UK Paper Posting Video Blog of Inf Section in AFG

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting concept - give a section commander a camera, send it into battle with the lads, and show us what you see...

 

[Panzer Grenadier]

Good conceptually, bad for practice - security folks.  I'm pretty sure one of the things I was taught was not to show the enemy, my tactics, loadout etc. 

 

[Shamrock]

Good conceptually, bad for practice - security folks.  I'm pretty sure one of the things I was taught was not to show the enemy, my tactics, loadout etc. 

Half the video was of his baby.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Half the video was of his baby.

Luckily he wasn't dumb enough to video his girlfriend too....

 

[DWHilborn]

I understand the need for secrecy when fighting a war, but the vehement protests against any kind of camera-work, especially when it's produced by the military and thoroughly vetted, are a little much.
Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not solely a military one, but political, too, whereby we're trying to pave the way for a reconstruction of the country, extend human rights, and help stabilize the government.
Those are morally defensible goals, and there's no reason to hide.
Public information can help win this war. Indeed, public support is vital in a democracy.
See http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=472474

Remember, there were artists and photographers sent over in WWI - including my grandfather.
There were movie cameras in WWII.
Vietnam created the great media-military schism.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam.

 

[FastEddy]

Half the video was of his baby.

I don't think "Panzer Grenadier" meant that segment  to be used as a example to support his comment, which is very sound advice . Or don't you agree ?

IMO its sufficient enough to have inbeded Media following our Troops around reporting their every move wether its flattering or not, as long as its Headline worthy, at least its their job and what they get paid for.

It would be interesting to know how or what the arrangements are, for Event/Subject Matter, Editing and Censorship.

This latest event leaves to wonder, Who's Hearts and Minds we are Trying to Win.

Cheers.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If you've had a chance to see this done in this series "Bad Voodoo's War" http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/from-2004-to-20.html there are clearly pros and cons to this approach. One big con: I'm not so sure if it's a good idea to have your troops looking for good camera angles when they should be taking up the first trigger pressure.

By all means, let the correspodents and camera people join the crew, but soldiers should be paying attention to their bread and butter - soldiering - and not futhering the careers of media people who can't be bothered to share the same dangers as those they are reporting on.

 

[Shamrock]

I don't think "Panzer Grenadier" meant that segment to be used as a example to support his comment, which is very sound advice . Or don't you agree ?

If you would be willing to indicate where, on the video presented, Cpl Carnegie's enemy, his tactics, his loadout etc. are displayed, I'd be much obliged.  I'm pretty sure one of the things I was taught was to watch and shoot.  Otherwise, I'd be making off-the-cuff comments about subject matter I was completely unfamiliar with simply to remind everyone I know all about OpSec.

Based on what I've read in the article and the video, I don't think this is another realities of war TV; I think this is more of an attempt to put a face on Joe Soldier -- as you intimated, an attempt to win the hearts and minds along the homefront.  I speculate that as this develops, it will be focussed more on the soldiers in the blog than the events; it's reportage meets reality TV in a character driven plot breaking down the fourth wall through vlogging. 

 

[FastEddy]

I understand the need for secrecy when fighting a war, but the vehement protests against any kind of camera-work, especially when it's produced by the military and thoroughly vetted, are a little much.
Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not solely a military one, but political, too, whereby we're trying to pave the way for a reconstruction of the country, extend human rights, and help stabilize the government.
Those are morally defensible goals, and there's no reason to hide.
Public information can help win this war. Indeed, public support is vital in a democracy.
See http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=472474

Remember, there were artists and photographers sent over in WWI - including my grandfather.
There were movie cameras in WWII.
Vietnam created the great media-military schism.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam.

If you the think WAR and POLITICS are not synonymous , then you've lived in La-La Land too long.

Of course theres nothing wrong with Documenting or Recording History. And they portray the Death and Horrors of War (I would hope also to portray the Heroism and Sacrifices of our Armies and lessons learnt, which I don't think the World has learnt a damm thing).

Afghanistan or Iraq are not Vietnam, whats different, weren't we trying to save the Freedom loving Vietnamese from the Tierney and Evils of Communisum. Well History will prove that one way or the other.

Whats wrong with this kind of Camera work, well first of all, lets leave the Fighting to the Combat Arms and the PR to the PR Units. And I'm almost sure your Grandfather would agree to that.

 

[FastEddy]

If you would be willing to indicate where, on the video presented, Cpl Carnegie's enemy, his tactics, his loadout etc. are displayed, I'd be much obliged.  I'm pretty sure one of the things I was taught was to watch and shoot.  Otherwise, I'd be making off-the-cuff comments about subject matter I was completely unfamiliar with simply to remind everyone I know all about OpSec.

Based on what I've read in the article and the video, I don't think this is another realities of war TV; I think this is more of an attempt to put a face on Joe Soldier -- as you intimated, an attempt to win the hearts and minds along the homefront.  I speculate that as this develops, it will be focussed more on the soldiers in the blog than the events; it's reportage meets reality TV in a character driven plot breaking down the fourth wall through vlogging. 

Then I'll oblige you, of course not that segment, he was suggesting any or all future events or information which might come under OpSec. Neither "Panzer Grenadier" nor I made any claim to be Experts in OpSec, but at least know that "Loose Lips Sink Ships" or Video's.

Whatever the reasoning for this or who it only centers around, IMO its a bad idea. I wonder if GAHQ is so desperate for Public Support they'll okay anything.

 

[Shamrock]

Luckily he wasn't dumb enough to video his girlfriend too....

Most soldiers learn very early on to never, ever show another soldier any pictures of any female over the age of 12.

Whats wrong with this kind of Camera work, well first of all, lets leave the Fighting to the Combat Arms and the PR to the PR Units.

First advantage I see in this is there is no camera crew to worry about; it leaves the fighting troops free to fight without worrying about the baggage.  While a camera crew should be wise enough to keep their heads down, their presence could be a distraction or even a drain on resources; if this happens during critical periods, one camera crew can have an adverse effect on the success of a mission. 

Second advantage is more positive control over the content of the videos.  I doubt a live feed of all the data is being beamed to the UK; instead, I think raw data is being sent to an editor who then prepares a product fit for air.  First, content control is under the immediate control of the riflecameraman -- if he doesn't want anything aired, he doesn't turn the camera on.  Second, he or his chain can edit out violations of OpSec.  Third, he or his chain can refuse to send data as he or they see fit.  Even in instances where the chain has been able to exercise those controls over embedded reporters, gross breeches of OpSec have occurred.  Think Geraldo.

Third advantage is the office of Public Affairs could (and likely would) retain a copy of all data.  Were the Telegraph to misinterpret or intentionally edit something to create an incident, the MoD would be able to respond with a copy of the raw data and would not rely upon what the media presents them, likely in edited form.  This could indemnify or condemn the accused and the MoD with less speculation.

Fourth advantage is Intelligence gathering.  Just as the PAffO's get a copy of all the raw data, so would the int ops.  Relevant events could be analyzed and scrutinized and help provide a stronger product.  As the MoD will likely own the raw data and not the cameraman, there's less likelihood of the cameraholder bitching about having to turn over his feed to either PAffO's or the int ops. 

I could bore you with more perceived advantages.  It could just be the MoD thought this was a "cool" idea or just another PR gimmick.  The potential for an OpSec breech is there; however, soldiers and civilians at all levels will be present to exercise due diligence to ensure these breeches don't occur.  If mere potential is enough to demand a concept never see fruition, then Army.Ca should never have been.  As we have seen infrequently here, there have been breeches of OpSec that have been caught by members and moderators and ruthlessly vetted.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One big downside: what if he gets killed? (Gawd forbid).

I was peripherally part of something like this that was tried before in the UK: The Paras TV series. The BBC followed some troops through recruit training with the Parachute Regiment and then into action in NI. Now, there was no way the MOD wanted any of these guys splattered all over the landscape by a 1000lb bomb, so we were ordered to employed them on some pretty low risk tasks. The camera men followed them around on all their activities, and they definitely behaved differently when the camera was present. They also couldn't be integrated into any of the other normal rifle company routines so, suffice it to say, these guys were pretty much sidelined, were somewhat derided by their peers for being in 'safe' jobs, and most left the army soon after.

Although this case is somewhat different, if this young father gets assigned to the main action with his section, and he gets killed or wounded, what will that do for public sentiment?  On the other hand, if they play it safe and he gets 'gate guard' for most of his tour, a protected position when his muckers are out doing the business, what will that do for him and the troops in his section?

I dunno, I assume that someone's done their homework on this, but now that everyone's had a look at his cute little tyke playing in the bath tub, the guy better come back in one piece or the government might fall.

 

[baboon6]

One big downside: what if he gets killed? (Gawd forbid).

I was peripherally part of something like this that was tried before in the UK: The Paras TV series. The BBC followed some troops through recruit training with the Parachute Regiment and then into action in NI. Now, there was no way the MOD wanted any of these guys splattered all over the landscape by a 1000lb bomb, so we were ordered to employed them on some pretty low risk tasks. The camera men followed them around on all their activities, and they definitely behaved differently when the camera was present. They also couldn't be integrated into any of the other normal rifle company routines so, suffice it to say, these guys were pretty much sidelined, were somewhat derided by their peers for being in 'safe' jobs, and most left the army soon after.

Although this case is somewhat different, if this young father gets assigned to the main action with his section, and he gets killed or wounded, what will that do for public sentiment?  On the other hand, if they play it safe and he gets 'gate guard' for most of his tour, a protected position when his muckers are out doing the business, what will that do for him and the troops in his section?

I dunno, I assume that someone's done their homework on this, but now that everyone's had a look at his cute little tyke playing in the bath tub, the guy better come back in one piece or the government might fall.

That's going to happen anyway, if the results of the recent municipal elections in the UK are anything to go by! Seriously though, I think your fears may be unfounded. Most of the recent documentaries I have seen on British forces lately have followed soldiers into the thick of action. In the Commando series the young Lt they followed from his final phase of training to AFG led his troop into some seriously dangerous stuff. This video-blog thing is a bit different but not too much so.