A move to seal up more information

CHAPEL HILL -- There's a move afoot in the Pentagon and other federal agencies to change the way government documents are classified. The new rule would shift massive amounts of documents and data to a single category of "Controlled Unclassified Information" exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.

The move may be well-intentioned, but I believe it is a dumb and potentially dangerous idea. When government starts to limit access to information, bad things happen.

March 19 will mark the beginning of the sixth year of the war in Iraq -- the longest military conflict in U.S. history. In his address to the nation at the start of the war, President Bush said the only way to limit the duration of the conflict was to apply decisive force.

"I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory," Bush said.

Six years later, after a series of half measures, victory remains elusive. Government documents and news reports point to a series of missteps:

The speed of the attack and invasion outpaced the occupation plan. The disbanding of Iraqi security forces helped fuel civil unrest and violence. Iraq's unsecured borders became passageways for foreign fighters intent on destabilizing the country. In too short a span, U.S. military forces went from liberators to occupiers to worse in the minds of many Iraqis.

We have a clearer picture now of how we got into Iraq, largely because of access to government information and the news media's reporting.

In the aftermath of the invasion, journalists resumed their government watchdog function that had been neglected before the war. It took interviewing hundreds of government and military officials here and abroad. It required combing through mountains of documents and official statements gleaned mostly from open-source material. It is the stuff of investigative journalism -- researching and analyzing what's right before your eyes.

As a democracy, we are much better informed about Iraq today than in 2003. Also, a consensus is forming on what needs to be done to improve national security. As U.S. foreign policy adapts to a changing world, all is not lost if we know more about how we got here and the road ahead. The media need to continue asking questions and searching for the truth.

l l l

THE CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION MARKING IS PARTLY PROMOTED as a simplified system intended to encourage information-sharing among government agencies. But depending on how it is applied, the proposed change could further reduce public access to information.

"The new policy will replace all of the marking currently used for (Controlled Unclassified Information or CUI) within the Department of Defense with new standardized marking," Defense Department Deputy Chief Information Officer David Wennergren wrote in a memo.

Presidential approval of the new policy is anticipated soon. When that happens, the responsibility of the media to keep the public informed about the war and other aspects of national security policy could become much tougher.

The canyons of unclassified documents and material are not desktop references on sensitive war plans. They are the grist that gives reporters insight into how the conflict is and has been conducted -- and into overall military readiness and personnel policies concerning our brave men and women who make the real sacrifices in this war.

Some argue that information security is always paramount during times of war and that secrets must remain secret. But they overstate their case by seeking to further curtail access to information.

The final effect of a single category of CUI is unknown. But restrictions on what was once open-source information will surely result in less access to what the public needs to know. Reporters will have fewer documents from which to get the facts. Government officials will be less likely to talk to the media for fear of violating new guidelines. Sources will dry up.

How did we find out about soldiers not having adequate body armor and vehicle protection? Who told us about not having enough ground troops to secure Iraq after years of assurances by those at the top that the opposite was true? What led to the uncovering the shameful treatment of veterans at Walter Reed Army Medical Center? It was the news media.

Years after the conflict began, journalists are telling the story of what's happening in Iraq and to our military. They are also finding out more about the decisions that led us to where we are today in the war. This is no time for a government-imposed information drought. It's time for more freedom, not more secrecy.

(Napoleon B. Byars teaches news writing and public relations courses as an assistant professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at UNC-Chapel Hill. He served 21 years in the Air Force as a public affairs officer, including two tours in the Pentagon.)