³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

...There are simply too many people mouthing off about Afghanistan who have never been there..

i bet those behind the war had never been there [or iraq now yemen] before they launched their crusades? they didn't have to be.

the problem isn't with the military but the cause for 'war'.

you don't have to go anywhere to realise there is no such thing as a science of nation building. or that terrorism is not a military matter but a legal and counter intelligence one.[as the RAND document and Dearlove in his gresham lecture point out].

the almost daily eloquence of death tells us without words who after 8 years is winning?

people do risk their lives to make films like these.

....Afghan police are failing to tackle the flourishing drug trade and insurgent violence, despite billions being spent by international forces to bolster security...



given the restrictions white westerners face would it not make sense to use local journalists? ie give them cameras and training? surely they could move around more safely and provide better intel?

al jazeera does pretty well?

I know little of Journalism, but I can see that behind the ideals and reasons given for operating in dangerous areas, is gaining credibility with peers.

When you have senior reporters like Jon Snow implying that to be a good reporter you must have experienced reporting in conflict zones etc...it becomes a rite of passage for some...

I agree with the comment by jauntycyclist. There is no particular need to see a British face reporting on something hundreds of miles away. What does the viewer have to gain by this?

jaunty cyclist, your slightly pretentious, "armchair" style rants serve only to strengthen the point which you have quoted as your opening line. Have you ever been there? I very much doubt it.

I suggest that there is a large portion of bravado involved by many of these reporters. Seeing themselves as some sort of derring do elite in their profession. Much of the reporting is superfluous, repetitive, duplicated and often opinionated and often adds little to my understanding of what's going on.

They choose to put themselves in harms way and are well paid for it. Unlike our soldiers who have no choice and are certainly not so well paid.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

For a Journalist to leave all of the comforts of home in order to afford us,the public, the opprtunity to learn about the war from the front lines: see and read about it for ourselves is in itself, heroic. The fact that we get to read about and check in our MARINES that are also in harm's way....I can only say a huge Thank you. May God Bless Mr Hamer's family to help them find peace. Anyone that does not respect a MARINE OR AN EMBEDDED REPORTER....DOES NOT UNDERSTAND what both represent....and that is HONOR..COURAGE...AND...COMMITMENT...and it is the qualities that they BOTH share. semper fidelis

I deplore the modern tendency of reporters and media organizations for self-glorification. 'To do my job you really have to know what you're talking about' And be a jolly brave chap too. (Jon Simpson - more or less verbatim. Pass me the puke can).

Were they so keen on self-promotion during WW2 when there was something to fight about? Or is this a desperate attempt by the media circus to get a weary public excited about an idiotic war that, like all wars, is becoming a vile industry?

What exactly are you hoping to achieve as you head off in the footsteps of Robert Capa? Do you believe in the product -the meaningless account of fire and counter-fire that fills the front pages? Is this supposed to educate the public into making useful decisions like voting out the dismal governments that got us into this mess?

I haven't been into Afghanistan but I did skirt the border on the Pakistan side and it's really tough terrain. It can't be a cake-walk for any journo going there that's for sure.

So I have nothing but the highest regards for journo's as well as their photographers, fixers etc. I do, however, often find fault with their editors who by and large won't run copy and/or photo's that show just how bad things are. War is messy but what we read and see is far too sanitized.

As someone described it, covering war is predominantly sitting around being bored to tears followed by minutes of heart pumping, adrenaline infused madness. Lets remember that before we take a pot shot at the journalists and their support teams.

Thank you very much Mark Urban for this article, one of the best I have read for a while. Having had the great opportunity to meet the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳'s John Simpson at the Cheltenham festival whilst at university, I was able to think hard about the sacrifices that journalists give to get there and report back to the joe public what is exactly going on in vivid detail, rather than reporting from a distance.

I am a journalism graduate, but in the military at the moment too so I can really appreciate the close merging of the two roles of reporter and soldier. The reporter enters all of the danger zones fearlessly, striving to build the story for the job in hand. Makes me feel very proud. Thanks for this.

I have a great deal of respect for journalists who go to the very front of a conflict to report events, although I am not sure of the value of the reports that are sent back. By that I mean, what use is made of the information?

The Afghan war, for example, is one which many think is not worth the lives lost and costs spent, so reporting about it does not have the same impact as if the reports were coming from the front lines of an invasion force, or of a battle which will or could eventually threaten our home land.

Anyway, stay safe Mark.

Thing is that you don't think we understand the ideology that drives war. Everyone who takes up arms believe that they are avenging insults to themsleves or to God. That is motive of extreme muslims nothing more than that they believe that blasphemers must die.

All very well in their own lands where they rule but when citizens from abroad end up dead in their territory, who do not share their beliefs it's a little more complex.

I'll accept that there is a competition going on between muslims and the west who is the richest who has the better city who provides the best care for their citizens and who is generally overall better.

That is not the ideology that drives Christians. There may be leaven in the lump but from a strict point of veiw christians are expressly told 'do not avenge yourselves but leave space for wrath'. And Atheists ridicule any notion of God whatseover.

Rom 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."
Rom 12:20 To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

We are told that we may suffer but that as long as we endure then we shall receive the promise of God.

Heb 10:38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him."
Heb 10:39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

We all want to live to fight another day but the weapons of our warfare are of the flesh.

Phi 3:2 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh.

2Co 10:4 For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds.
2Co 10:5 We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
2Co 10:6 being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete.

That suggests that there is a work of ministry to be done for if God has not yet subjected his enemies to christ then there is something we haven't done.

We Christians believe that God sent Jesus and that God is the justfier of the one who believes.

Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith.

Rom 4:20 No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,
Rom 4:21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
Rom 4:22 That is why his faith was "counted to him as righteousness."
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Muslisms do not wish to believe God through Christ athiests do not wish to believe God through christ and that's no skin off my nose I don't care what people believe personally it is they who wish me to convert to their way of thinking whether it's catholic or baptist or seventh day adventist or any other kind of religious denomination. Even science.

I don't have a problem with science if it provides me with useful tools, the bible has got weights and measures and we understand how to build houses and all of that I understand there is a need for trading and economy and recompense for work done but on this issue, should journalists be reporting from
Afghanistan, well people should have a choice as to whether or not they put their lives at risk, yes you do want impartial reporting but I think that I would prefer to leave it to the generals and the soldiers to report back.

Basically we're getting a condensed version of military intelligence which could be tactically sensitive and unwise to make public.

I can see that there is a need for someone to record what they said and accurately convey the information but who that should be well the journalist will say it should be him because it's a job for him. Gives him a role to play. Whether it is worth risking your life for the money is questionable.

People want us to risk our lives because they are but we are told as civilians and citizens to pay our taxes and pay our respects.

And all due respect to you, if you go to a warzone with a battle and with bullets and guns, then you chose that course and it is not my wish or my desire to fight a war. Others desire it.

Some people might say it's human nature to fight but I think they don't know any better. And in any case even if you go to war there you come back home and there's another deal going on about drugs drink and youth crime.

I can remember standing at a bus stop with a friend and some kids just started shooting ball bearings at us with catapults. We didn't have any protection we just stood there and took it.

There was nothing else we could do. If someone takes it into their head to fool around and unsettle people there is nothing you can do to stop them.

Try persauding them by civilised means! Is it worth dying for the cause when God said he will avenge?

I truly admire reporters who have the courage and passion to report on conflicts throughout the globe. Their stories are vital for informing people around the globe on the status of a conflict and help people understand possible causes and resolutions. I would argue that battles could not be respectfully resolved without the role of the press.

It is truly sad the Taliban and other militants feel obliged to murder reporters dressed in blue. Little do they know these atrocities only solidify the resolve of other reporters to follow in their footsteps.

Who knows how long it will take to reform this poorly managed area of the globe. We must mentally hunker down and use every tactic to defeat those who are out to destroy our way of life. It is a war of ideology. Held side by side with democracy, radical Islam doesn't stand a chance. It is truly a religious form of fascism that all must rise and defeat by all means necessary. Those who don't have the guts to admit that are hiding behind their newspaper and putting too much sugar in their tea. If only they could see, smell and taste the battle on the front lines.

I noticed in the report how the soldiers were carefully disarming the villagers they found. They want us to be unarmed 'cos if we didn't have any weapons then they wouldn't have to be there.

I salute the journalists who risk their life in those conflict zones all over the world. They venture there to get the first-hand information for the public and present events from various perspectives apart from the official tones. I once read a very touching story of a Janpanese cameraman who kept a taking-photo gesture at the very moment when gunned down in Burma last year. Most people can imagine or boast their courage by supposing dangers but the real horror under the warfire and the following shadow of death can distinguish the cowards and heroes. Don't mouth off about the value of those journalists's supreme sacrifice or the causes of wars, but just put yourself in their shoes and ponder whether you would be willing to report on the front for the sake of justice,independence and the public.

politics.

As an international journalist of some fifty years on the job, I never sought war reportage but when it was offered, found it too hard to refuse. Two points: one of your comments talks about "fearless" reporting under fire or in battle condtions. Not one of the correspondents I've known in dangerous assignments would ever volunteer such a quality: we were all very much afraid when the "bang-bang" started or even threatened. One controlled fear as best one could and helped others to do so. I knew one excellent reporter who had to be closely escorted by colleagues to the daily US MACV briefings. He could not make his legs move to the Rex Hotel where the briefings took place unless we -- a varying group of friends -- got round him and walked with him. He was a brave man. He conquered his fear in the best way he could and got on with the job. The second point which makes dependable war reporting essential is to keep the service you are covering honest. The first time this happened to me came when, after a US Marine Corps battalion action, a Marine press handler defined the battalion's casualties as light. I disputed "light" as a misleading description for 22 dead young men and some 30 wounded in a four-day hill attack. Two things happened. The Marine officer concerned said that he would have me officially barred from action reporting. For hours later, the colonel commanding the battalion rescinded this exclusion, welcomed me to his battalion "any time" and had the press officer transferred to other duties.
























































2

It is tragic when anyone dies in war; journalists, soldiers, civilians etc. There's no mention of the competitive nature of international journalism or war reporting - the one-upmanship of being on the front lines or of being where the action is first. Nor is there reference to the adrenaline rush of one finding themselves in this position. I've had a number of journalist friends on the war lines in African countries who found themselves under fire or being the first on the ground investigating massacres and interviewing the perpetrators.

I would say it's true we'll get better reportage from journalists going to the front lines but I'd also say they often find themselves there for kudos and adventure rather than just for their art.

# 14 "I would argue that battles could not be respectfully resolved without the role of the press"

The Russians seemed to do just fine at Moscow, Stalingrad and Kursk without some guy in a blue flak jacket reporting on it. In the Falklands ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ journalists broadcast our troop movements on the world service to the listening Argentineans.

Mark makes a reasonable point that he would be paid the same at home as in Aghanistan but equally being on the front line puts you in full public views and helps promotion. John Snow, Martin Bell & Kate Adie have all done very nicely from their front line reporting. Its the same with the military... you're paid about the same here or abroad but if you want to reach the top you need medals and glowing reports and that means frontline combat.

If you want to live you should be as visible as possible. Terrorists know that Western News Correspondents are their most important propaganda tools. They don't kill them on purpose.

But you've never been to Afghanistan either. You can sit there, 10 feet away from a soldier or civilian who is about to be murdered and still think you're not a part of it.

It's people like you that have made the world the way it is today.

ALL THAT IS REQUIRED, FOR MILLIONS TO BE EMBROILED IN WAR, IS THAT ONE SELF-EVALUATED 'GOOD MAN' BE UNABLE TO DO NOTHING.

A timely posting Jobs32.

Blair repeated the mantra: 'DOING NOTHING IS NOT AN OPTION' (in various forms). Such people SHOULD NEVER REACH HIGH OFFICE. Westminster LOVES THEM. Until we erase the Westminster ethos, there will be more Blairs, and more wars. The place to start, at the coming election, is to:

SPOIL PARTY GAMES

#22 I seem to recall Saddam starting a few wars in his time. The total allied death toll in Afghanistan is about the same as the daily death toll in the Iran-Iraq war. It takes all sides to want peace for peace to happen but just one man to want war for a war to start. I'm a firm believer in timely intervention. If the French had kicked Hitler straight back out of the Rhineland WW2 would never have happened. If we'd sent a few peacekeepers into Afghanistan when the Russians pulled out we wouldn't have the current mess. A battalion of British paras ended a decade long civil war in Sierra Leone in a week. There's a generation of Sierra Leonean kids all called 'Tony Blair'. You might want to consider that.

#21 "If you want to live you should be as visible as possible. Terrorists know that Western News Correspondents are their most important propaganda tools. They don't kill them on purpose."

Daniel Pearl?

WHAT'S IN A NAME? (#22)

Have you assessed Tony lately? Against his current 'performance' would you be glad you called your kid Tony Blair?

Incidentally: my key word was probably UNABLE. The balanced leader, surely, APPLIES CHOICE. Blair made it plain he HAD TO DO SOMETHING. We see such programming in many people, in everyday lie - where it does little more than break marriages or start pub fights.

#25 I wouldn't call my kid Tony Blair. If he'd ended a war that had raged for a decade in my country with a handful of troops in a few weeks then I probably would though. I can't imagine many Afghan kids are called George Bush but Blairs military action in Africa is genuinely very popular in West Africa. Equally my father was in Belize when the Guats threatened to invade in '78. A squadron of Harriers and 2000 British troops sent in detered the war from ever happening. A load of Belizean babies were christened 'Harrier' in response (really!)

Personally I think Blair was right "to do something". Its beaten into you in the army. If you're ambushed you either fight back or run away. If you just stand their pondering then you WILL be cut to bits. Fighting back or running away may result in the same but doing nothing will guarantee it. Blair made some bad choices but I've more respect for that than just hoping the problem will go away because it never does.

Most of the worlds problems, from wars, terrorism to the enviroment come from inaction. Afghanistan and Somalia became failed states harbouring criminals because we did nothing to stop it happening. The Yugoslav wars in the 1990s (in which I stood around doing very little because I wasn't allowed to intervene) happened because we sat back. Hitler took over Europe because we all sat back and let him.

DOING NOTHING IS A VIABLE OPTION. (#26)

Take posting on here. Sometimes, though enticed, provoked, attacked etc, I make no reply. I consider the consequences and my options. There is no voice in my head saying: "Doing nothing is not an option".

As I said above; the key word in my #22 was 'UNABLE'. the Blair who has now emerged fully into the light, clearly had a 'lot going on' in his head that was (and is) unconducive to sound judgement. He was unable to do nothing. That is a disability - by definition.

"Long ago I served in the Army - and I am absolutely determined to maintain the distinction between soldier and reporter. "

youre only deceiving yourself, once one is embedded one becomes part of the MoD machinery. Objectivity cannot exist.

when reporters begin to question the legality of the war, detailing the real reason for the invasion and occupation one cannot be trusting of those who claim to be journalists.

#27 If I ever see you being beaten up in the street I'll make sure to remember that choosing to do nothing is viable & valid option. In one respect you're quite right. Its perfectly viable for me to do nothing. Its rather debateable whether the result of me doing nothing would be be positive for you, me or society in general though.

As I said earlier most of the worlds problems stem from people taking the easy option and doing nothing wether thats stopping a thief or stopping a dictator who started 2 major wars and killed millions.

P.S the little voice most of us have telling us to do the right thing is called a conscience. You may not have one.... some don't.

From the article:

"But if that distinction exists for the Taliban it is only, in the view of some of our safety people, that they calculate that killing a reporter will get them bigger headlines than taking a soldier's life."

Have journalists ever stopped to think that this is a problem they caused themselves?

The very fact that the mirror reporters death has had vast amounts more coverage than the coverage of any individual soldier is the medias choice. If the media didn't hold their own up as more important and more worthy of more articles than anyone else in the first place then you wouldn't find yourselves in this situation.

You cannot on one hand put yourselves above everyone else including soldiers and aid workers and on the other complain and whine when that makes you more of a target. It's a problem of your own creation, now you're having to suffer the consequences.

"My own rationale for being there when I was embedded with US marines late last year, like Rupert's, is that you cannot cover a war from an armchair a safe distance away."

You, you really ought to have an armchair provided by the US Marines!!!

RE Bin Laden Tape:

A lot of hot air(time) and newsprint will be wasted analyzing whether or not the tape is "genuine" and that the xmas day plot was planned by AQ "head office". Or not? So what? It matters not, as the "concept" of a Bin Laden is just a hook to hang the ideas of Al Qaida onto. That it was released "as" authoritative suggests that AQ'a leadership, whoever they may be, wish it to be heard AS authoritative.

However, it does say some important things. Most significantly the emphasis on a practical concrete POLITICAL objective: the Palestinian question. Up to now it was said that AQ wasn't a conventional political terrorist group demanding political change, using death/terror as leverage. It a has been said that AQ want total "victory" over the West and that force and terror itself seemed to BE the objective. It's fantastical "aims", such as they were, included the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. Now it seems a more realistic objective of Palestine is on their minds. Have AQ moderated to become a more conventional political terror group with who the West could eventually negotiate?

In other words, is this the first sign that AQ are suing for a compromised settlement, offering a political way forward, as their military ambitions seem unlikely to achieve their fantasy objectives? Is this a repeat of the situation in the late 80s and early 90s in Ulster? Increasing losses and significant UK intel penetration forcing the IRA to open up a back door political track?