- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
GO!!! is doing a speech to an academic audience in pursuance of higher education.
This is a purely academic endeavour, and does not reflect the opinions, views or positions of the CF, the DND or the Canadian Government. It is not given from the standpoint of a military member, but that of a political science student.
This is to be a 15 minute speech, with a 5 minute Q and A. The following are presented in "broad strokes" with the requisite information presented and elaborated on verbally.
What I would like from the readership of this site is any additions, deletions or modifications that YOU would make to this if you were giving it. Don't hold back - I can take it.
The Question: Has the Media been responsible in it's portrayal of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The painfully obvious answer is a resounding "NO"
(The "main effort" is the war in Afghanistan, Iraq is touched on first though)
In Iraq;
-it started with the accusations of the US being "bogged down" 14 days into the offensive. This is laughable, given the time required for military conquest of a nation with modern weapons and defenses, which happens to be located on the other side of the earth of the attacker.
-moved on to media implications that the war was nationwide, and has been since the invasion, when in reality, the overwhelming majority of the attacks happen in the contested "sunni triangle" centered on the capital, Baghdad.
-largely ignored the efforts and successes of the Kurds in northern Iraq in their fight for an independent Kurdistan.
-Extremely high turnout for Iraqi elections - higher than Canada - could Iraq be more democratic than Canada?
-A large percentage of the violence in Iraq has been blamed, by various commentators on foreign agitation, from national governments, like Iran and Syria, to terrorist groups comprised of foreigners, including various Palestinian organisations and AQ.
In Afghanistan:
-If it bleeds, it leads. The media concentrates fully on the inevitable body count in Afghanistan, but interestingly, only ours. The DND has released that it suspects about 2000 taliban have been killed by Canadians, providing a measure of success, yet one would be hard pressed to find this information presented as readily as our own (very important 42) casualties. If we had achieved a 50:1 kill ratio in either of the World Wars or Korea, they would have been very short contests!!
-Very little information on the billions of dollars in FA spent by Canada, the US and other allies in Afghanistan in development of infrastructure, creation of industry and on NGOs to maintain and raise the QOL for the Afghan people.
-Circumstances surrounding soldier's deaths ignored. It does'nt make it any less worthwhile or painful, but does'nt the public have the right to know that Cpl. X died in an intense urban engagement in which he was killing numerous enemy in pursuance of our larger goals?
Conversely, the last 4 casualties have been sustained as they guarded the construction of infrastructure - yet media reports repeatedly said they were "ambushed" - this creates the perception that we are hapless targets - disregarding the fact that the attackers in these situations (direct fire attacks in daylight) rarely escape with their lives.
-Repeated assertations by various left leaning public figures that the only way to build Afghanistan is through development and aid, disregarding the fact that most NGO's have now pulled out due to the poor security situation. You simply cannot have development or aid without security. These figures are given prime soundbites on the evening news.
-Referral in the press to Afghanistan as a "failed state" when more accurately it is a state that never was, being a violent patchwork of tribal allegiances, a fact alluded to by the British in the first and second Anglo Afghan wars. Once again, you can't build a nation in the presence of a band of religious zealots, intent on spreading their version of government on a road of decapitated government officials, burned girls schools and kidnapped and murdered aid workers. No development without peace.
-Referral to the war in Afghanistan as "Bush's War" or a "war for oil" when Afghanistan has no oil reserves to speak of, and the only plausible explanation is the three decades old plan for the Trans Afghan Oil pipeline a possible link to caucasus oil. The idea that we would go to war to secure a pipeline route is laughable.
-Little media coverage of the fact that the Taliban harboured AQ, and AQ attacked our best and strongest ally on 9/11, killing 33 of our own citizens.
-Taliban atrocities against NATO troops are ignored or presented as rumour, while NATO's killing of enemy combatants or civilians reasonably thought to be so are presented as suspicious acts of murder, despite CF/NATOs full disclosure of all relevant information not compromising OPSEC.
-Little attention given to the nationalities of many "taliban", in defiance of intelligence stating that many are mercenaries, foreign jihadists, coming from as far away as Chechnya, and in the employ of ostensibly friendly nations such as Pakistan.
This is a purely academic endeavour, and does not reflect the opinions, views or positions of the CF, the DND or the Canadian Government. It is not given from the standpoint of a military member, but that of a political science student.
This is to be a 15 minute speech, with a 5 minute Q and A. The following are presented in "broad strokes" with the requisite information presented and elaborated on verbally.
What I would like from the readership of this site is any additions, deletions or modifications that YOU would make to this if you were giving it. Don't hold back - I can take it.
The Question: Has the Media been responsible in it's portrayal of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq?
The painfully obvious answer is a resounding "NO"
(The "main effort" is the war in Afghanistan, Iraq is touched on first though)
In Iraq;
-it started with the accusations of the US being "bogged down" 14 days into the offensive. This is laughable, given the time required for military conquest of a nation with modern weapons and defenses, which happens to be located on the other side of the earth of the attacker.
-moved on to media implications that the war was nationwide, and has been since the invasion, when in reality, the overwhelming majority of the attacks happen in the contested "sunni triangle" centered on the capital, Baghdad.
-largely ignored the efforts and successes of the Kurds in northern Iraq in their fight for an independent Kurdistan.
-Extremely high turnout for Iraqi elections - higher than Canada - could Iraq be more democratic than Canada?
-A large percentage of the violence in Iraq has been blamed, by various commentators on foreign agitation, from national governments, like Iran and Syria, to terrorist groups comprised of foreigners, including various Palestinian organisations and AQ.
In Afghanistan:
-If it bleeds, it leads. The media concentrates fully on the inevitable body count in Afghanistan, but interestingly, only ours. The DND has released that it suspects about 2000 taliban have been killed by Canadians, providing a measure of success, yet one would be hard pressed to find this information presented as readily as our own (very important 42) casualties. If we had achieved a 50:1 kill ratio in either of the World Wars or Korea, they would have been very short contests!!
-Very little information on the billions of dollars in FA spent by Canada, the US and other allies in Afghanistan in development of infrastructure, creation of industry and on NGOs to maintain and raise the QOL for the Afghan people.
-Circumstances surrounding soldier's deaths ignored. It does'nt make it any less worthwhile or painful, but does'nt the public have the right to know that Cpl. X died in an intense urban engagement in which he was killing numerous enemy in pursuance of our larger goals?
Conversely, the last 4 casualties have been sustained as they guarded the construction of infrastructure - yet media reports repeatedly said they were "ambushed" - this creates the perception that we are hapless targets - disregarding the fact that the attackers in these situations (direct fire attacks in daylight) rarely escape with their lives.
-Repeated assertations by various left leaning public figures that the only way to build Afghanistan is through development and aid, disregarding the fact that most NGO's have now pulled out due to the poor security situation. You simply cannot have development or aid without security. These figures are given prime soundbites on the evening news.
-Referral in the press to Afghanistan as a "failed state" when more accurately it is a state that never was, being a violent patchwork of tribal allegiances, a fact alluded to by the British in the first and second Anglo Afghan wars. Once again, you can't build a nation in the presence of a band of religious zealots, intent on spreading their version of government on a road of decapitated government officials, burned girls schools and kidnapped and murdered aid workers. No development without peace.
-Referral to the war in Afghanistan as "Bush's War" or a "war for oil" when Afghanistan has no oil reserves to speak of, and the only plausible explanation is the three decades old plan for the Trans Afghan Oil pipeline a possible link to caucasus oil. The idea that we would go to war to secure a pipeline route is laughable.
-Little media coverage of the fact that the Taliban harboured AQ, and AQ attacked our best and strongest ally on 9/11, killing 33 of our own citizens.
-Taliban atrocities against NATO troops are ignored or presented as rumour, while NATO's killing of enemy combatants or civilians reasonably thought to be so are presented as suspicious acts of murder, despite CF/NATOs full disclosure of all relevant information not compromising OPSEC.
-Little attention given to the nationalities of many "taliban", in defiance of intelligence stating that many are mercenaries, foreign jihadists, coming from as far away as Chechnya, and in the employ of ostensibly friendly nations such as Pakistan.
