalls a pattern of sleep disturbances and restlessness each time he came home. "It leaves you emotionally shattered," he says. "It is so relentless. There are attacks that never stop, and a real feeling of vulnerability."

For most who admit some emotional change, the impact is less dramatic. "I have occasional dreams about it, occasional flashbacks," says Martz in Atlanta. "But it doesn't keep me from doing my job. Groups ask me to come and talk about it, and that is my therapy. To share it." The Herald's Crittenden says he can be more intense these days, but is also less worried about unimportant things. "You dispense with a lot of bullshit," he says. "You can relax because you don't worry about little things."

Others, meanwhile, note one or two specific flashback moments, but an overall normal recovery. Zoroya says any time he sees a crane at a construction site, he is reminded of being with a Marine unit when it opened fire on a civilian crane operator outside the Iraqi Palace. "My guess is that the guy probably just showed up for work that day," he says. "It is part of war that happens."

The Chronicle's Koopman recalls being on a boat in San Francisco Bay on July 4, 2003, after his embedding, when some fireworks went off nearby. "One sounded like a rocket-propelled grenade," he remembers. "That made my heart stop. But it was the only time I had anything like that."

Then there's the Washington Post's Baker, who says his lack of serious emotional reaction to the war remains a concern. "I am worried," he admits, "that it didn't change me more."