Gen. John Abizaid is not amused by a series of frustrated comments U.S. soliders in Iraq made to journalists upon learning that they would not be returning home as planned. Abizaid observed that the soldiers in question could be subject to "a verbal reprimand or something more stringent" at the discretion of their commanding officers, with "something more stringent" including, at least in theory, the possibility of a court martial.
On the one hand, I certainly understand the rationale for wanting to limit what troops in the field say to the press: There is obviously the danger—the probability, even—that Iraqi insurgents will be encouraged by any signs that troop morale is weak. On balance, perhaps that's a decisive consideration. Nevertheless, it seems that our ability to evaluate and debate the wisdom of our current foreign policy suffers when the only sentiments we hear from soldiers in the field are those which bear a Pentagon imprimatur. (Via IndyMedia.)
Update: White House operatives were apparently so peeved by the story that they decided to sic Matt Drudge on the journalist responsible. Isn't that in violation of the Geneva Convention?