Monday, January 04, 2010

Most recent Canadian deaths: A CF "cover up" at Kandahar?/Uppestdate: Matthew Fisher of Canwest News adds to the story

From Michael Yon (via Milnews.ca):
...

A reporter at Canwest News Service, emailed Saturday [Dec. 2] asking for information on the four Canadian soldiers and the journalist who were killed on December 30 in Afghanistan. I supplied a portion of the unpublicized information, and the reporter emailed Sunday that the Canadian military is “trying to suppress our telling of your information.”

The reporter also wrote, “While the Canadian military confirmed to me much of the information you provided, they are trying to prevent us from publishing it, saying it would breach our agency's embedding agreement.”

There is nothing classified or sensitive about the information supplied to Canwest. This smells of a classic cover-up that has nothing to do with winning or losing the war, but more likely something to do with saving embarrassment.

Some information provided to Canwest:

According to my sources, the attack happened during late afternoon on 30th. At least some of the Canadian soldiers had been dismounted doing an “engagement patrol” in district 2 of Kandahar. The soldiers and Canadian reporter Michelle Lang were in the area of the district center and the Dand district border. On the way out (apparently) a LAV (armored vehicle) was hit by the bomb on route “Molson,” flipping the LAV.

Four apparently died on scene. Sgt. Kirk Taylor apparently died at KAF or on the way to KAF (Kandahar Airfield). Five wounded were flown to Germany. One soldier was apparently thought to be dead, but was pulled from the wreckage about three hours after the blast and may have started showing signs of life during helicopter flight.

The five Canadians were killed with about 500lbs of explosives, apparently made from fertilizer, buried under route Molson in Kandahar...

It seems to me Mr Yon may be rather over-stating things; I do not see that there is any "saving embarrassment". It also seems to me that the sort of details given by him, especially in the last paragraph above, are not reported by our media. For whatever reason, presumably their own view of operational security and not fear of embarrassment, the CF apparently do not want such details made public.

This is from a CBC story on the deaths (via Douglas Shimizu in the "Comments" at Mr Yon's post):
...
The huge blast at about 4 a.m. local time occurred just 1,500 metres from the Dand district centre, which Canadian soldiers helped rebuild after a suicide bombing in April. The attack came during a community security patrol to gather information on the pattern of life and maintain security in the area...
Update: From Brian Platt to Adrian MacNair:
Michael Yon Hyperventilates Again

Another Yon FAIL...

...Previous Yon FAIL.
The last link deals with the Canadians and Arghandab district. More here on the US Army in the district recently.

Upperdate: American readers might like to take a look at this post, in which attention is drawn to US forces generally ignored by the Canadian media:
Afstan: Typical Canadian reporting--balderflippingdash, Part 2/Beyonder Uppestdate: "fair and balanced"--hurl
Uppestdate: Matthew Fisher of Canwest News, Canada's best war correspondent and just returned to Kandahar, adds to the story:
KANDAHAR AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — The explosion that killed journalist Michelle Lang and four Canadian soldiers last Wednesday was so massive that the 23-ton armoured vehicle that they were riding in was turned upside down and landed facing in the opposite direction.

"The vehicle flipped completely on its top about 10 metres away from the crater, off the road," Lt.-Col. Roch Pelletier, chief of operations for the Canadian brigade in Kandahar, said in an interview Monday.

"They probably managed to put the (improvised explosive device) under the road by digging a tunnel. It was something that was put in place a few days earlier. It was not a hasty IED, as we call them. It was deliberately planned ahead and took a long time to place . . . They dug it, they placed it properly. It was all set up."

There was no way that sentries on what was a routine patrol could have seen the IED buried on a muddy dirt road, Pelletier said, adding that the crews had carried out checks for "patterns of life," to see if people were behaving normally. There were no reports of anything unusual.

In military parlance, the IED was an HME or homemade explosive device, Pelletier said. While declining to say how big it was because of security concerns and because the incident remained the subject of an intensive investigation, he said it was "a large IED" of a type "they normally use. It was standard tactics. There was nothing new."..

Citing security reasons, the military would not say what kind of detonator that may have been used to trigger the explosion...

Reports this weekend on a U.S. blog about the war [emphasis added] in Afghanistan suggested that Canadian Forces had not provided details of the explosion because it was trying to cover up that it took as much as three hours to free one of those in the blast from the wreckage. Pelletier emphatically denied there was any kind of coverup.

"That is not the case at all," he said. "To extract them we called casevac and we did that quite fast.

"The casualties were here (Kandahar Airfield), most of them, within 30 minutes. The deceased, who are normally extracted later, were back after about an hour" because the wounded are always given priority and moved first...

Those who heard or saw the blast and were interviewed on Monday by an Afghan cameraman working for a joint CBC/Canwest Global pool, expressed no regrets over its lethal consequences. Nine NATO helicopters had quickly arrived over the scene, they said. This had scared them and their children as they feared they would be blamed for what had happened and would come under attack from the air...

Notwithstanding last week's horrific attack, security had been relatively good in that area, the 38-year old infantryman said.

"We are having success with those projects and with the civilians there because we employ them, so they turn in a lot of IEDs and provide us with quite good information on the insurgents," he said.

As a result of this, the insurgents were "being pushed right now by their commander to prove themselves," he said. "One of them tried to prove himself by going for a big hit."

Within 24 hours of the explosion, patrols from the PRT had returned to the same area, Pelletier said.

"It is not fun the day it happens, but the day after it was business as usual because we have to take care of these projects."
Then see this from BruceR. at Flit about Mr Yon:
For shame
And there was also this serious casualty:
Bushra Amjad Saeed, a 25-year-old Foreign Affairs officer from Ottawa, went to Afghanistan because she was passionate about making the world a better place, according to her friends.

Saeed, a University of Ottawa graduate from Orléans, was critically injured in the same roadside blast Dec. 30 that killed four Canadian soldiers and Michelle Lang, the first Canadian journalist to die in the eight-year conflict.

Saeed's parents and two sisters flew Sunday to the medical facility in Landstuhl, Germany [good on the Americans], where she is in critical, but stable condition.

Saeed worked out of the Lester B. Pearson building in Ottawa and was serving as a political officer to the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team...

8 Comments:

Blogger Terry Glavin said...

I suspect this will prove to be another non-story. I also suspect that if CF PAO's in Kandahar are attempting to "suppress anything," it might be: "One soldier was apparently thought to be dead, but was pulled from the wreckage about three hours after the blast and may have started showing signs of life during helicopter flight." For two reasons: It is embarrassing to CF personnel on the ground; I have't read this reported until now.

If that's the heretofore unreported and now "censored" information, I can't see how it would violate operational-security provisions in the embed agreement. If some PAO is claiming this, I would not be surprised that the Canwest reporter is displeased.

1:31 p.m., January 04, 2010  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Actually, Terry, there's at least one item in Yon's report that contravenes OPSEC, from what I can see: he put a range on our ECM capabilities. I actually revised our post to exclude that portion.

FYI, people I know at CEFCOM are puzzled by this. They've been in pretty much constant contact with CanWest since the day of the last IED, and according to them, relations couldn't be better.

1:36 p.m., January 04, 2010  
Blogger milnews.ca said...

Could someone be nervous about giving the amount of explosive needed to allegedly "flip" the vehicle? True, like the ECM distance, the bad guys would know how much they used, but share it more broadly than needed?

The reason this comes to mind is because in the past, I've consulted with folks who've "been there, done that" about some publicly-available CF documents that included specific details regarding how big a boom they'd be using to test certain items. This led me to pull such specific info about the size of the testing boom as well.

3:24 p.m., January 04, 2010  
Blogger Dave in Pa. said...

And another thing...I suppose it would be just too distasteful for the Ottawa Citizen journalist to name "the medical facility in Landstuhl, Germany". It's the US Army Regional Medical Center, a huge facility with state-of-the-art medical resources, where wounded American and many Allied warriors medivac'ed there (usually by USAF C-17s, with flight surgeons & flight nurses aboard); getting the best care that modern US military medicine can provide.

I hope I don't seem jingoistic or anything, it's just that I can't remember any reference in the Canadian press to that US military hospital where it's actually named, or this US military contribution explained. Part of an ingracious journalistic meme, as I see it.

8:53 p.m., January 05, 2010  
Blogger Mark, Ottawa said...

Dave in Pa.: You're not being "jingoistic". The "ingracious journalistic meme" is why I included the link to the hospital. Thank you, Americans.

Mark
Ottawa

10:16 p.m., January 05, 2010  
Blogger Jim said...

Reports this weekend on a U.S. blog about the war in Afghanistan suggested that Canadian Forces had not provided details of the explosion because [emphasis added] it was trying to cover up that it took as much as three hours to free one of those in the blast from the wreckage. Pelletier emphatically denied there was any kind of coverup.

Which blogger did this? If you want to emphasize this paragraph, it would be nice if you cited the post the paragraph references, instead of Michael Yon's piece.

Also, maybe I'm completely ignorant, but I don't see the ECM information that is alleged to be there. Naturally, the radio receiver would have to be outside the ECM bubble otherwise the bomb wouldn't have exploded. That the wire used was such-and-such long, while interesting, still doesn't tell you the range of the ECM effect, as you need to know where the center of the ECM generator is in order to figure that out. That is information which Yon does not supply.

Now, the actual issue may be that Yon needs to check his sources more carefully. But, to an extent, this issue proves his point: "Insofar as the apparent censorship attempts by the Canadian military, any censorship of non-classified information is fraught with peril. Both the British and U.S. military have at times done the same, leading to non-productive confrontations for everyone involved."

6:47 a.m., January 06, 2010  
Blogger Chris Taylor said...

Disappointed in Mr. Yon, to say the least.

While the ECM angle does have potential OPSEC implications, the fact is the enemy is well aware of the range of the CF's jammers, has adopted a countermeasure to get around it, and knows the effectiveness because they were there to command-detonate it and saw the aftermath firsthand.

Strictly speaking, Yon is not revealing anything the enemy doesn't already know.

8:10 a.m., January 06, 2010  
Blogger Babbling Brooks said...

Fair comments from both Jim and Chris. One point I'd make in rebuttal though: if the CF is trying to protect Operations Security through restrictions on certain types of information about CF capabilities, BDA, etc., and if the Canwest journalist in question and his employer has signed the embed agreement in full understanding of the limitations that imposes upon him or her, then Yon's not the guy who gets to decide what's critical to Operations Security and what's not. That should be between the CF and the reporter in question.

Yon's cry of censorship is a bit rich. If the CF was interested in censorship for its own sake, Michelle Lang never would have been in the LAV in the first place.

While many readers around here have a military background, and understand what OPSEC means, I think it might be instructive to do a more general post explaining it for the layman. I'll see if I can put something up in the next couple of days...

10:12 a.m., January 06, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home