Fundamentally clueless
Yesterday afternoon, I was in a doctor's office getting some inoculations and chatting with the doctor about what I do, both for a living, and as a hobby on this blog. We were discussing the mainstream media, and their level of expertise on the subject matter on which they report: namely how, with some notable exceptions, it's deplorable on defence issues. How can the public trust what they say when they display such obvious ignorance of martial matters?
The editorial writers at The Montreal Gazette provide the latest case in point:
Where to begin?
Firstly, the issue of secrecy is a challenging one for the CF. Some things, like operational security (OPSEC) matters, should remain secret. Period. So the problem isn't secrecy, per se, but rather finding the necessary balance between secrecy and public openness. In this case, the only real question is why it took two months for the allegations against Capt Semrau to reach senior commanders in theatre. Because once they knew about the allegations, it was only a matter of days before the public was notified of the investigation.
Secondly, the idea that being in Afghanistan "in a teaching capacity" with the OMLT precludes being in battle displays an astonishing level of ignorance about the subject. Canadian mentors lead ANSF troops in the field, in order to train them. In the military, teaching almost always involves setting an example in practice. And if the Gazette's editorialists had bothered to do even the most basic research about what the OMLT does, they wouldn't have asked such an inane question.
Type in Operational Mentor Liaison Team into Google, and the very first search result is this NATO primer, which lays out pretty explicitly that "Brigade and Kandak OMLTs deploy throughout Afghanistan with their ANA partner units."
This article in The Maple Leaf also makes the work of the OMLT clear:
Canadian soldiers like Capt Jon Snyder have died while patrolling with their Afghan units. Canadian soldiers like Maj Michel Lapointe have been decorated for their actions under fire while mentoring Afghan troops.
I could go on about the lack of professionalism this ignorance shows - because the information is all publicly available to anyone with an internet search engine - but I won't. I'll move on.
Thirdly, the idea that Canadian soldiers don't understand their Rules of Engagement (ROE) is patently ridiculous. These standards are drilled into them during pre-deployment training back in Canada. They're also briefed and reinforced on the ground in theatre. If, and I say again IF, one particular Canadian soldier decided to work outside of those ROE, that doesn't provide a shred of evidence that Canadian soldiers in general don't understand their ROE.
Fourthly, the binary choice provided by The Gazette - "Either an innocent man died or he is facing groundless charges" - is a false one. I'm speculating here, with no inside knowledge. But if, for example, a Canadian soldier were to shoot a wounded and disarmed Taliban detainee, he would hardly be killing an innocent man, and yet he should be charged with a grave offence under military law. The editorialists at The Gazette would have done well to explore the full spectrum of possibilities with someone familiar with such situations before spouting off as they did.
Such journalistic malpractice does nothing to inspire confidence in the mainstream media, especially for those of us who already regard it with a deservedly jaundiced eye.
Surprisingly, The Toronto Star does a bit better with its editorial:
A researched and well-argued call for some additional information, like The Star has done, comes across much better than The Gazette's embarrassingly ill-informed piece.
The editorial writers at The Montreal Gazette provide the latest case in point:
One of the key lessons Somalia was supposed to have taught the military is that secrecy tends to backfire. Yet here we are asking basic questions: If Semrau was in Afghanistan in a teaching capacity, why was he involved in a battle? And why did it take more than two months for the NIS to start an investigation?
As Semrau awaits his hearing before a military judge in Canada, the Canadian public must insist that everything about this judicial process be open. As well, members of Canada's armed forces need to know what the rules of engagement are.
Captain Semrau faces serious charges: Either an innocent man died or he is facing groundless charges. His hearing is a fact-finding mission - one that must be public.
Where to begin?
Firstly, the issue of secrecy is a challenging one for the CF. Some things, like operational security (OPSEC) matters, should remain secret. Period. So the problem isn't secrecy, per se, but rather finding the necessary balance between secrecy and public openness. In this case, the only real question is why it took two months for the allegations against Capt Semrau to reach senior commanders in theatre. Because once they knew about the allegations, it was only a matter of days before the public was notified of the investigation.
Secondly, the idea that being in Afghanistan "in a teaching capacity" with the OMLT precludes being in battle displays an astonishing level of ignorance about the subject. Canadian mentors lead ANSF troops in the field, in order to train them. In the military, teaching almost always involves setting an example in practice. And if the Gazette's editorialists had bothered to do even the most basic research about what the OMLT does, they wouldn't have asked such an inane question.
Type in Operational Mentor Liaison Team into Google, and the very first search result is this NATO primer, which lays out pretty explicitly that "Brigade and Kandak OMLTs deploy throughout Afghanistan with their ANA partner units."
This article in The Maple Leaf also makes the work of the OMLT clear:
Maj Price believes mentoring involves establishing rapport and it’s a two-way street. “It’s being seen as a warrior in his eyes, as he is in mine,” he explains. To establish that kind of relationship demands that they work, live and fight together. [Babbler's bold]
Canadian soldiers like Capt Jon Snyder have died while patrolling with their Afghan units. Canadian soldiers like Maj Michel Lapointe have been decorated for their actions under fire while mentoring Afghan troops.
I could go on about the lack of professionalism this ignorance shows - because the information is all publicly available to anyone with an internet search engine - but I won't. I'll move on.
Thirdly, the idea that Canadian soldiers don't understand their Rules of Engagement (ROE) is patently ridiculous. These standards are drilled into them during pre-deployment training back in Canada. They're also briefed and reinforced on the ground in theatre. If, and I say again IF, one particular Canadian soldier decided to work outside of those ROE, that doesn't provide a shred of evidence that Canadian soldiers in general don't understand their ROE.
Fourthly, the binary choice provided by The Gazette - "Either an innocent man died or he is facing groundless charges" - is a false one. I'm speculating here, with no inside knowledge. But if, for example, a Canadian soldier were to shoot a wounded and disarmed Taliban detainee, he would hardly be killing an innocent man, and yet he should be charged with a grave offence under military law. The editorialists at The Gazette would have done well to explore the full spectrum of possibilities with someone familiar with such situations before spouting off as they did.
Such journalistic malpractice does nothing to inspire confidence in the mainstream media, especially for those of us who already regard it with a deservedly jaundiced eye.
Surprisingly, The Toronto Star does a bit better with its editorial:
When the United States military charged Staff Sgt. Jess Cunningham last Nov. 20 with murder in Iraq, the public was given a sparse but coherent account of his alleged crime: Near Baghdad, he and other members of his unit took several male prisoners "of apparent Middle Eastern descent" to the banks of a canal in 2007 and shot them dead.
And when the U.S. charged Pte. Bobby Morrissette with manslaughter on Oct. 7, the public was told he belonged to a gang that beat Sgt. Juwan Johnson to death in 2005 in Kaiserslautern, Germany, he took part in gang rituals, and he tried to impede investigators.
Military prosecutors don't give away much. There wasn't a lot of detail on the charge sheets. But there was enough for the American public to form an appreciation of what the soldiers were accused of doing.
Compare that with the Canadian military's recent handling of alleged wrongdoing by Capt. Robert Semrau in Afghanistan. Semrau was a Canadian military mentor to the Afghan army who took part in a fierce and chaotic three-day battle in October at Lashkar Gah, the provincial capital, in which 100 Taliban were reported killed.
On Friday the Canadian Forces announced Semrau had been charged on Dec. 31 with second-degree murder for shooting an unarmed "presumed insurgent" in Helmand province around Oct. 19.
That's it. The military offered no information about the precise location, the circumstances of the alleged crime, the victim's name or age, whether he was not only disarmed but also in custody, or any other details. Nor was there any explanation of why it has taken 2 1/2 months for the incident to come to light.
A researched and well-argued call for some additional information, like The Star has done, comes across much better than The Gazette's embarrassingly ill-informed piece.
posted by Babbling Brooks at 10:28 a.m.
1 Comments:
Start with the proposition that as a group the MSMers are the stupidest of humanity.
Post a Comment
<< Home