Tonight, Eric Shawn, a Fox News Senior Correspondent, interviewed Rebecca Grant, PhD on America’s News Headquarters. The title of the interview was, Eric Shawn: NATO could bomb Putin’s tanks. Dr. Grant was billed as a military and national security analyst, and President of IRIS Independent Research. During the interview, she was clear that Ukraine has not asked for intervention from the military forces of the United States or NATO, but they have requested weaponry.
Dr. Grant pointed out that NATO aircraft are conducting surveillance missions over the area, and that NATO has the option of bombing Russian mechanized forces if they cross the border into Ukraine. She was asked if Russia would regard that as an act of war, and her response was that as far as she was concerned if Russian forces invade Ukraine, then a state of war exists there.
To be clear, Dr. Grant did not directly advocate that NATO aircraft bomb Russian mechanized forces inside Ukraine if they invade. However, her remarks seemed to be favorably disposed to it. Further, she seemed to feel that the threat of bombing would be a deterrent to Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin.
An internet description of Rebecca Grant by Fox News follows:
Rebecca Grant is a national security analyst based in Washington, D.C. She earned her Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics at age 25 then worked for RAND and on the staff of the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. Since founding IRIS Independent Research, she has specialized in research for government and aerospace industry clients ranging from analysis of military campaigns to projects on major technology acquisition such as the B-21 bomber.
https://www.foxnews.com/person/g/rebecca-grant
Given her background, it is understandable that Dr. Grant might be prone to consider the use of airpower. I take issue with her assessment that its use, or the threat of its use, might be a deterrent. She seemed to think that it would cause President Putin to back off, and that would somehow move the situation toward a peaceful resolution. The context of Dr. Grant’s comments gave me the impression that the possibility that it might be a provocation that could lead to a wider war did not seem likely to her. What if she is wrong?
With all due respect, if this is the kind of advice that high-level decision makers in our government and defense industry are getting, then we are in a lot of trouble. Although decision makers may need to consider all “options,” one would hope that news people would at least use more discretion about how and when it should be disclosed.
Amendment I in the Bill of Rights guarantees that freedom of the press in our country. I would never support external control over what a news service reports. In the past, however, the American press has (often) exercised self-discipline when reporting about sensitive situations. Responsible journalism has a duty to serve “the people’s right to know.” I believe that responsible journalism also involves refraining from escalating already volatile situations in ways that might endanger us all.
Lastly,
and just for the record, I am sick and tired of TV military and national
security “analysts” who can’t wait to advocate putting our military in harms
way … even though they have never taken the oath, worn a uniform, or served in combat. News agencies have to fill airtime 24/7, but
they do not need to give a platform to people with reckless notions about how
to put our service people in war zones.
