Communication obviously is a major challenge in this era, and I think all militaries have learned over the last couple of decades and have got better at it. There are always improvements to be made. It seems to me, however--and I hate to use the term again in a different context--there needs to be balance in that. I think senior commanders, the Chief of the Defence Staff and people like that, need to be available to the public. It is my perspective, and I'll share it, that the current CDS is very available. He is available to talk on a range of issues and is relatively forthcoming, recognizing that he is a servant of the government. He always has a challenge, as does everybody in uniform, to strike that right balance.
Similarly, it is my experience that commanders in theatres of operation have always been available to the media. I don't have intimate personal knowledge, so I'm not challenging anything you've said or implied, but I would be surprised if David Fraser is not having regular briefings where he is available to answer questions on the part of the media and so on.
To take the additional step of then having the military on a regular basis--to use the Schwarzkopf example--give nightly war briefings is an extraordinary step, in my view. I'm not suggesting there aren't cases, and maybe the Gulf War, as you put it in the context of what Schwarzkopf and the U.S. at the time faced, may have been an example of where that was desirable, but I have difficulty personally in imagining a Canadian general standing up and giving daily operational briefings of the conflict.
I must admit it's not something I've given a lot of thought to, but it does seem to me to be a bit over the top and may send the wrong signals. I would certainly think that the implications on the nation...it starts to have a military role in society that perhaps is much stronger than a democracy should have, personally speaking.