Soldier, It's Time to Talk

With the looming resignation of the media-aware Gen. Rick Hillier, one wonders if his successor will stand up to politicians with his verve. Not since the Second World War have so many journalists been attached toour military in the field. Embedded in Kandahar, media types eagerlyrelay contradictory assessments to the oft-confused Canadian public. (Inmy view, the most reliable is former Sun writer Matthew Fisher, now withthe National Post).

Media over-coverage has become something of a problem. The support our military gets today is remarkable. The government would like to harness the unexpected popularity of soldiers, but at the sametime cut any risk for embarrassment.

So it micro-manages -- fatal, when done to the military. Prime Minister Stephen Harper realizes that public support for soldiers doesn't necessarily mean approval of the war in Afghanistan. Increasingly, the PMO sticks its bureaucratic nose into how the army should deal with the media. Anything the least controversial seems to have to be okayed before being released.

Journalists with the army have to sign a bunch of documents vowing they'll conform to regulations and not break security rules that may endanger operations.

Fair enough. This is pretty standard. But in the quest for effective public relations, DND (and the PMO)doesn't seem to realize that the most effective public relations instruments are the regiments, and soldiers themselves.

By trying to screen the positive from the negative, and publicizing the heroic while curtailing the embarrassing, all that's achieved is mistrust and suspicion among the media.

Not all embedded journalists are equally trust worthy or competent. Just as rank and file soldiers are quick to size up officers and NCOs, so they size up reporters. Phonies and blowhards are hard to disguise. In accrediting journalists, DND Public Affairs errs if it treats all requests equally. Pick and choose, based on an individual's or media outlet's past record. For example, if it were me, I'd give a jaundicedhello to any CBC-TV applicant -- judging from the CBC's long and sorry record of covering Canadian troops on foreign missions.

Coverage of Canada's role in Afghanistan has been extensive -- and of so-so quality. Compared to coverage of casualties incurred during UNpeacekeeping, coverage of casualties in Afghanistan has been massive. We hear lots about the 82 Canadians killed, but little about casualties inflicted on the enemy. There's weak first-hand reporting of our tanks, in action for the first time since Korea. Afghanistan is littered with hulks of Soviet tanks, which were vulnerable -- do our tanks farebetter? Why?

We don't get much news on reconstruction work -- especially anything involving CIDA, which the Manley report indicated was inadequate tolousy. This view is echoed by soldiers with appropriate expletives deleted.

In one of his reports, Fisher notes our secret commandos, JTF-2, are never publicized -- except once, when U.S. Gen. Dan McNeil praised them for "some mighty fine work against insurgent bombers last year."

JFT-2 BLACKOUT

The general was puzzled at the media blackout of JTF-2. Me too. Butthat's a condition of being embedded. Having a secret army within the army is neither democratic nor traditional in our military. But the government gets away with it.

We don't know what JTF-2 is up to, and we should, since it (like oursnipers) seems especially effective -- at least according to our allies, if not to our journalists on the ground.

Harper has committed Canada to stay in Afghanistan until 2011. If the story is worth telling, let it be told in all its versions. Government should trust its soldiers, the same way Canadians trust our soldiers more than they trust our politicians.

PUBLICATION: The Ottawa Sun

DATE: 2008.04.21

SOURCE: BY PETER WORTHINGTON