Media Watch had an interesting segment on the extreme difficulty media organizations have faced getting any substantive information about the activities of Australian forces in Afghanistan. It seems abundantly clear that the Defence Department is attempting – and largely succeeding – in preventing almost any substantive reporting of what Australian soldiers actually do in that country.
The obvious question is why the ADF (or the Defence Department) are so sensitive about such reporting, and like some of the commenters on the Media Watch story, I suspect it probably has more to do with the fact that the Army is actually not getting involved in terribly much heavy combat, rather than that it is getting involved in lots of firefights, with the inevitable civilian and friendly fire deaths that occur with even the most disciplined and well-trained armies.
If I recall correctly, Hugh White argued in a recent Monthly that Australia was trying to walk a tightrope with its policy – the government is almost certainly dubious that the Australian mission, and the broader Western action, is achieving anything, but is essentially obligated to keep the Americans happy while they figure out what the heck they’re going to do about the unfortunate country. So we maintain a holding pattern, where Australian troops are put there, but placed at as little risk as possible.
Which probably works politically, as long as nobody says so publicly. But how long is this farce supposed to go on?
Last night’s Four Corners was depressing yet illuminating, regarding the extraordinary corruption taking place in Afghanistan. Certainly makes me want to avoid giving any cahritable dollars (or tax dollars!) to the place.
Having personally escorted and had a journalist “embedded” within my Tank Squadron in peace time and despite offering to check for accuracy (not edit) but been ignored and still they managed to file totally inaccurate and wrong facts, I completely understand and support the ADF keeping a super tight leash on the media.
The fact that the Australian media was responsible for blowing Prince Harry’s cover in Afghanistan doesn’t really help their cause. Also the fact that the Special Forces guys rarely operate with non-special forces soldiers in close proximity let alone have some baggy arsed civilian journalist along for the ride.
That said – if someone like a Michael Yon requested an embed I would strongly support that.
As I see the story for the Aussies over there is that thy are hunting down and killing the bad guys and trying to help rebuild some things and help the locals. Once you’ve done that story for the 5th rotation it gets little boring, and no, you aren’t going on a SF op. I think the bigger story is WTF is Obiwan going to do about actually winning.
There’s not much he can do. there is no legitimacy for the govt in Afghanistan so it makes the US place there kind of tenuous.
We haven’t seen that much footage of actual casualties in our wars on the MSM. Not since Vietnam really. Not compared to things like the sniper footage thats floating around the net, for example. The military likes to keep the war reporting G rated. It keeps the reality of the pain it causes out of most peoples minds. And the last thing the military needs is that to be brought into peoples minds. That, and the serious legitimacy issues the Afghan govt has might make their job even harder.
regardless of how I feel about the Afghan war, I don’t think its fair that the military gets caught out in a policy debate. So they are protecting their own interests, and I spose they are protecting the interests of the actual plicy itself as well. Which you would expect.
I can also see the dangers of no coverage, and why it would suit anyone to control information about their activities.
Does anyone remember that story about the ADF pullling out of a battle because they felt it created unacceptable civillian risk?
For what its worth, that could have done with some serious reinforcement by our media. Thats obviously the sort of thing we should be applauding and encouraging. That could create some useful feedback loops. That sort of thing builds legitimacy and is important to recognise. In terms of the goals of our mission in Afghaistan, that sort of action, not fighting a battle cos of the risk to civillians … well in an assymetric war isn’t that what you do?
If an insurgency is relying on your carelessness to generate sympathy for their cause why would you help them? That seems so obvious, yet I haven’t heard it enter the national discussion on Afghanistan in any meaningful way.
As bad as it is for the mil not to be publically accountable, if the media shows that little understanding of what they are doing as a whole, I can understand why they wouldn’t want to bother with it.
jules@3
Actually, no, I don’t think I heard about that. Do you happen to have links?
We’re not in Vietnam any more, Toto.
This is the original story. I think I first read about it at Daryl Masons blog.
AUSTRALIAN troops, fearing widespread civilian casualties, refused to take part in a Dutch-led assault on advancing Taliban militia — a battle that left dozens of innocent Afghans dead.
In fact apart from the original story and Daryl’s blog I can’t recall any reference to it.
If your allegations of non-contact were true, Sir, it would be reminiscent of Australia’s participation in Gulf War 1.
Expected: land battles involving tank divisions, infantry etc., with air support & bombing. Australia sends naval vessels .
Nice one, RJL Hawke, PM.
Excellent, thanks.
I agree, this story should have received a lot more attention. People are very quick to point out when a military operation goes wrong, disproportionately affecting civilians and civilian objects. The ADF has spent a great deal of time formulating how to overcome such circumstances, and clearly refusing to engage is part of that formula.
Given that this is not given widespread attention, by contrast with military losses and mistakes, it is unsurprising that the ADF would see little benefit in promoting media coverage of a war it is directed to fight by our government. Razor’s point that the types of military activities pursued by the ADF in Afghanistan are not conducive to having people tagging along is also worth some credit, I think.
I’d be interested in any informed opinion about the suggestion that the ADF are doing less of the heavy lifting now than had previously been the case.
Are we obligated to stay any in Afghanistan any more, just in order to please the Americans? I think not. I’ve just been reading Hey, Joe, Where You Going With That Gun In Your Hand? Pt. II (of a two part series). My impression gained from that (and from part I) is:
(a) Al Qaeda may not be gone altogether, but their influence has declined beyond recovery. As far as the locals see them, they’re a bunch of arrogant Arab interlopers who are blameworthy for getting NATO into the country. (Most of them were killed, escaped the country or were sold to the Americans after 9/11/)
(b) The “Taliban” isn’t your hardline 2001-style Taliban. Most of the membership is inspired by ethnic divides, by foreign occupation, or by the chance of profit from volunteering. We leave, and a lot of the support dies.
(c) The “Taliban” gets a lot of their funding from Pakistan. Getting them to cut funding would be more useful than running our special forces in the country. (Yes, easier said than done, I know.)
(d) Karzai and company are corrupt. The Talibani fighters do not like to be governed by them. Why should we intervene on Karzai’s behalf?
On last night’s Four Corners the hard look at an Italian NGO’s incompetence and shenanigans was interesting.
I’ve been researching where to give some $$$ to help Afghanistan – and had high hopes after reading about the well-known Mahboba’s Promise. Alas, the givewell website rated the organisation 0 on all 3 ratings. I had noticed during a documentary on Mahboba’s Promise that her uncle is in charge of the main house. They advise that “receipts are kept”. While I’d love to trust Mahboba, in this day and age I think people are likely to be cautious about giving. Mahboba runs a schools assistance program – and the Four Corners story seemed to have trouble locating any schools in Kabul (or was that just UN-supported schools?) If anyone knows (firmly) that Mahboba’s Promise is totally transparent and not subject to any of sort of corruption we saw last night on the teev, please let me know! Or please nominate other safe giving destinations specifically for Afghanistan … Or, is the givewell ratings system a nonsense?
Is John Robb’s claim that the success of the surge in Iraq was due (mostly or entirely???) to paying militias to do the job actually the most accurate assessment of the situation?
Cos if it is, and given the legitimacy of the Afghan govt seems worse than the Iraqi govt … where does that leave our policy in Afghanistan? I think Australia has a right to be more vocal about the direction the whole mess takes. What we supply seems effective and useful, tho I admit I can only base that on my impressions while living in Australia.
What is Afghanistan? Does “a failed state” actually answer how we are going to achieve a successful state there?
Is it possible? It certainly seems that in Afghanistan legitimacy is local and tribal, so when in our history did our culture look like that and what had to happen to get here? I don’t think we can wind back the destruction of Afghan society so we may have to wind forward 1000 years of history. If we want to achieve a legitimate state there.
How do we achieve that?
If we can’t what do we want to salvage from the situation?
Customers, may I suggest some reading to clarify this war thingy? House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power by James Carroll (no leftist ratbag, he, BTW, for those who haven’t read his other books).
The real reason why governments don’t want journalists reporting with their troops is because they will reveal the sheer incompetence and corruption of the Afghan Army that we are supposed to be mentoring and building up. Read Captain Patrick Hennessy’s recent account of his tour in Helmand (The Junior Officer’s Book Club). I think he develops some respect for the capabilities of the Taliban. The Afghan National Army, on the other hand, come across as worse than useless. Poorly equipped, little or no leadership, unmotivated, dubious loyalty and not averse to torture, drug abuse and drug trafficking and extortion. The Taliban may be the ‘bad guys’, but our allies, the ANA, are nothing to write home about. Or report about.
“Keep it moving right along, Embeds, nothing to report on here.”
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20091019_dont_ask_dont_tell/
Razor, baggy arsed indeed; and the ‘good guys’ spare me. Sharpen up.
Phone Mr toohey’s 83 odd secret hospitalised cases & get back to us; oh and the bonus babies champing at the bit to pay off their mortgage while your at it as they wait on 24/7 standby for Dudd & Obi to say go Karzai farzi…etc.
Sheesh. Jules see CDF a few nights back on Lateline re our hotshots.
EC, enough with pikies.
So whats your point codger?
The yanks really, really lost the plot in Afghanistan. The forgot that the purpose of the war was to kill Osama bin Laden – overthrowing the Taliban was purely a means to that end (arguably not even a necessary one, BTW).
They failed at killing Osama but as Down and Out pointed out in his very good comment @9, they did mostly get his henchmen. So after that they needed a divide-and-rule strategy. This includes a shitload of reconstruction aid, most of which would no doubt go to selected warlords, fundamentalists and other lowlifes. But at least it gives you a tap you can threaten to turn off if the locals’ unfriendly attitude to “Arab interlopers” should ever flag.
And then the Yanks should have pissed off. There’s nothing but hurt for them and everyone else in their staying; they’re now up to their neck in centuries-old tribal squabbles. When you’re in a hole you should stop digging.
And how does Australia benefit from jumping into the hole with them? We’ve done that for Great and Powerful Friends repeatedly and it’s repeatedly caused us nothing but grief. You’d think we’d learn.
dd – I suggest that topping OBL was only one war aim of many. Selection and Maintenance of the aim is the first principle of war but it doesn’t meant that you can’t have more than one aim for a war.
Yes, the Imbecile did have a war aim way back in 2001 — make the Neocons’ wet dreams come true.
Now BO has to find a way to clean up the mess. I’m not sure he is capable of doing it without stirring up the Wingnuts something shocking.
There’s still plenty of suffering to go round in Afpak.
I certainly agree with those who say NATO/ISAF should high tail it out of Afghanistan.
Nothing worthwhile is happening by staying.
Michael Yon, heard him being “interviewed” on Counterpoint, sounded like he was a tad too close to his subject, might have gone native or could be an SAS wanna be.
“I certainly agree with those who say NATO/ISAF should high tail it out of Afghanistan.”
Thats not actually gonna happen tho is it. (And yes it should happen, but it isn’t going to any time soon.)
Sadly, no Jules …
I often wonder why.
To occupy or not to occupy
that is the question
Whether ’tis nobler to suffer the IEDs of outrageous fortune
attempting to defend with 100,000 troops a corrupt incompetent patronage-for-warlords-playing sleazebag
or …
Does anyone know whay they are still there, officially? Does anyone still believe in the project’s success? It seems hard to credit.
The West is trying to save face at a horrendous human cost …
Derrida derida @17, totally agree with your comments.
To dig around a little more in them, I was wondering about the “locals’ unfriendly attitude to “Arab interlopers”. Presumably they were happy to have the Arab interlopers there to begin with? Presumably the Arabs gave them some kind of benefit, in exchange for setting up camp in the country – like Saudi oil dollars paid to relevant warlords by Bin Laden?
If the West wants to prevent the Arab interlopers from regaining a foothold, then presumably they have to offer the locals a better deal than the diminished Bin Laden camp is able to offer? Coupled with threats to withdraw the largesse if double-crossed?
Regarding “they’re now up to their neck in centuries-old tribal squabbles”, is that really our fight? As long as they are only interested in their own internal squabbles, then can’t we leave them to it, rather than being resented for trying to pick sides in the fights?
As people have said, the Taliban are not particularly peaceful and law-abiding people, but neither are many of the others. There is a long road ahead, but perhaps not a military one?
Maybe we should offer e.g. a major program of educational scholarships (at different levels) to study abroad, rather than losing our money to corruption internally, building virtual schools which look rather more like lavish mansions for corrupt officials?
You can’t blame them for not wanting us to know whats going on. After all, look at the company we are keeping over in that part of the world:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=108982§ionid=351020101
And who is Jundullah, I don’t hear you ask? Why, its the CIA’s very own brand new Al Qaeda!
06/09/09
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/jun/1092.html
We know what they tell us we are there for. But what are we there for
I thought this was an interesting angle of the subject.
With respect Brendon (and I don’t mean that with any sincerity) in an area of the world filled with so much disinformation it would be prudent to await more information before jumping to such a firm conclusion as you have.
China seems to be doing very well out of Americas recent military adventures.
GregM,
maybe if you were more literate on the subject(and I do mean that with sincerity), it would not be news to you.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
Patrick @ 21 – ex-Green Beret – defintitely not a waana be – he is the real deal.
John Faulkner…the Labor Left eh…(titter)…
“The American General who led coalition forces in Iraq during the surge has been presented with an honorary Order of Australia.
The head of US Central command, David Petraeus, was appointed an honorary officer of the Order of Australia at a ceremony in Washington.
The four-star general was nominated for his leadership of coalition forces in Iraq for 18 months from January 2007.
Defence Minister John Faulkner presented the insignia to General Petraeus, describing him as a very good friend of Australia.”