If war breaks out in the Gulf in the next few weeks, there is one foe of which the military will be especially wary. A vast and powerful array of weaponry is gathering in the Gulf and is expected to overrun Saddam's forces in the very near future. But another opponent has the potential to upset the dominance of the American and British military machines.

Since the Vietnam War, armies throughout the West have introduced increasingly sophisticated measures to combat this "foe". If war does break out, the Americans will be pioneering an "embedding" strategy, while Britain will be as protective as ever of exposing its troops, against this opponent.

This "opposition" is none other than the media - the mass of print, TV, radio and online journalists who are already scrambling to cover the impending conflict in the Gulf.

When veteran journalists, TV editors, a retired general, a former defence secretary, a leading academic and the press chief for Nato gathered for a panel discussion of military-press relations at the Imperial War Museum, something stood out. Against all the talk from both sides about mutual respect and working together, their relationship is, in essence, characterised by distrust.

Relations with the media have become crucial for Western military machines, with public opinion a critical ingredient to success in a campaign, and a new war against Iraq will be no different. Perhaps because of this importance, the military are extremely wary of journalists getting too much information, or the reporting of news in an unfavourable way.

Generals tend to view journalists as a nuisance, who can undermine the honest efforts of soldiers in the pursuit of a good story. For its part, the media suspect the military of concealing too much information, operating with excessive secrecy, using "security concerns" to avoid difficult questions.

During the panel discussion, the press policies of the British Army during the Falklands War 21 years ago - were angrily criticised by veteran journalists, questioning why photographers were kept from the signing of the Argentinian surrender. In turn, General Sir Michael Rose, an ex-SAS commander who led UN peacekeeping operations in Bosnia in 1994, led a strong defence of the military's conduct. The Argentinians had asked for photographers to be banned, said Sir Michael. Journalists, he added, hardly endeared themselves to Falklands commanders: British news bulletin had actually warned the Argentinians of an attack before it started.

But Sir Michael was in no doubt as to the importance of press coverage, and was trying to build a better relationship. "The information battle is as important as the physical battle," he said. The military did not lie to journalists because they would be caught out. "In return for access and briefings, the military expect objectivity and restraint," he explained.

This generated a predictably cycnical response from journalists on the panel, who said it was difficult enough reporting from the battlefield, without having to contend with the well organised propaganda machine of the armed forces.

BBC newsnight reporter Kate Clark and The Times' Anthony Lloyd claimed war reporters faced a challenging assignment, trying to get information from a closely managed, well-organised army press machine. Since the Vietnam War, the armed forces had stepped up efforts to control and manage the media, said Mr Lloyd.

American generals blamed the media for losing the war, because journalists had reported the suffering direct from the front. A war against Iraq would be short and the American and British military machines had developed specialised, sophisticated methods to handle the media, said Mr Lloyd. Mark Popescu, an editor for BBC 10pm news, described how the Ministry of Defence simply could not cope with demand for hosting journalists in the Gulf. The BBC alone, with its TV, radio and online branches, wanted to send about 150 staff. "But the MOD have said they have room for about 15," he said. But he also felt reporters would be allowed to get close as possible to the battlefield. "The indications are that we are going to be allowed quite a long way forward," he said.

As for journalists getting close to action, the Americans are pioneering a new development. Following heavy criticism of the way journalists in the last Gulf War were kept from the front and fed a diet of official briefings, the US military has introduced the "embedding" of journalists with units. This will see reporters and cameramen posted to units where they will remain for the length of the conflict. They will eat, sleep, and travel with the units as they move into battle, and should, in theory, be able to get as close as possible to actual fighting. Up to 500 reporters and cameramen (including British and other non-American media) will be "embedded" by the Pentagon.

It remains to be seen whether this will result in more open reporting. Individual unit commanders can still keep the reporters posted with them at arms length. American reporters are likely to receive plenty of encouragement to report on Iraqi atrocities, but will probably be censored if American troops are responsible. The Pentagon itself says access will be "minimally restrictive."

There are no plans for British media to be "embedded" with our armed forces, and, judging from discussion on the subject during the panel evening, this is just as well.

It would, according to general consensus from the journalist, lead to "better control for the military political structure".

Veteran reporter Micheal Nicholson put it succinctly: "Journalists will do their damnedest to get to the truth and the military will do their damnedest to prevent us." Jamie Shea, spokesman for NATO during the conflict in Kosovo, offered a less jaundiced view of the way journalists and the military could work. Yes, all the details about events could not always be released to journalists. But this was always for good reasons: it could affect ongoing operations; families of victims had to be told before news of deaths was made public. Technological advances have meant journalists can send news from the battlefield with even greater speed and precision, putting even more pressure on military press officers to release information. Video phones and picture texting have been added to the arsenal of war correspondents. But Jamie Shea said the military had to provide straight explanations for suppressing information. "If something has to be kept secret, then that should be explained to the media," he said.

Even without the latest technology, journalists would be pressuring military spokesmen for information they might not want to release. The media and the military, to put it simply, often have opposite intentions: journalists want to tell their readers and viewers as much as possible, and the military, wary of giving their opposition too much information, try to limit the release of information. Either side might talk about working together, but all they are likely to do is tolerate each other.