I'm watching BBC World News' coverage of the British Army's offensive in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, and they're showing allegedly in-combat footage of their embedded correspondent commenting on the events unfolding, and I'm having some cognitive dissidence. What is the point of wearing camouflaged armour if you're going to be standing in the midst of a man wearing contrasting body armour and a cameraman? It just seems like a good way to give away your position.
Am I crazy for thinking this, or is the British Army crazy for doing it?
The tactical wisdom of embedded journalists
Because it's the standard uniform for combat in the region and you're not going to be standing next to a reporter and cameraman at all times.
yeah... I don't think it's a good idea. I don't think soldiers need reporters stumbling around, and I don't think it's important for joe the baker or sally the hairdresser to see what goes on over there... but as long as people are still curious, then they'll keep showing it and bringing in the viewers $$$
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@CitizenKane: But it's not just a blue armour plate, it's also camera lighting.
Also it's frowned upon to fire upon 'light' targets, a lot of correspondants and medic personnel distinctively wear lighter plates to specifically show they shouldnt be targeted.
I can speak on this from the perspective of a soldier. While in Fallujah each and every platoon had at least 1 journalist embedded with them. The reporters get in the way almost all the time. I can only remember 1 guy that had a brain in his head that knew to stay the fuck out of the way. They are more of a nuisance than anything else, because we have to make sure they stay alive, all while making sure we do our job at the same time. Also, when stress levels are at their peak, the last thing a soldier or marine wants is some camera in his face. At any rate, to answer the question, no I don't think they need to be on the battlefield. The battlefield is for soldiers, not civilians. I can understand why they are there, but they could potentially compromise a mission while doing their job.
The camo isn't being worn for stealth purposes in this instance - the huge dustcloud from the vehicles will take care of that - it serves primarily to break up your outline and make target acquisition harder. Think Zebras, same deal. If stealth was a factor then obviously the journos wouldn't be there.
There is no tactical advantage to them being there, but I doubt they're much of a hinderance either. I guess there are strategic and political benefits that make it worthwhile (public support, army recruitment etc.).
Also it gives the stupid hippies at home a good idea of what's going on. I'm assuming all the marines are happy as a pig in shit to actually be doing their job rather than hanging out in the fire hall or whatever. But then all these old people, and highschool dropouts, and liberals see this and start whining rather than supporting. Journalists should do what they did best before Vietnam and take some nice victory photo's, lie about casualties, and in general make shit up.
" @Suicrat: War correspondents have been around since World War I with Davis and Swope. People want to know what goes on in the midst of a battlefield and hear(now see) what it is like to be a soldier. People have romanticized the glory of soldiers since battles were first waged. It intrigues us. "Si!
If a journalist gets in my way during combat when I'm deployed next year, I'll probably kick his ass or something. Getting combat footage that's decent quality has its place, but our job comes first. We're not performers, we're here to work. Your protecting your life, and the lives of trained men around you. An untrained civilian can only cause problems depending on the level of combat you're in.
" Also it gives the stupid hippies at home a good idea of what's going on. I'm assuming all the marines are happy as a pig in shit to actually be doing their job rather than hanging out in the fire hall or whatever. But then all these old people, and highschool dropouts, and liberals see this and start whining rather than supporting. Journalists should do what they did best before Vietnam and take some nice victory photo's, lie about casualties, and in general make shit up. "
In a somewhat related story: When our Canadian military was first sent to Afghanistan in 2001, our soldiers were wearing green fatigues. Blatently underlining the funding issues our military has. It should be said that this problem was corrected some months after, and the soldiers were given desert fatigues.
" Also it gives the stupid hippies at home a good idea of what's going on. I'm assuming all the marines are happy as a pig in shit to actually be doing their job rather than hanging out in the fire hall or whatever. But then all these old people, and highschool dropouts, and liberals see this and start whining rather than supporting. Journalists should do what they did best before Vietnam and take some nice victory photo's, lie about casualties, and in general make shit up. "Should I be looking for a general theme like in a "StopArrestingMe" comment? Or is this just basic sarcasm?
OK libs looks like my profile is pissing you all off and the fact that I will shoot you if you enter my house is really making your blood boil. Well maybe you guys should jet from my profile if I bother you that much but I will not apologize. Your no saints yourselfs. As for me Im an American MAN and a patriot and any burglar or steeler trying to break into my house and steel my shiat will have to deal with my colt m1900 and get sunk like the titanic. I will buc him like a bronco as us Texans say. Sorry libs Im not lion, this is the truth. Im not trying to be an internet toughguy, cowboy, viking or whatever, Im just saying in this country we have the right to bear arms or pack heat and its been that way since we took this land from the redskins. And it will stay that way as long as I am out there watching you libs like a giant hawk or falcon, making sure you dont ruin this great nation. Evertytime I sea a bald eagle I swell up with pride over how great America is, founded on the love of life liberty and most importantly property. If some guy raids my property I will kill the raider because this is America. I drive aJaguar which I EARNED and also other valuables like my daughter and her dolphin earrings and bengals I bought her for Christmas. Some guy trying to steel these? I will ram his face with my gun before I make him beg for his life. Sorry chief, but you should have thought about your life before you broke in the house of this 49 year old red blooded American MAN. And no I am not going to spare you just because your Brown that would be playing the race card which is a cardinal sin. Maybe you should have stayed in the black panthers or something. Charge it to the game and the time has come to pay your bill BOOM HEADSHOT and now your dead. Will you break into houses anymore? Quote the raven "nevermore". Lesson leaned libs. Next time DONT BREAK INTO PEOPLE HOUSES.I love StopArrestingMe. But did I miss any?
Uhh, yes, Patriot, Giant, and Lion.
Anyways, there are many interesting comments, though if possible, I'd like to hear more from a person who has experienced this phenomenon firsthand,
@Out_On_Bail said:
" I can speak on this from the perspective of a soldier. While in Fallujah each and every platoon had at least 1 journalist embedded with them. The reporters get in the way almost all the time. I can only remember 1 guy that had a brain in his head that knew to stay the fuck out of the way. They are more of a nuisance than anything else, because we have to make sure they stay alive, all while making sure we do our job at the same time. Also, when stress levels are at their peak, the last thing a soldier or marine wants is some camera in his face. At any rate, to answer the question, no I don't think they need to be on the battlefield. The battlefield is for soldiers, not civilians. I can understand why they are there, but they could potentially compromise a mission while doing their job.On a side note, another platoon in my company had a civilian contractor with them. In the back of the Bradley he was checking his weapon and missfired. The ricochet bounced and hit my bud in the nut sack. So that might explain my reasoning for not wanting them on the battlefield."
Obviously I doubt you're at liberty to go into much detail, but any further insight would be illuminating.
Just read your blog, O_O_B.
I can't imagine what it's like to know so many people who have died in such a short time. My father and grandmother died within 3 days of eachother, but that's not really the same as seeing your friends and your boss get killed right in front of you.
It sucks the USMC gets all the headlines, but it seems like it's the U.S. Military's overall posterboy. "Look at how cool it is to be a Marine. You probably won't qualify, but at least all this flashiness will get you in the door."
It sucks.
You mentioned before how the embedded journalist with your unit kept on getting in the way earlier on, but did he ever cause extra casualties?
" @CitizenKane: But like I said, what I'm questioning is the tactical wisdom of it. "I don't really think it effects soldiers tactically. When reporters are on the battle field they are not just standing there like it is a regular report, there are ducking and trying to be safe.
" @Wolverine: Yeah, but like Out_On_Bail said (someone who, unlike the rest of us, has experienced it firsthand) it's an extra body to be mindful of, except this one can't defend himself "What is the solution? Not letting the media on the battlefield so the soldiers can worry about two less people? If you do that the public will have no clue about the wars their countries are fighting.
" @Wolverine: Or you could have guerilla journalists risking their lives on their own and providing a more balanced picture of the events.People got information about World War II, Korea, and Viet Nam without embedded journalists. How did that happen? "What?!?!? The whole reason Vietnam ended was because the American public was so against it after seeing the war on TV every night and realizing how gruesome it was. If it wasn't for the media Vietnam would have lasted longer.
" @Wolverine: And they weren't embedded with the unitsI'm not questioning the wisdom of journalists in the war zone, I'm questioning the wisdom of journalists embedded with military units. "That isn't true. I saw plenty of videos of journalists embedded with American units during the Vietnam war.
"Journalists should do what they did best before Vietnam and take some nice victory photo's, lie about casualties, and in general make shit up. "This sentiment isn't entirely without merit. Check out the British reporting during WW2, particularly the Battle of Britain, it's completely farcical. But does it help for the general population to know that you're rapidly running out of pilots, fighting alone and the situation is virtually hopeless? Not really. Much better to tell them Our Brave Boys shot down 300 ME109s for the loss of one Spitfire (whose pilot miraculously survived).
Post-WW2, the US military has been consistently hamstrung by the US population's tendency to eventually bottle it during any prolonged campaign. That is largely down to the 'advances' in media coverage.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment