[Spartacus]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/wo...rescue.html?hp

“Stephen Farrell, a New York Times reporter held captive by militants in northern Afghanistan, was freed in a military commando raid early Wednesday, but his Afghan interpreter was killed during the rescue effort.”

In what one can view as a lack of compassion for their man’s rescuers, and what I as a former Newspaper editor would view as an error in writing the lead, four paragraphs down in this story one learns…

“A British commando was killed in the raid, a senior allied official in Afghanistan said.”

Farrell was working independently. He was not embedded with any military unit. He knew the risks quite well. He was in 2004 kidnapped while working in Iraq.

NATO and the US military should adopt a policy that if journalists or other foreigners are kidnapped in a combat zone while working independantly – that no extraordinary military effort will be made to rescue them. Sorry but soldiers should not have to be asked to sacrifice their lives to rescue reporters who are out working on their own.

I really hope Farrell and the New York Times not only “thank” the dead soldier’s surviving family members – but that they also give his survivors enough money so that they never have to work again the rest of their lives.

They are owed so much more than that -- but it would be a start.

Farrell has shown he is not capable of making good judgment calls where his personal security and that of other journalists with him are concerned.

It is not realistic for Farrell or any journalists to expect the military to save them when they operate on their own and things go bad.

Reporters and thenews organization who employ them must be made to know that when they work on their own --they are on their own. If the host country allows them to hire private armed security etc., then more power to them. Soldiers should not have to die to rescue reporters. Especially reporters with a history of getting themselves kidnapped like Farrell.

Also worth commenting, most reporters try to be "objective" an impossibility. Many reporters in war zanes view themselves not so much as citizens of the US, Britain, what have you -- but as Journalists first and foremost...yet these same journalists fully expect their nations' military and government to do all they can -- up to and including sacrificing soldiers' lives -- to save them when things go bad.

....sneaking into North Korea is not exactly a smart idea either.

[Vandaler]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/wo...rescue.html?hp

“Stephen Farrell, a New York Times reporter held captive by militants in northern Afghanistan, was freed in a military commando raid early Wednesday, but his Afghan interpreter was killed during the rescue effort.”

In what one can view as a lack of compassion for their man’s rescuers, and what I as a former Newspaper editor would view as an error in writing the lead, four paragraphs down in this story one learns…

“A British commando was killed in the raid, a senior allied official in Afghanistan said.”

It's possible that the article as been updated since, but your evidence for one can view as a lack of compassion is incorrect.

The article reads...

Stephen Farrell, a New York Times reporter held captive by militants in northern Afghanistan, was freed in a military commando raid early Wednesday, but his Afghan interpreter was killed during the rescue effort.

A British commando was also killed in the raid, according to a statement from Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain.

Your claim that there is no gratitude is unfounded, and almost certainly false. It's certainly not supported anyway. How can you even claim that there is no gratitude? You know Stephen Farrell personally ?

Independent journalism is very much needed in war zones when possible. Need we rehash the case of Private Jessica Lynch to outline the dangers of having the press and military working to close to one another.

[chadn737]

Originally Posted by Vandaler

Independent journalism is very much needed in war zones when possible. Need we rehash the case of Private Jessica Lynch to outline the dangers of having the press and military working to close to one another.

I think the term "independent" is being used in two different ways here. As Spart is using it, independent refers to journalist who are not embedded with a military unit. This has no bearing on how the journalist reports the situation, but merely highlights the fact that the journalist is operating with the protection of military units.

The way you seem to be using it is more or less along the lines of whether the journalist is somehow a pawn of the government or not.

I would actually direct you to my favorite independent journalist (in the truest sense, he does not work for any corporate press) Michael Yon, who was until recently embedded with the British troops in Afghanistan. The fact that Michael Yon is embedded with these troops has not prevented him in anyway from reporting the fact as well as expressing his own doubt of success in Afghanistan. In fact he openly admits that we have lost ground. Of course, this was also the same guy who was the first journalist to really come out and say that the surge in Iraq was working, when the NY Times and others were following party lines.

So this business of embedding press or not, does not not speak to whether or not the journalist reports the facts.

[Vandaler]

Originally Posted by chadn737

So this business of embedding press or not, does not not speak to whether or not the journalist reports the facts.

I am OK with this statement, but there are facts that are not easily (or impossible) to gather when you are embedded. For instance, there is value in totally independent verification of facts in instances such has the NATO air strike that according to Afghan Sources killed over 90, including many civilians. This is what Farrell was investigating on when he was abducted.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------

Update: the lead paragraph now reads,

Stephen Farrell, a New York Times reporter held captive by militants in northern Afghanistan, was freed in a military commando raid early Wednesday, but his Afghan interpreter, a British commando and an Afghan woman were killed in the raid.

[thegreenape]

I find this topic rather intriguing because I am torn.

On one hand, I agree. Putting yourself in such a situation means that you assume responsibility for any negative consequences relating to the situation.

On the other hand, this seems to fly in the face of how modern society is built, when it comes to helping other people.

We have emergency response teams that put themselves in incredibly risky sitautions to save those in danger, despite if they are criminals or put themselves in the situation.

If a buglar set a house on fire and was trapped inside, the fire response team would still try to save him.

If someone goes hiking and gets attacked by a bear, the ski patrol or park rangers would still try and save them.

Nobody would say "well, you should have been smarter! sorry!"

And the list goes on and on. Our society is built on saving people from potentially life threating situations no matter how they find themselves there and we are willing to put other people's lives in danger to do so.

*Obviously these example are not quite analogous to war and, by no means, am I trying to diminish being in combat; however, the concept and sentiment are the same and it seems to be a "sacrifice" our society is willing to make.

[CliveStaples]

The point is that there is a limited amount of resources at the military's disposal. The question is whether the benefit is worth the risk+cost. Clearly the U.S. military is not obligated to perform rescue operations for every kidnapped individual.

So what is the benefit of rescuing this guy? We don't lose his services as a reporter (but does his service benefit us?) and we save one life (moral value).

Personally, I think that if this guy's reporting isn't rather helpful, then it makes sense to lower the priority of his rescue.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by thegreenape

If a buglar set a house on fire and was trapped inside, the fire response team would still try to save him.

I would take uissue with that, in that most fire departmets would not put the lives of their firefighters at an extremely high risk to save one or two lives.

FYI -- i remember somewhere reading or hearing somewhere somabout teh "hero complex" most US firefighters have. This hero complex is repsonsible for firefighters fatalities in the US occuring at a rate of like 7-1 compared to firefighters in other countries. In elite units -- the hero complex, and macho factor is extremely high. Not prepared to debate these points BTW

In combat, the risks are always extremely high.

Also -- I am not proposing that non-embedded journalists be shackled or deported. Rather that they are entirely 100% responsible for their own security. Period. Stop.

Just like when climbing Mt. Everest -- the only "rescue" you can ever expect beyond a certain point is your own team mates. If their families or employers want to effect a rescue. Let them hire a private Military company to do that. There are private companies that specialize in such things.

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Vandaler

It's possible that the article as been updated since, but your evidence for one can view as a lack of compassion is incorrect.

Early this morning, the mention of the dead soldier did not apear until the 4th paragraph. Demonstrating, arguably in my opinion, a lack of institutional appreciation for the life that was sacrificed to liberate their colleague...and/or poor journalism and/or editing.

[thegreenape]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

I would take uissue with that, in that most fire departmets would not put the lives of their firefighters at an extremely high risk to save one or two lives.

FYI -- i remember somewhere reading or hearing somewhere somabout teh "hero complex" most US firefighters have. This hero complex is repsonsible for firefighters fatalities in the US occuring at a rate of like 7-1 compared to firefighters in other countries. In elite units -- the hero complex, and macho factor is extremely high. Not prepared to debate these points BTW

In combat, the risks are always extremely high.

Very true.

But in this situation, wouldn't going after the group that kidnapped this guy also be beneficial to the overall goal of the military? That is to say the rescue of the journalist could have been an "added bonus"?

And in light of that, was the risk worth it relative to the danger of typical missions in Afghanistan?

Also -- I am not proposing that non-embedded journalists be shackled or deported. Rather that they are entirely 100% responsible for their own security. Period. Stop.

Just like when climbing Mt. Everest -- the only "rescue" you can ever expect beyond a certain point is your own team mates.

I definitely did not think that's what you were proposing that and in the end I am leaning your way.

[Sigfried]

A. We are not required to rescue journalists or american citizens of course.

B. If the US military isn't used to protect American lives what good is it doing in Afghanistan exactly?

C. I would think in general that the armed forces would find rescuing an american journalist a more satisfying mission than protecting some Afghan villagers.

D. Their mission was to engage enemy forces (generally speaking) and they did exactly that.

[Vandaler]

There seems to be some mistaken assumptions throughout this thread.

1) The journalist, Stephen Farrell is not American, but rather British/Irish.
2) No US soldiers were involved, but rather British Commandos.

[thegreenape]

Originally Posted by Vandaler

There seems to be some mistaken assumptions throughout this thread.

1) The journalist, Stephen Farrell is not American, but rather British/Irish.
2) No US soldiers were involved, but rather British Commandos.

Well, my understandnig of the UK is their emergency reponse system works prettys similarly. (I only specified modern society)

And I do not think it matters; it was a NATO mission and they are assisting in Afghanistan. I would imagine Spart would extend his sentiment to any ally fighting in Afghanistan.

[Vandaler]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Early this morning, the mention of the dead soldier did not apear until the 4th paragraph. Demonstrating, arguably in my opinion, a lack of institutional appreciation for the life that was sacrificed to liberate their colleague...and/or poor journalism and/or editing.

I would rather contend that this is the type of thing that can happen with a rapidly breaking news story, where the article is reworked and updated constantly throughout the day as details emerges (I demonstrated that in this thread).

The responsibility to show proper respect (as opposed to reporting facts) lies with the British Premiere who personally authorized the operation with a full brief of the risks involved.

The Director Special Forces, a major-general who cannot be identified, has a direct phone link to the Prime Minister and would have informed Mr Brown in person of the risks involved. Whitehall sources confirmed that Mr Brown had given his approval for the rescue mission to go ahead.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6827634.ece

Suggesting that NYT or the reporter and the families of those involved are not all appreciative of the sacrifice of all of those involved in the rescue effort is baseless, and only written to support your argument by casting a bad light on reporters.

As for the topic the OP itself, I think that a de-facto policy that they will not be rescued is folly, since it would make reporters even juicer targets for kidnapping and money extortion. The determining factor on deciding if they are rescued should be only after a careful intelligence gathering of the risk involved in doing so.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Sigfried

A. We are not required to rescue journalists or american citizens of course.

B. If the US military isn't used to protect American lives what good is it doing in Afghanistan exactly?

C. I would think in general that the armed forces would find rescuing an american journalist a more satisfying mission than protecting some Afghan villagers.

D. Their mission was to engage enemy forces (generally speaking) and they did exactly that.

The US military and NATO in Afghanistan are engaged in Counterinsurgency Operations. As such -- believe or not - killing the bad guys is not a priority. Protecting the citizens of Afghanistan is.

The goal in a COIN operation is to make the enemy unwilling or unable to fight. That can only be done by taking away or "turning" a local population who at least tacitly support the insurgency. Even if that support is just keeping quiet.

This only happens when locals feel safe and have confidence that 3rd party national forces will protect them. Gen McChrystal has clearly stated this protecting of Afghans is the number one priority there for US and NATO forces.

Sure. Warfighters want to go and kill bad guys. But frankly, I don't know of too many who would be thrilled being tasked to go rescue some "reporter". Oh sure they'll say all the right things if asked by an outsider -- but among themselves....a suspect there was and is resentment.

I would also expect that after the British COmmando's family begin to emerge form the grief, it will be replaced by anger at Farrell -- who was kidnapped five years before in Iraq.

---------- Post added at 05:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Vandaler

As for the topic the OP itself, I think that a de-facto policy that they will not be rescued is folly, since it would make reporters even juicer targets for kidnapping and money extortion. The determining factor on deciding if they are rescued should be only after a careful intelligence gathering of the risk involved in doing so.

Define "juicy" please.

There is a lot written and discussed among Muslims in the world that the barbarity of beheading and otherwise killing prisoners -- works against AL Quaeda and their ilk. It is viewed by many Muslims all over the world as an embarrassment --a reason for shame.


Also there are non-government options.

http://www.rmmag.com/MGTemplate.cfm?...&ShowArticle=1

Reporters and their employers could contract with private security and military companies. They can also buy K&R policies on their people. Since the mission of the press is not the same as the mission of the military -- it is only correct that the military not be expected to divert resources away from its mission -- when private options exist.

[Vandaler]

Originally Posted by Spartacus

Define "juicy" please.

Most kidnappings are done in attempts to extort money. If you remove de-facto the possibility of rescue operations, it means that there is really only two possibilities, they either are successful in obtaining money, or they kill (or release) the hostage. A clear knowledge that no rescue mission will ever come to be gives an edge to kidnappers. Essentially, it's dumb.

I don't have any problems if mercenaries are used if the family wants to take that risk.

[Spartacus]

Originally Posted by Vandaler

I don't have any problems if mercenaries are used if the family wants to take that risk.

Neither do I and on that we agree.

In fact I think that from a tactical standpoint it can be argued that it makes the hostage taker's position more risky, as they will have little or no basis on which to make plans. And if private firms are used -- they might not be inclined to follow the Geneva Convention and be held to the same ethical standards of an official government military.

Essentially -- it adds a wild card into the equation.

If it is known the government military can be enticed into launching a rescue operation -- it just makes the hostage live bait.