On not giving a lawyer's - I mean a rat's ass
"The unfortunate part of this business is we still kill innocent people.... How we're different from the Taliban is the Taliban doesn't give a rat's ass," Fraser said.
As further evidence of that fact, I would draw your attention to this goat:
That particular goat was given by the Canadian task force to an Afghan family as part of a compensatory arrangement after the shooting death of one of their family in Kandahar.
A shooting Canadian soldiers took no part in, mind you.
Tell me again just how the CF is screwing this mission up by the numbers?
Back to the main story, though: BGen Fraser's remarks about lawyerly advice. Personally, I wish our commanders took less of it. Lawyers get relieved if they don't help their commander minimize legal risk inherent to the mission. Lawyers don't get relieved if the mission fails due to lack of public support. Or, as a friend in uniform put it to me recently, "Public Affairs Officers tell commanders to say it all and say it quickly. Legal Officers tell that same commander to say little, and say it bit by bit, only when pressed."
Given the fact that currently the biggest threat to the Afghan mission is lack of domestic political support, with all due respect to BGen Fraser, I'd say the brass should be listening more to PAffOs and less to lawyers these days.
Of course, I'm not the one subject to prosecution if I get it wrong in the field, so your mileage may vary...
posted by Babbling Brooks at 9:49 a.m.
5 Comments:
It should be neither PAffOs nor lawyers working out the message. Instead, there should be a line officer determining what should be said, with victory the goal, just as the artillery and logistics staffs do their job with victory in mind. If senior officers end up getting prosecuted, that is just one of the risks of the job: lower ranks risk death and injury in order to achieve victory, and senior officers may need to risk prosecution or conviction.
You say that PAffOs shouldn't be the ones working out the message, but rather a line officer. But you go on to point out that artillery and logistics staffs are trusted to do their job.
Public Affairs is a specialty; you wouldn't ask an infantry soldier to drive a destroyer, and you wouldn't ask a logistics officer to lob shells at the enemy. Likewise, you should trust the PAffO to craft the message and have those executing the mission deliver it for maximum credibility.
Part of what I've been arguing here in this space is that Public Affairs is actually a front-line position in the most critical battle the CF is fighting: the battle for public support by the Canadian voter. All of its missions are in jeopardy unless they have that support. And they're not going to obtain it or sustain it without better messaging.
I bow to your superior knowledge. If PAffO is viewed as a front-line position, that would do the job. The main thing is that the PAffO's should view the purpose of any message as victory, and not as, say, keeping the public informed, or anything else. As you say, the goal is to keep public support. Of course, for long term success, the message will need to be pretty close to the truth.
"Of course, for long term success, the message will need to be pretty close to the truth."
In a democracy, I'm hoping this means only info covered under PERSEC and OPSEC rules. After all, the motto of the PAffO folks is, "Veritas".
Even though the PAffOs are the messaging experts, we have to remember that ALL members of the team are in the comms business - that's the tougher part of the equation, keeping message consistency across the team.
Good discussion!
Even though the PAffOs are the messaging experts, we have to remember that ALL members of the team are in the comms business - that's the tougher part of the equation, keeping message consistency across the team.
Well said, Tony.
Post a Comment
<< Home