In a story in Tuesday editions, Peter Sleeth, a reporter for The Oregonian stationed with the 82nd Airborne Division, offered a small slice of the challenges that soldiers face in Iraq even when not in battle.
With temperatures in the mid-90s, he wrote, they pack dozens of pounds of weaponry, body armor, ammunition and, by all means, water. A soldier easily drinks six liters a day.
Sweat drenches every inch of your body, Sleeth wrote, and then the dust coats you like powdered sugar on a glazed cake.
Sleeth has been with the 82nd Airborne since early March, one of hundreds of reporters and photographers embedded with U.S. and British military units in Iraq and Kuwait.
Brian Meehan, also a reporter for The Oregonian, has been with the 4th Infantry Division, which has remained in Kuwait after being derailed from an initial plan to go into northern Iraq through Turkey. With events in Iraq taking a new turn, both reporters are headed back to Oregon and its cooler days.
Stephen Engelberg, a managing editor who has been Sleeths long distance editor, said that Sleeth has been able to bring home a grunts eye view of war, a picture of the humbling and challenging circumstances a soldier faces in Iraq.
Sleeth had no experience in the military. I told him before he left, Engelberg said, Your greatest disadvantage is your greatest advantage. Youve never done it before.
As a result, Engelberg said, He has tried to see it through the eyes of an ordinary reader, to bring a freshness to it.
That perspective included how soldiers spend their time when waiting, how they react after their first battle and to the heat, sweat and lack of minimal niceties of life. From the 19-year-old who hardly needs to shave to the veteran who worries about the 19-year-olds in his charge, Sleeth provided a gritty ground-level view.
As the media and the military alike prepared for the war, journalists and readers expressed doubts about how the embedding system developed by the military would work. One of the concerns were military rules on reporting.
As it turned out, the restrictions were limited. Reporters filed their stories with no military eyes scanning their copy first. In many cases, they could not report precisely or immediately where the unit was and where it was going, but those were temporary situations.
The limitations, said Engelberg, who covered the war in Bosnia for The New York Times, were minor encumbrances. I did not find them onerous.
His bigger concern has been the larger context. For the most part The embedding process created a flood of reports from pivotal moments, Engelberg said. However, he added, The bulk have been from a U.S. view.
Few reporters speak Arabic. That has left them to rely on the few English-speakers they come across for a perspective from the Iraqi civilians eyes.
Some readers have expressed similar concerns that reporting by U.S. journalists has failed to get beyond the actions of U.S. forces to the Iraqis themselves. They were particularly interested in civilian casualties and living conditions.
On the other hand, the access has had definite benefits. David Shaw, a media reporter for The Los Angeles Times, wondered how some journalists could worry about too much access.
Access and information are our lifes blood, he wrote. Reporters and their editors just have to decide how best to turn that dream-come-true into useful coverage.
Larger newspapers, The Oregonian among them, invested their resources to provide the big picture from the dozens, even hundreds of smaller pieces available each day.
Questions remain that need to be answered, including the number of casualties on all sides, not to mention how and when fighting will end and a country will be rebuilt. In time, readers should expect thorough answers now that we have been given a wealth of information and reason to care.
