Afghanistan

[MaverickMike 10]

I hope i dont start a political argument here. If this is the case moderators can delete

 

Having recently watched the news and a topic about the war in afghanistan im beginning to the think the media are trying to turn people against this war. The more of this im seeing the more the media seem to have a negative attitude (in Britain at least) toward what our boys are doing out there. With the economic situation the way it is maybe it would be better to bring the lads home, but that would be completely ridiculous. I believe we went out there to do a job and we should finish it. According to survey results released by the media earlier 80% of people questioned believed we should bring the soldiers home. I personally find this disgusting. The way the media carry are carrying on they will turn this war into another vietnam and have people turning on the soldiers.

 

Just wondering whether or not this is the same in the U.S?

 

Mike

[+Dave 2,322]

The media always hates the military.

[MaverickMike 10]

The media always hates the military.

 

I just can't understand why attempt to turn people against the military. Personally i think it should'nt be allowed. They always seem to show the negative part of the war i.e. how many soldiers have been killed today, and not the positive thing they are doing.

 

Mike

[MigBuster 2,884]

The Media have been against both wars since day 1 - although I was actually thinking their attitude had got better over the past few years - although im talking about the BBC - because tbh I havnt read a paper (yesterdays news) for years.

 

IMO they havn't critised the troops - the main story is always how the government is not giving the troops what it needs. The objectives were too ambitious and well under funded.

 

To be fair to labour they are getting new vehicles out there - although even the newer ones like the Viking have been had by the shaped charged IEDs

 

Weve lost 15 this week but - its a major offensive!! what do they think war is - are the press retarded or just trying to stir up opinion (ok both)

 

Ok Afganistan UK dead is 184 in 8 years! - and its manly down to driving those pathetic snatch landrovers (be just as safe driving a Ford Fiesta!!) - and of course the Nimrod that came down due to an electrical fault (you could say why is a jet based on the Comet still flying!!) - the press never put sown real comparisons so i will

 

So:

 

2001 to 2009 - 8 years in Afghanistan - 184 UK Dead

1964 - 1972 - 8 year Vietnam war >65,000 US dead

1916 1st July Battle of the Somme - 20,000 (UK only) dead in 1 day

[eraser_tr 29]

The coverage I've seen has been fairly positive, the population tipping us off to taliban ambushes and having cleared out towns they had been holding.

[MaverickMike 10]

Weve lost 15 this week but - its a major offensive!! what do they think war is - are the press retarded or just trying to stir up opinion (ok both)

 

Thats exactly my point. Given that the troops have been given shoddy equipment the death toll should be much higher, the reason that it isnt the case is because of the training, discipline and hard work of the troops, yet the media are more concerned with the negative aspects than publicly praising the troops, typical example is the 15 killed this week. this sounds bad when said this way, yet if the media gave a counterbalance to this statement saying how many taliban were killed or captured it would make it that much better. I think if the general public are not aware of the situation and are only watching or reading what the media are saying then they will begin to turn against the war. I really hope this does not happen.

 

Mike

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

Just a few thoughts on this subject in general,

First off, the media will always play on peoples emotions, because it ALWAYS gets a response. Good or bad, I dont think it matters to them, because our paying attention to them is what defines they're existance, therefore any garunteed reaction will do. Hell, in a mothers eyes, one lost in combat is too much, ya know? Where does each persons level of "acceptibal loss" come in to play?

And the terms, "pro war" and "anti war", kinda leave me baffled. I meen, who can say that they are "pro war"? That you actively support the killing of other people? Not seeing family for years on end, and sometimes never again. Destruction of land that ultimately supports us. Peoples livelyhoods, the list goes on. Yeah, there are always going to be a few that do, but then, even they are needed when conflicts arise.

And the "got a job to do so lets do it" thing. If someone could actually tell me exactly what that job is, Id be gratefull. I guess thats almost a loaded question, considering we seem to be in a few places at the same time, i.e. afghanistan, Iraq, SOUTH-FREAKIN-KOREA. (yeah, that whole thing is a burr under my saddle)

I meen, we got saddam, check.

liberated kuwait, check.

found weapons of mass,,,,oh wait, we never got a straight answer on that one from uncle sam, did we?

 

Meh, I guess I'll stop before I get into the mosquito abatement problems in my local area.

Many facets to this ugly little rock, huh?

[+EricJ 4,245]

The Media have been against both wars since day 1 - although I was actually thinking their attitude had got better over the past few years - although im talking about the BBC - because tbh I havnt read a paper (yesterdays news) for years.

 

IMO they havn't critised the troops - the main story is always how the government is not giving the troops what it needs. The objectives were too ambitious and well under funded.

 

To be fair to labour they are getting new vehicles out there - although even the newer ones like the Viking have been had by the shaped charged IEDs

 

In fairness EFPs are a killer to alot of vehicles, thank god they weren't in Afghanistan...

 

Well also results are just as sketchy on the ground as it is, so while news coverage of one offensive is just that, a coverage of ONE offensive. There's alot of firefights where the T-ban have bit the bullet, but not much of that gets publicized. One of my Companies shut down the Korengal... and it took like almost maybe two months or so for word to get out, so there's good, but a mortar attack that went wrong was on CNN in 24 hours, so like everybody else said, they go for sensationalism, not praise. Hell during my tour in Iraq you never hear about the actual good we were doing over there while I was with Civil Affairs. Bad news sells.

[GwynO 16]

Meh, I guess I'll stop before I get into the mosquito abatement problems in my local area.

Many facets to this ugly little rock, huh?

 

They can't stand deet, citronella or Frank Zappa music. I loath mozzies too, place is crawling with them. But about the media, war and what not.. seems to be a general resentment at all levels about what we are actually doing, i.e. what are the criteria before we can say ok, mission accomplished now let's get out of here, certainly it won't be when we capture Osama since likely that would neither soften or deter the suicide bombers and their masters.

 

We are fighting an ideology, and just as we found out in WW2 with the ultra fascist brainwashed zombies that were the SS and so on.. it takes a lot more than a few thousand people to do that. Realistically we can't win this war through conventional warfare alone since the ideologues won't come out on a front line to fight, possibly having a million or more troops to go house to house would help eradicate the current cohort of insurgents, but there would always be the ideologues left hiding behind their civilian apparel, and they would continue to poison the minds of those ignorant enough to fall under their spell. Hence the battle for hearts and minds, the attempts to improve education, medicine, sanitation and so on in Afghanistan is as vital as hunting the Taleban because not only we have to kill the buggers, we have to make sure the next generation actually have something to loose and nothing to gain from joining them in the first place, this is why the Taleban hate our construction work there, it reduces their grip on the population because most Afghans just as anyone else don't want to live in the 7th century.

[+Dave 2,322]

100% right on the money gwar!

 

The lets get the job done though is used in the incorrect context as opposed to someone in the military saying it. When we say it, it means, we have been given a mission and its needs to get done. When the media uses it, they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Pro-war? What a dumb term. I mean if you are for war, (because that is what pro means) and everything that goes with it, you are one sick person. I have a job to do and I will do it. I sure the hell would prefer not to.

[firehawkordy 34]

My 2 cents for what it's worth,

 

First off most of you know my son was deployed to that AO, he is home now with a fu**ed up knee. Thankfully that was non-combat, but my point is that 2nd Bn Marines have been waiting to take a whole lot of hurt and bad news to the Taliban and their allies and according to my kid they have the tools needed to do the job. I won't make it easy for a bedsheet wearing bandit to know just what those tools are but fu** the press and fu** the opinion polls. Let these troops do their job and if an embedded reporter pulls what that one in Iraq did about shooting wounded terrorists, may he catch a stray 5.45mm round. I may not have a kid in harm's way, well in sense I do, one my VA members is over there as a Marine Rifleman, but keeping a muzzle on the press would help the troops out a great deal.

 

I have no respect for the media in general but if they are going to report on a war they should report only the facts and not try to sway public opinion one way or another. If the press of a country bill themselves as the "conscious" of society then they should be calling politicians, both left and right, to account and keeping big business honest and let the war fighters do their job in peace ( no pun intended ).

 

Just my opinion, I don't care if you don't agree.

 

Rant mode ON/OFF

[DWCAce 19]

Will this muzzle do?

 

 

I'm all for freedom of speech and freedom of press, but sometimes there's a need to STFU.

[+EricJ 4,245]

100% right on the money gwar!

 

The lets get the job done though is used in the incorrect context as opposed to someone in the military saying it. When we say it, it means, we have been given a mission and its needs to get done. When the media uses it, they have no idea what they are talking about.

 

Pro-war? What a dumb term. I mean if you are for war, (because that is what pro means) and everything that goes with it, you are one sick person. I have a job to do and I will do it. I sure the hell would prefer not to.

 

I never quite stomached the idea of "embedding" journalists anyways. The most one I remember is a reporter talking out of the front hatch of a recovery vehicle during the invasion of Iraq, just right under the .50... Sure he could duck down when and if stuff happened, but still compromised the arc of the gunner, and would have hurt the poor guy's ear when it did go off. Plus it takes away manpower that you do need when you're on the ground because you have to give up space for the reporter and his cameraman.

 

Not to say free press shouldn't happen, but there's a line between OPSEC and reality. Reporters often forget that sometimes because that one dumb reporter/cameraman can compromise your mission because he/she is there and naturally doesn't know what to do or expect, so it's a hassle that needs not be there.

[+ST0RM 145]

Frankly, I feel the media is as worse an enemy to us, as the Taliban or Al Qaeda. As has been said, they report on what will get them the highest ratings. If it means giving the military a black eye, so be it. It's in the name of giving the public "the truth". The truth? Give me a break.

 

Journalism is only a means for one or a few to get their point of view out to millions. To me it's just more propaganda.

 

On that note, see my next post.

[serverandenforcer 33]

Frankly, I feel the media is as worse an enemy to us, as the Taliban or Al Qaeda. As has been said, they report on what will get them the highest ratings. If it means giving the military a black eye, so be it. It's in the name of giving the public "the truth". The truth? Give me a break.

 

Journalism is only a means for one or a few to get their point of view out to millions. To me it's just more propaganda.

 

On that note, see my next post.

 

 

It's called divide and conquer. Get the people against it's government by starting a revolt by reports of false facts. Overthrow the existing government, media heads come in to power and control the gullible public as the new ruling authority. Since they control the media, they can now broadcast "positive" news to the public to make it seem like they're doing an excellent job. However, since they don't have a clue on how to run a government and hate the military, as the liberal nut jobs as they are, they disband the armed forces, put the country into bankruptcy by handing out stimulus packages left and right, national moral is at an all time low, and it's the perfect setting for a quasi Al Queda / Taliban type force to storm in, be-head all the moronic media heads, install a dictatorship, and the gullible public now get the reality of the situation.

 

I know, I know, very far fetch. Where's my tinfoil hat now.

 

Fortunately, the majority of the American people are too lazy to really go out and overthrow a government. They just sit, complain, and if they do go out and do something, they just walk around the streets with stupid signs, backing up going home traffic on a Monday afternoon.

However, if the Lakers were to win another championship at the same time, then you might get an armed response from the folks in L.A. Except they'll be killing each other because they have no clue who to really shoot at.

[+hgbn 91]

Well people seems to have forgotten 9/11 in the first place. Just wonder how many terrorist attacks there would have been in the US and Europe if Tban wasnt removed from power. Then Osama would still have his free haven. War is awfull but sometimes it needed. Support your troops I do

[+ST0RM 145]

I got into this discussion once with some random person while at an airshow, of all places. An older couple approached my group as we were photographing the show. They asked if we were professional photographers and we explained that we were Air Force. Long story short, the older lady asked if I had been deployed. I said "yes, many times." Well she went on to tell me that she was for the troops, but against the war.

 

I didn't say it there, but it got me thinking. Can you be for the troops, but against the war? What we are doing in this war is our main job. To fight. So if you are against the fight, then aren't you really against us?

[ONETINSOLDIER 2]

@ serverandenforcer, far fetched?, yer closer to it than you think

@ storm, yeah, you can be, hard to explain I guess, but yeah

[MaverickMike 10]

Reporters often forget that sometimes because that one dumb reporter/cameraman can compromise your mission because he/she is there and naturally doesn't know what to do or expect, so it's a hassle that needs not be there.

 

I remember seeing a news broadcast at the beginning of the current operation where a journalist was standing next to an armoured vehicle and he blatantly said which FOB they were at and that the troops behind him where getting ready to move out to this particular area to clear out the suspected taliban stronghold. (sorry guys can't remember the exact details) I sat there stunned, WHAT MORE OF A WARNING DO THE TALIBAN NEED!!!!!!!!

 

Mike

[Gr.Viper 131]

Can you be for the troops, but against the war?

Well, as you said the troops are doing their job. The better they do it the safer they are. At the same time it's not the troops who decide that some war is necessary, it is someone at the back, while the troops are supposed to follow the orders. It seems quite natural to be against the idea of putting lots of people at risk for a goal you don't find reasonable and to wish them success and a safe and sound return.

 

I sat there stunned, WHAT MORE OF A WARNING DO THE TALIBAN NEED!

When there was a hostage situation here in a theatre in Moscow, the reporters announced the beginning of the police assault and have shown squads entering the building. Live. Since then they've got a bunch of restrictions stuffed up their backside.

[+EricJ 4,245]

I remember seeing a news broadcast at the beginning of the current operation where a journalist was standing next to an armoured vehicle and he blatantly said which FOB they were at and that the troops behind him where getting ready to move out to this particular area to clear out the suspected taliban stronghold. (sorry guys can't remember the exact details) I sat there stunned, WHAT MORE OF A WARNING DO THE TALIBAN NEED!!!!!!!!

 

Mike

 

I'm sure they still go through Army (or Marine) channels for what's releasable, and if it's the Helmand operation that everybody else knows about, then it's kinda a no biggie. But it doesn't matter in any case, the Taliban has a real solid information network when patrols are going out, and which direction, and depending on the shadiness of the Afghans riding with you as well. Let's not get into the train of thought that the Taliban are stupid, they're just not.

[JediMaster 451]

I got into this discussion once with some random person while at an airshow, of all places. An older couple approached my group as we were photographing the show. They asked if we were professional photographers and we explained that we were Air Force. Long story short, the older lady asked if I had been deployed. I said "yes, many times." Well she went on to tell me that she was for the troops, but against the war.

 

I didn't say it there, but it got me thinking. Can you be for the troops, but against the war? What we are doing in this war is our main job. To fight. So if you are against the fight, then aren't you really against us?

 

 

Quite easy, really. It's another way of saying you disagree with the administration that sent them there. To say if you don't support the war you can't support the troops is a little like saying the NRA is wrong and you can't just blame the person (President) you have to also blame the gun (troops).

Besides, while a soldier is trained to fight, to say it's the main job implies a time of peace is a waste for a soldier. The job is to defend the country, and if that defense takes the form of being such a scary badass that no one wants to fight you, you've done the job superbly!

 

After all, combat in the first place is an acknowledgement of a failure by those at the top to prevent it. That's THEIR job, the troops by themselves can't prevent a war, they can only win one they're told to fight.

[Ruggbutt 45]

Bad news sells.

Spot on! News programs use advertising dollars to fund them and make profits. No one wants to watch a half hour of happy happy joy joy programming. Adultery, murder, robbery, etc are what people want to see. The news doesn't tell the truth, it spins the facts in the direction the programmers want in order to garner more viewers to see commercials and advertising.

 

The press would rather lie when the truth is much easier to state.

[Atreides 144]

The media always hates the military.

 

 

Maybe in the U.S but, not here every once in a while the media does an excellent documentary on the challenges our troops are facing and whenever a soldier falls they pay an emotional tribute to them. Also, here in Ontario whenever a soldier from Ontario is KIA and his body is being trasnported for a military burial people by the hundreds gather over a bridge to show their suport and now that highway over which the bridge is has been called "The Highway Of Heroes".

[+EricJ 4,245]

They do a similar event at Bagram, the "Fallen Hero Ceremony" where people line up along the route and pay tribute to the ones that fallen. Can be quite large depending on who's along the route, but it is a significant event on the airfield.