British MP: Canada complicit in Iraq war

[oyaguy]

Galloway, like Carolyn Parrish here in Canada is, himself, intelligent and experienced but is driven by heart rather than head.  He cannot get past the baggage which his completely uncritical support for the Palestinians creates and so he digs himself deeper and deeper into positions which are devoid of moral r intellectual merit but which, counter-intuitively, bring him more and more support.  Ask Ms. Parrish; I'll bet her support grew each time she slagged the USA and George Bush.

I must be the only one who thinks this, but I think that is a little unfair to Ms. Parrish.

She shot herself in the foot an alarming number of times and embarassed herself, and the Liberals (when she was a member), But I honestly cannot mentally equate Carolyn Parrish with George Galloway.
So while she may have said stupid anti-americanisms, she was always relatively harmless. She never seemed to go out of her way in that reguard(though she probably should have gone out of her way not to, too.), the way George Galloway has, and Carrolyn Parrish has never come across as an apologist for mass-murder, as George Galloway has.
They both shoot off their mouths in dumb ways, but Carolyn Parrish does not add up to a Canadian Galloway.

Though Mr. Edward Campbell does call it right when he says she is driven by heart more than mind. I just think comparing her to Galloway is little unfair.

I think for me, it comes down to me thinking Galloway is malicious in what he says and does, where Parrish said dumb things.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Hey para, I never meant to imply that there was an an absence of bias but rather that there are people better able to capitalize on our refusal to catch up with the modern world in terms of communications.

I am going to step off a limb here and suggest that Public Affairs has probably been given short shrift in todays CF simply due to its' lack of relevance to core capabilities. How does one counteract such an eventuality?

Personally I feel the CBC has done a better job than most would admit  simlpy due to its' mandate of reporting Canadian events from a Canadian perspective. Now if General Blowhard D. Numbnutz says screw the CBC or other media and passes that down the chain, it affects the perspective given by the media outlets with respect to our efforts.

For starters, there should be an outward focus on things like Truth, Duty, Valour (the show) or simply saturating media with better information about our activities. No innocuous statements like "we killed some Taliban, but I am not going to tell you how many".

I will give you an example: For the funeral of Smokey, there was a flypast by CF-18's in the missing man formation. That same day I was asked by most people I saw what the hell that booming sound in the morning was. Now, you tell me was this ineffective reportage by the media or was it an abrogation of the CF's duty to better inform? Upon whose shoulders does this responsibility lie?

 

[paracowboy]

didja miss the second part of my post, dude?

But, yes, we should be more proactive in putting our stories out there, and putting our spin on it. Which I think General Rick is on top of.

I agree, we need some serious PsyOps to counter-act that of Pravda the CBC.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

I have read and appreciated your posts. I don't feel we are diametrically opposed in our stance it's just that as a civilian I reflect on the information I receive coupled with that which I actively seek out. Hence my participation on this website.

As a result of this congruence of info, many flaws become readily apparent in the way things are done.

BTW screw this CBC bashing, would you rather that we just rely on Yank media? The fact is, and I have seen Bossi lament this fact before, as long as we hide our soldiers from public view in bases that are not well positioned to service media interest then we are not going to effectively counter the negativity that the CF arouses.

Most of this negativity is newfound and very recent simply due to the CF being forced to look inwards and  introspect on their navels while they had their budgets slashed as a result of fiscal constraint from Ottawa. We don't need PsyOps, what we need is Public Affairs, honest to god, boots on the ground, pipes on parade sort of Public affairs. People whose job it is to ensure the CF never leaves the public eye.

I use the SOMNIA website as my base expectation for CF news and it is not even funded by the bloody forces. Extra- curricular media sources should not be more prevalent than official CF source materials.

 

[KevinB]

PAO's are usually nto interested in getting the news out there - they are principally employeed to cover the Brass's ass in the last decade.

I think there is a HUGE change in policy with Gen Hillier - however that trade is a dinosaur...

Besides unless the mainstream media covers it the PAO's are left to the Maple Laugh or the Western Sniveller (or your local area rag)

 

[armyvern]

Lack of public affairs and spotlight on military news???? Most certainly not.... If the average Canadian was actually interested in finding this out...it's all out there in the public domain...the good, the bad and the ugly...updated daily for their convenience.

I recommend the below site:

http://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/spotnews_e.html

 

[armyvern]

Ah yes, General Hillier....most of the pers I know are actually quite surprised (and extremely pleased ;D) that he has not been fired. Must be the Newf in him...maybe they can't figure out if they should take him seriously or not yet. THAT IS WAY GOOD FOR US!!

 

[paracowboy]

  BTW screw this CBC bashing, would you rather that we just rely on Yank media?

I don't rely on any "nation's" media. I find my own news on several different websites, in several different newspapers, several different radio stations, and several different TV channels. Somewhere in that mess is the Truth.
And if the CBC were fair and impartial I wouldn't bash 'em. But they ain't, so I do.

The fact is, and I have seen Bossi lament this fact before, as long as we hide our soldiers from public view in bases that are not well positioned to service media interest then we are not going to effectively counter the negativity that the CF arouses.

the more civvies are involved in my beloved military, the more screwed up it becomes. We are a seperate sub-culture, and we need to remain that way in order to function. They don't need to know what I do, or how I do it. They don't need to appreciate me. They don't need to like me. They need to give me the money I need in order to defend them. When I screw up, they need to slap me down. That's it. Treat me like a teen-ager: gimme money and punish me when I wreck the family sedan.

 

[George Wallace]

......  the more civvies are involved in my beloved military, the more screwed up it becomes. We are a seperate sub-culture, and we need to remain that way in order to function. They don't need to know what I do, or how I do it. They don't need to appreciate me. They don't need to like me. They need to give me the money I need in order to defend them. When I screw up, they need to slap me down. That's it. Treat me like a teen-ager: gimme money and punish me when I wreck the family sedan.

Actually, even when you do tell them what you do, quite often they don't comprehend what you do.  Quite a few have their own preconceived misconceptions of what we do, and won't change their minds for all the explanations in the world.....sort of what we have going in that "Civi Protestors.... " thread.

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Armyvern: I agree with your assertion that there is freely available info to those who actively seek it out. I visit the website you mentioned on a daily basis and find it very relevant and informative. My concern is not for those who are actively informed but rather for the preponderance of the "unwashed masses" that rely on conventional sources.

I also agree with KevB that PaffO's are a joke, largely employed as stated to make sure the excremental output of the Brass smells as flowery as possible.

But what can be done to change the system? To make it more viable in the face of a fluid media climate?

My suggestion would start with more civic involvement, be it in the form of Senate inquiries like the tour Mr. Kenny made of Canada or things like the Khalsa parade that was held in Surrey in April. With tens of thousands of spectators in attendance, having a couple of Sikh men in Cadpats and turbans to lead the parade was certainly an eye opener that made some heads turn. We just need more of it.

Just read your post Para,  and would like to note that I am not pushing for greater Civvy involvement but rather greater information. The better informed we (the public) are, the more capable the CF can become. To put it in your terms, a teenager doesn't just get an allowance they have to earn it. Now, how do we know you earned it? How do we know you need more money? Will it be put to good use? If I was your Pa there is no chance in hell I would just open up my wallet to you simply because you felt entitled to more.

To George: the people you bring up are a very small minority, they just happen to know how to work the system to their advantage. Go to a  series of protests and you wil begin to see the same faces time after time. They just marshall their resources more efficiently and in a far more timely fashion than our Federal monoliths.

 

[paracowboy]

Just read your post Para,  and would like to note that I am not pushing for greater Civvy involvement but rather greater information. The better informed we (the public) are, the more capable the CF can become. To put it in your terms, a teenager doesn't just get an allowance they have to earn it. Now, how do we know you earned it? How do we know you need more money? Will it be put to good use? If I was your Pa there is no chance in heck I would just open up my wallet to you simply because you felt entitled to more.

problem is, the more info is released on us, the more dumbasses feel they have to stick their noses into how we do things. Which inevitably means more civvie involvement, which means a further reduction of our capabilities. I earn my allowance by volunteering to die for you. Now, increase my allowance so I don't have to unnecessarily.

 

[KevinB]

Somehow I just think the idea of "COMBAT CAMERA" covering a hit (DA, not a mob execution) would not go over well with us or the public...

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Exclusive of military actions, there is still much that can be done without causing public aversion.

Eg: The Naval contribution to La. and Miss. relief efforts. This in itself is important for demonstrating capabilities.

With specific regards to military actions, I am not saying broadcast the hit and show all the naughty bits but rather when you guys do "excise with discretion" then why not be a little more informative than "yup, we took some prisoners and none of us got hurt"

How about "In the course of exercising our mandate, components of X troop or Y battalion undertook a series of operations with the intent of dislodging the enemy from a series of strategic routes". "As a result of this series of actions Joe B. got an american gong and his unit will be honoured by Gen. Huffnpuff of the Task Force Kick Ass and Take Names".

Do you understand what I am driving at now?

 

[paracowboy]

How about "In the course of exercising our mandate, components of X troop or Y battalion undertook a series of operations with the intent of dislodging the enemy from a series of strategic routes". "As a result of this series of actions Joe B. got an american gong and his unit will be honoured by Gen. Huffnpuff of the Task Force Kick *** and Take Names".

that's the sort of thing that gets released at press briefings. Those things are feeding-frenzies. But, it doesn't make for a good sound-bite, and most of it gets cut. Having been quoted by the press, I know first-hand all about sound-bites. A patrol on which I answered some questions turned into THE cheesiest article ever. It sounded like a Mack Bolan book.

 

[KevinB]

Roger that - but our operations in Afghan where hampered by EuroCorps as until recently.


Despite what is alledged by the media etc. the US does not just hand our presentations to units for doing their job - 3VP got one for going above and beyond (and somewhat cynically as a unspoken appology for Dufus the Pilot and his Asshat wingman)

The US allows us the freedom to honour and award our own personnel and units (and rightly so).

I would more admonish the Canadian Press for NOT showing the CF contribution to Katrina - the PAO's are there their stories are not being picked up (and their journalitic skill is not exactly noted anyway)

 

[sheikyerbouti]

So it seems with our current approach there is a disconnect between the information providers(you guys), the information services(media) and the consumer. There are people employed to deliver the message but they are hampered by an ineffective delivery mechanism.

There has been success with some efforts, I thought "Christmas in Kabul" was well thought out. That must have involved creative input by all parties concerned. Do we need a more collaborative approach? I want to suggest something like an "embedded" journalist team(s) for overseas activities but that idea is probably not looked upon too kindly by the powers that be.

 

[paracowboy]

There has been success with some efforts, I thought "Christmas in Kabul" was well thought out. That must have involved creative input by all parties concerned.

I thought it was a joke and a nightmare. But then, I saw it from the other side. Nice idea, huge pain in the posterior and a violation of OPSEC/PERSEC on several accounts.

I want to suggest something like an "embedded" journalist team(s) for overseas activities but that idea is probably not looked upon too kindly by the powers that be.

what are you talking about? We've had embedded journalists for years. Also, we have a policy wherein any clown with a laptop and a notepad has almost unlimited access to all of our Camps and Bases. Where the then proceed to tell half-truths, exagerations, and out-right lies. The spin they put on them is dependant entirely on their own political bent, and that of their Editors.

 

[mdh]

Public affairs is akin to the weather - everybody has an opinion about it and no one is ever satisfied. That's especially true in the military which -- as Paracowboy pointed out is a "sub-culture" -- and as such stands in exact constrast to every single journalistic ideal: reporters are dedicated to openness, transparency and free of information.

We place a premium on discipline, following orders, and restriction of information. Reporters are trained to ask tough questions and refuse to take no for an answer; we demand that orders be obeyed with a minimum of debate and argument. Journalists believe that debate and argument are the hallmarks of reaching some conclusion about the truth of whatever story they are covering. Newsrooms are anarchic and unruly and place an emphasis on extreme individual initiative. Military units emphasize collective effort and responsibility and place limits on individual initiative (except in the command sense - and even then there are caveats)

Journalists have romantic role models like Woodward and Bernstein in All the President's Men; our romantic models are more akin to Band of Brothers.

So on almost every count military culture is almost diametrically opposed to media culture. Public affairs officers need to navigate between the two - not an easy task. The potential for disagreement and conflict between the two are omnipresent and inescapable.

The good news is that the CF is improving its PA capabilities with an eye to enhancing its image and reputation. As noted there have been media successes - everything from TDV to Christmas in Kabul - and those have a tendency to be forgotten when the latest negative piece comes out. Embeds have been - by and large - very successful in achieving a bond between platoons and reporters. It's not perfect but what's the alternative? (Letting reporters roar around the battlefield in helicopters a la Vietnam didn't work very well either.)

But you can't have it both ways. Reporters are not going to do a story your way - we can only work to get our message highlighted in the story -- and that's the best we can do. There is no way to dictate copy or insist on certain information being included or excluded (except for OPSEC reasons of course). FWIW every profession believes that the media never gets it right - but "getting it right" is an unrealistic expectation in the first place.  The media is only taking a snapshot in time of the military profession when it reports on the CF - not a comprehensive study.

Through patient explanation, clever strategizing, and making the effort, we can make a real difference in the way a reporter approaches a story.

The CF is not always going to win the PR battle - but we're not always going to lose either.  

mdh

 

[sheikyerbouti]

With respect to the issue of the military being a sub-culture, I think this is a relatively new phenomena that has been spawned by the regionalism that has been applied to the forces particularily over the last decade or so. An example would be the closure of CFB Chilliwack, I am not saying whether it was a good thing or bad thing but what it did do was serve as a spotlight on military events in the Lower Mainland. That focus is subsumed by other local events and personalities.

If I turn on the news from Vancouver Island, I am more likely to see reports about what's going down with the navy be it a parade or a homecoming. This is because the local media serves the appetite of its viewers, if Mom and kiddies want to see Hubby's boat coming in on the 6 o'clock news then they might simply because they expect it to appear and the TV stations understand this.

So how do you counteract this?

BTW I agree with your assertion that there is individual initiative in abundance to be found in a local newsroom but I absolutely disagree with the assumption that Newsrooms are anarchistic and unruly. I had the pleasure of working for a local rag as some of you may call it and found that there was much debate over Editorial policies and the like. You may disagree with this but the simple truth is these operations are businesses, they need to sell their product to survive. If the consumer likes the product, they come back time and again.

So it is up to the forces to better serve the media consumers. Having poorly informative press conferences held in awkward locations doesn't help nor does shutting  doors on the fundamental processes (like procurement) that govern the CF. This is where the concern over transparency arises.

 

[paracowboy]

With respect to the issue of the military being a sub-culture, I think this is a relatively new phenomena that has been spawned by the regionalism that has been applied to the forces particularily over the last decade or so.

absolute rubbish, my good man! The military has been a sub-culture of the society which spawned it from the time of Ancient Greece. The rules of the military are entirely seperate, distinct, and different from the rules of it's society. They have to be. You are required to behave in a specific manner while in the Service. Read mdh's post again. Substitute Society for newsroom. Same thing.