The White House is in information lockdown.

In this war against individuals, where intelligence matters more than numbers of troops, tanks, and bombers, the administration is restricting information to a much broader degree than in previous wars.

Americans know only the bare bones of what's happening in Afghanistan, and perhaps that's not surprising. But they also, for "security reasons," aren't being told what antibiotics are being used to treat the Anthrax cases in Florida. And for days now, they haven't known the whereabouts of their vice president, who has been in a separate, secret location from the president.

"The extent of the clampdown seems a lot wider than it's been in other wars," says historian Alan Brinkley at Columbia University in New York.

So far, the public has been patient with the restrictions on information. The unprecedented nature of the attacks has led to an unprecedented trust in the government's actions. At some point, though, such blind faith will give way to second-guessing, and people will want information more specific than the administration's general admonition to "be alert."

Observers like Mr. Brinkley say the Bush team will no doubt begin to have a harder time limiting access to information - whether about the military campaign, the investigation, or the threats of future retaliatory attacks on the US.

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice may have successfully convinced broadcast-news executives to use restraint in airing videos from Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network, but the terrorist group can just as easily make use of the Internet. Foreign news outlets, moreover, will be much more difficult for the White House to influence.

"The president's frustration is that we're in an Information Age, where information flows freely," says Col. John Bonin, director of Army planning at the US Army War College in Carlisle, Pa.

Colonel Bonin and others point to several factors that will make it much harder for the government to prevent leaks in this war than in past ones:

• News sources are far more numerous and diffuse than in previous wars - making government efforts to keep information under lock and key far more difficult.

• The number of potential leaks grows with the number of partners in the international coalition - especially since the terrorist threat, though visible, has not been as sustained and massive as, say, the London air raids of World War II. The less immediate the threat, says Bonin, the harder it is to keep an international coalition together - and the greater potential for leaks.

• The entire US feels vulnerable to attack. This means that the public will want information about the extent and kind of threats, as well as what to do about it.

Page: 1 | 2