One commentator on television this week said that, in Iraq, we were seeing a new kind of war. I disagree. It is less a case of seeing a new kind of war, more that we are seeing war in a new way. Startling pictures of a sort which have previously been the preserve of battlefield commanders are being beamed into our homes. Journalists can report changing situations as they happen, in real time.

But the understandable thirst for “exciting” images has resulted in a series of disconnected “snapshots” of the conflict. Each, in its own way, may have been informative, but combined they have failed to give the viewer a genuine understanding of “the big picture”, and sometimes they have had the opposite effect.

If the most exciting images of the day are of resistance from small elements of Saddam’s brutal security forces — who fear their own liberated countrymen almost as much as they fear the coalition — that leads the news bulletins. It gives an impression that that is the mood of the country, when in fact it relates solely to the tiny area in which the reporter finds himself.

It may not be the journalist’s fault: it is a reporter’s job simply to report what he or she finds. But without being framed in a broader understanding of strategy, instant pictures can mislead. So while viewers may be “seeing” more than ever before, they may actually be “learning” less, albeit in a more spectacular way.

Those who saw the hectic pictures of a night-time infantry assault on an Iraqi-held position during the battle for Umm Qasr a few nights ago, for instance, will not easily forget them. What they may not have understood, however, is that the picture hid a more complex story. With our air superiority, we could have blown that building and other targets to pieces, but that would have run counter to our strategy of leaving the infrastructure intact for the Iraqi people, with whom we have no argument, to use after the regime falls.

After eight days of conflict, the coalition has made solid advances, following the main thrust of our military plan. I am pleased with our progress. Al-Faw peninsula, Umm Qasr and the southern oilfields have been secured and mainstream Iraqi resistance in those areas defeated. Northern Iraq remains stable and we intend to preserve that position. The situation is calm along Iraq’s other borders.

We have suffered tragic losses, as will always be the case in war, and I pay tribute to the British servicemen who have lost their lives in support of the highest ideals.

But the campaign continues, and we are pushing towards Baghdad. More than 7,000 sorties have been flown, and we have achieved significant degradation of the Iraqi regime and its command and control facilities. Sadly, it is impossible to conduct a conflict of this size with no loss of innocent life but I personally oversee efforts to make sure we do all we can to avoid this happening. Overall, the campaign is going as planned. There remains sporadic resistance, as we expected, but this is not representative of the battle-space as a whole. It is important that the media reflects this wider picture among the stories of specific firefights.

Reports of a 120-tank column advancing out of Basra on Wednesday evening, for instance, turned out to be premature. It now seems there were only a handful of vehicles, perhaps as few as three. Such errors happen when the picture is unclear, as it so often is in wartime, to a reporter on the ground. Yet reports of a major counter-attack can have a detrimental impact on civilian Iraqi morale. Iraqis are too afraid of the security forces to rise up against the regime if they fear that the military retains significant local strength.

The coalition is only too aware of the contradiction. Our own objectives of minimising casualties can make the Iraqi resistance seem far stronger than it is. In Umm Qasr last week, for instance, a unit of perhaps 100 Republican Guards fought back against the coalition assault. Our determination to spare the civilian population meant that it took time to subdue them. We could have simply levelled the buildings we thought they were in — but at what cost to Iraqi lives, and at what cost to the principles for which we stand and fight? It was easy, in the midst of battle, to report the fight as a failed or stalled assault on the town.

The truth is that Saddam’s regime has effectively lost control of southern Iraq and its days are numbered. With that in mind, British forces have made a key contribution towards ensuring that the essential infrastructure of the country — ports and oilfields — remains secure. We plan to be able to hand a free Iraq over to its people, but a free Iraq which can quickly start to re-establish the prosperity so systematically destroyed by the Saddam regime.

I believe the public’s understanding of what our troops are achieving is increased by the access we have given the media. The professionalism, courage, dedication and restraint of British and coalition forces shine through. The Ministry of Defence has sanctioned the “embedding” of 128 British journalists and technicians within our units. Almost every type of British military unit has at least one journalist attached to it. The imagery they broadcast is at least partially responsible for the public’s change in mood, with the majority of people now saying they back the coalition.

Yet, on a wider scale, as the military and media find their feet in this new arrangement, we are both learning that free media access does not always equate to a balanced picture reaching the viewer or the reader. There will be hard days ahead, and fighting still to do, but the liberation of the Iraqi people is on course. The day when they can genuinely call themselves free is approaching. I hope that becomes as clear to television viewers as the brave efforts of the men and women of the coalition who are making it happen.

The author is the Defence Secretary

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden