• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Rolling Stone Embeds with the Taliban

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cognitive-Dissonance said:
Furthermore, that information is certainly useful and highly valuable, but what I am getting at is the current overglorification of knowledge involved with deployed members.

These individuals have access to the same opens information you, I, or anyone else has.  This secondhand information is further augmented by firsthand experience -- that is, they have an opportunity to overcome any personal bias this information may have implanted.  It's not unlikely there have been several people who share your doubts about the mission who have actually deployed, yet very few have returned to voice their negative opinions; to me, this suggests their experience trumps their previously negative opinion.  Suggesting experience is less than opinion is a pathetic argument ad hominem.

Furthermore, I accuse you of a confirmation bias.  Yes, your opinion will be dismissed and ridiculed here and often out of hand.  I doubt you're here to disprove your opinion, I think you're here to subtype those who disagree with you in a desperate bid to prove your righteous rightness.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Ask yourself why people dismiss your arguments, perhaps if you never started posting confrontationally to some initially as you did, people would be more open to your comments. So it should not be a surprise to you. You are articulate enough, better then most here, however, your delivery leads a lot to be desired. Work on the delivery of your arguments to be less confrontational and you might find the discussion you are looking for.

Until then then I can't see anyone being receptive to your comments at all.

May I ask how for some advice on how should I be posting less confrontationally? If my opinions are in direct contradiction to another members how can I properly convey that opinion without being confrontational? Thank you for your further input.
 
Post in a manner and tone opposite in what you are doing now..try wording your statements differently to convey the same message but have a less confrontational tone. thats just for starters.

But you need to find what works for you...your current style is not working, so that should tell you that you need to try a different tact. Up to you. If you want to enjoy this site like most people do, then you have to do something. If you keep coming across as an @ss then 9 times out of 10 for various reasons you will end up leaving the site.
 
Cog Diss - to put it mildly you are being a d*nk. Don't presume to lecture people here, as many of the posters on here have had the benefit of 30+ years of service. They will eat you up and spit you out in a heartbeat.
 
I don't quite think his delivery lacked tact; I thought that he was just making a point that one has to know his enemy, from many angles - not just from behind the sights of our guns, in order to understand them and defeat them.
Being in theatre is very valuable but you don't get 100% of the information. Furthermore, what you see and learn from the people in say around Kandahar would be different to what you could learn from the folks in the east or the folks around Herat and most likely different to what people in Quetta or Peshawar think or feel. What you get from an interpreter could be biased by his own convictions and everyone you talk to has their own agenda and trying to manipulate you for their gain. I am of the opinion that scepticism is your friend.
The report from the Rolling Stone is interesting and valuable but again, you can't take one persons account as gospel.

I agree with C-D about learning and hitting the root of the problem. I disagree with him in that he thinks they are reasonable (as a group) and that you can negotiate with them - those filthy evil scumbags  ;)

It is good to be precise and tactful but I think some times we seem to be a bit overly sensitive. By overreacting we are showing that we are not as open minded as we think of ourselves or that we are somewhat unsure of our knowledge and our only recourse is to get defencive.

cheers,
Frank
 
I don't quite think his delivery lacked tact; I thought that he was just making a point that one has to know his enemy, from many angles - not just from behind the sights of our guns, in order to understand them and defeat them.

Look through his posting history. He's playing a game.

He's exploiting the fact that you can't draw a fine line between productive posts and trolling posts. The difference between the two is based just as much on context and tone as it is based on the words written. Cog-Dis is working in that grey area.

He's carefull to keep the words he writes within the boundries of forum rules - even to the extent that he'll feign interest in the advice of others to improve his posting style. But beneath the surface his tone and intentions are consistently inflammatory.

He's obviously articulate, which is why I don't think he can claim ignorance. He knows what he's doing. He's enjoying flexing a bit of mental muscle for the sake of shit disturbing, like a smartass 16 year old who's crafted an elaborate practical joke just to see if he can get away with it.

This isn't about Afghanistan. It's about a troll hanging out on army.ca for shits and giggles.
 
I looked at some of his posts on other threads and you may be right.
However, if nobody stirs the pot we could end up with just superficial comments/knowledge - We just got to be vigilant and careful not to fall for the joke or feed the trolling. 

cheers,
Frank
 
Interesting read, that article.

Perhaps more people should examine its contents. Knowing how the insurgents are working on a daily basis would be a wise first step in revising current strategies.
 
Nir Rosen should be charged with aiding the enemy.Read the comments Rosem responds to Bing West.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/

By Bing West

Good for Dave Dilegge for speaking out in Small Wars Journal about the October issue of Rolling Stone magazine, wherein Nir Rosen, an American reporter, described his visit with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Rosen left no doubt about his active cooperation with the Taliban fighters. “They have promised to take me to see the Taliban in action: going out on patrols, conducting attacks,” he wrote, “…. once we are on the road we should take the batteries out of our phones, to prevent anyone from tracking us.”

Having told the reader what his intent was, Rosen described the Taliban as “religious students who knew little about the rest of the world and cared only about liberating their country from oppressive warlords.” Rosen concluded his piece by declaring that the war was lost – unless we negotiated an ending with the Taliban.

But in addition to providing the Taliban with a propaganda coup, did he violate moral strictures, given that killing Americans was an objective of the very Taliban attacks he wanted to watch? Is a journalist guided by virtues higher than those of patriotism or nationalism? Does a journalist transcend the laws and norms governing other American citizens? And who is not a journalist, if every blog and e-mail is a branch of journalism?

This isn’t an obvious call in journalistic circles. Last year, David Schlesinger, chief editor for Reuters, e-mailed to me from the UK that "we (Reuters) are regularly in contact with established Taliban spokespeople via email and satellite phone to get the Taliban's view of various news events. Our competitors are as well. This is the normal and essential journalistic practice we follow anywhere in the world -- we report the views of all sides in a conflict without taking any side.”

While he did not say that Reuters sent correspondents into Taliban camps, his belief that not “taking any side” was an “essential journalistic practice” reveals an attitude that transcends patriotism and cries our for a national debate. It is doubtful if Reuters in 1941 would have interviewed Nazis while informing fellow Londoners that Reuters was not “taking any side”. And although most Americans who fought in Vietnam were outraged when Jane Fonda posed with North Vietnamese soldiers in 1970, the American government never said a word about her conduct, and millions of Americans supported her. Vietnam affirmed an American tradition of journalistic “independence” during a war.

Rosen is in elevated journalistic company in detaching from the American soldiers and their cause. In describing his experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins wrote, “This was not my war. This was not my army.” Whose army, then, was it?

Rosen described how he and two Taliban fighters deceived the guards at a government checkpoint. Suppose during World War II an American reporter had sneaked through the lines with two German officers wearing civilian clothes. “When we caught enemy combatants out of uniform in the 1940s,” a veteran wrote in The American Heritage, “we sometimes simply executed them.” The Greatest Generation had a direct way of dealing with moral ambiguity.

"I am a guest of the Taliban." Rosen wrote. Supposing in 1944 he had written, “I am a guest of the Waffen SS.” It is doubtful if Rolling Stone would have published Rosen’s article during World War II. The norms and values of American society have changed enormously in the past half-century.

Yet had Rosen been captured by Afghan soldiers, it is likely Rolling Stone magazine would have asked the US military to intercede for his release. But if the reporter has no obligation toward the soldier, does the soldier have the obligation to protect the journalist? Should Rosen, if captured, have been released or put on trial for aiding or abetting the enemy?

Not fully trusting the Taliban, Rosen employed the threat of murder more commonly associated with drug lords than with Rolling Stone magazine. “… Those I accompanied knew that they and their families would be killed if anything happened to me,” Rosen wrote, alluding to shadowy Afghan associates who had arranged his trip. But supposing Rosen had died and in retaliation six children were beheaded. What is the difference between the Mafia and Rolling Stone, when reporters are protected by threatening to wipe out families?

Most disturbing was the lack of outrage to Rosen’s sojourn by the administration, the military, the civilian appointees and the politicians. Secretary of Defense Gates is a cool, detached official who reacts to events. He does not plot a course into the future. He does not project a determination or a vision about how to succeed in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral William Mullen, calls for a strategic review – after six years of fighting! - laments that “we cannot kill our way to victory”, a vacuous absolution that transfers responsibility for failure to others. Why increase from 32,000 to 50,000 US troops, whose basic training is as riflemen, if the application of force – killing - is not the objective? A policeman protects the population by arresting criminals; a soldier protects the population by shooting the enemy soldier. Our military succeeds in confusing us all by reverting to Rodney King's plaint that we should all just get along.

When our leaders lack moral clarity and courage, then agnosticism about our mission in Afghanistan is understandable. Rosen’s conduct is not the problem; he was taking advantage of American moral lassitude. Our leaders don’t stand up for the righteousness of our cause. Why not hang out with the Taliban, if America’s leaders see nothing wrong with it?

We are fighting a war. Yet the Department of Defense lacks commitment and passion in the cause. It is morally wrong for an American citizen to deceive friendly troops in order to sneak into enemy territory in the company of enemy soldiers. When not one American official or general will speak out, our Soldiers and Marines who are fighting and dying are let down by their leaders.
 
Some comments on this article on the Small Wars Journal.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/10/an-american-journalist/

An American Journalist

Posted by Bing West on October 29, 2008 7:12 PM | Permalink| Print

By Bing West

Good for Dave Dilegge for speaking out in Small Wars Journal about the October issue of Rolling Stone magazine, wherein Nir Rosen, an American reporter, described his visit with Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Rosen left no doubt about his active cooperation with the Taliban fighters. “They have promised to take me to see the Taliban in action: going out on patrols, conducting attacks,” he wrote, “…. once we are on the road we should take the batteries out of our phones, to prevent anyone from tracking us.”

Having told the reader what his intent was, Rosen described the Taliban as “religious students who knew little about the rest of the world and cared only about liberating their country from oppressive warlords.” Rosen concluded his piece by declaring that the war was lost – unless we negotiated an ending with the Taliban.

But in addition to providing the Taliban with a propaganda coup, did he violate moral strictures, given that killing Americans was an objective of the very Taliban attacks he wanted to watch? Is a journalist guided by virtues higher than those of patriotism or nationalism? Does a journalist transcend the laws and norms governing other American citizens? And who is not a journalist, if every blog and e-mail is a branch of journalism?

This isn’t an obvious call in journalistic circles. Last year, David Schlesinger, chief editor for Reuters, e-mailed to me from the UK that "we (Reuters) are regularly in contact with established Taliban spokespeople via email and satellite phone to get the Taliban's view of various news events. Our competitors are as well. This is the normal and essential journalistic practice we follow anywhere in the world -- we report the views of all sides in a conflict without taking any side.”

While he did not say that Reuters sent correspondents into Taliban camps, his belief that not “taking any side” was an “essential journalistic practice” reveals an attitude that transcends patriotism and cries our for a national debate. It is doubtful if Reuters in 1941 would have interviewed Nazis while informing fellow Londoners that Reuters was not “taking any side”. And although most Americans who fought in Vietnam were outraged when Jane Fonda posed with North Vietnamese soldiers in 1970, the American government never said a word about her conduct, and millions of Americans supported her. Vietnam affirmed an American tradition of journalistic “independence” during a war.

Rosen is in elevated journalistic company in detaching from the American soldiers and their cause. In describing his experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, New York Times reporter Dexter Filkins wrote, “This was not my war. This was not my army.” Whose army, then, was it?

Rosen described how he and two Taliban fighters deceived the guards at a government checkpoint. Suppose during World War II an American reporter had sneaked through the lines with two German officers wearing civilian clothes. “When we caught enemy combatants out of uniform in the 1940s,” a veteran wrote in The American Heritage, “we sometimes simply executed them.” The Greatest Generation had a direct way of dealing with moral ambiguity.

"I am a guest of the Taliban." Rosen wrote. Supposing in 1944 he had written, “I am a guest of the Waffen SS.” It is doubtful if Rolling Stone would have published Rosen’s article during World War II. The norms and values of American society have changed enormously in the past half-century.

Yet had Rosen been captured by Afghan soldiers, it is likely Rolling Stone magazine would have asked the US military to intercede for his release. But if the reporter has no obligation toward the soldier, does the soldier have the obligation to protect the journalist? Should Rosen, if captured, have been released or put on trial for aiding or abetting the enemy?

Not fully trusting the Taliban, Rosen employed the threat of murder more commonly associated with drug lords than with Rolling Stone magazine. “… Those I accompanied knew that they and their families would be killed if anything happened to me,” Rosen wrote, alluding to shadowy Afghan associates who had arranged his trip. But supposing Rosen had died and in retaliation six children were beheaded. What is the difference between the Mafia and Rolling Stone, when reporters are protected by threatening to wipe out families?

Most disturbing was the lack of outrage to Rosen’s sojourn by the administration, the military, the civilian appointees and the politicians. Secretary of Defense Gates is a cool, detached official who reacts to events. He does not plot a course into the future. He does not project a determination or a vision about how to succeed in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral William Mullen, calls for a strategic review – after six years of fighting! - laments that “we cannot kill our way to victory”, a vacuous absolution that transfers responsibility for failure to others. Why increase from 32,000 to 50,000 US troops, whose basic training is as riflemen, if the application of force – killing - is not the objective? A policeman protects the population by arresting criminals; a soldier protects the population by shooting the enemy soldier. Our military succeeds in confusing us all by reverting to Rodney King's plaint that we should all just get along.

When our leaders lack moral clarity and courage, then agnosticism about our mission in Afghanistan is understandable. Rosen’s conduct is not the problem; he was taking advantage of American moral lassitude. Our leaders don’t stand up for the righteousness of our cause. Why not hang out with the Taliban, if America’s leaders see nothing wrong with it?

We are fighting a war. Yet the Department of Defense lacks commitment and passion in the cause. It is morally wrong for an American citizen to deceive friendly troops in order to sneak into enemy territory in the company of enemy soldiers. When not one American official or general will speak out, our Soldiers and Marines who are fighting and dying are let down by their leaders.
 
Ummm.. Unless I missed something, that's identical to the post immediately previous to yours.
 
I don't get the date and time difference between the two posts, five hours later then mine? Not that I really care.
 
That whole yesterday and today thing was confusing me, it should just have the date.

On the article; while I encourage debate, if we want to maintain the motivation of our soldiers and Cdn civilian voters we can't humanize the Taliban. Unfortunaly due to human nature, hatred is a necessary tool. 
 
Well, I for one respectfully disagree with the article posted by Garret and Tomahawk.

I read the entire article by Mr Rosen and I don't see any alleged 'aiding the enemy' activity. In fact, the whole thing paints the Taliban in a bad light.
He is a g.d. reporter for c.s. and one with some balls at that. What would you do if you had to do some reporting on the enemy? go wearing a bug or a locator beacon? Insult Mullah Omar? spit and turn away when offered some tea? His little adventure was inconsequential at best but provides some good insight into the relationships of the Taliban commanders in these areas (we probably already know those details, I hope) and big hints on what we should be exploiting if we had enough personnel. So, overall more value than harm.

West (the writer in Small wars journal) seems to be stuck in the past by comparing the sandbox with WWII. And more disturbingly, he seems to advocate summary executions by quoting from a vet from that era. He laments that we lack the moral clarity in conducting this war similarly to how Col. Kurtz justified his means in Apocalypse now. We are not in 1944 our morality and code of conduct have evolved immensely - perhaps making it more difficult to win a war but thats what we have and I think it is better than what we had before.

From the "About us" page of the Small Wars Journal:
This site seeks to transcend any viewpoint that is single service, and any that is purely military or naively U.S.-centric.  We pursue a comprehensive approach to Small Wars, integrating the full joint, allied, and coalition military with their governments' federal or national agencies, non-governmental agencies, and private organizations.  Small Wars are big undertakings, demanding a coordinated effort from a huge community of interest.
West seems to have deviated from the spirit of the site. But that is his right to express that opinion.

Anyway, just my opinion - not a popular one, but it is mine - without trying to offend anybody.

cheers,
Frank
 
PanaEng said:
Well, I for one respectfully disagree with the article posted by Garret and Tomahawk.

I read the entire article by Mr Rosen and I don't see any alleged 'aiding the enemy' activity. In fact, the whole thing paints the Taliban in a bad light.
He is a g.d. reporter for c.s. and one with some balls at that. What would you do if you had to do some reporting on the enemy? go wearing a bug or a locator beacon? Insult Mullah Omar? spit and turn away when offered some tea? His little adventure was inconsequential at best but provides some good insight into the relationships of the Taliban commanders in these areas (we probably already know those details, I hope) and big hints on what we should be exploiting if we had enough personnel. So, overall more value than harm.

West (the writer in Small wars journal) seems to be stuck in the past by comparing the sandbox with WWII. And more disturbingly, he seems to advocate summary executions by quoting from a vet from that era. He laments that we lack the moral clarity in conducting this war similarly to how Col. Kurtz justified his means in Apocalypse now. We are not in 1944 our morality and code of conduct have evolved immensely - perhaps making it more difficult to win a war but thats what we have and I think it is better than what we had before.

From the "About us" page of the Small Wars Journal:West seems to have deviated from the spirit of the site. But that is his right to express that opinion.

Anyway, just my opinion - not a popular one, but it is mine - without trying to offend anybody.

cheers,
Frank

Very good post and I agree with everything said in it. I think that our attitudes really do create an "us vs them" environment. It's easy to dehumanize and demean the enemy to the point where they are no longer regarded as human beings, but we need to be careful. This is how human rights violations occur, is by excessive dehumanization. Instead, if we are in fact in a job to defeat the Taliban as a movement, then we need to understand its root causes and motivations. Thats why I am a bit miffed that we have only been attempting offensive military action. Why are we not opening dialogue and playing off the natural rifts between Taliban leaders? Its obvious they have some real internal problems and by opening dialogue to those who sound like they are ready for compromise or are interested in doing so will severely hamper the movement. I mean I understand why some people on the border cringe at the thought of dialogue because they immediately relate it to simple talking, and no military action. However what I am proposing is not some moralist "Peace in Afghanistan! No more war guys..." argument but rather trying to look at this strategically. We need to put aside our dehumanized view of the Taliban as a movement and try to sever their strength, that is their organization. The best way to do this is dialogue. O fcourse that being said I don't advocate putting our soldiers and civilians in danger by allowing offensive actions to be undertaken by the Taliban, however I still think some sort of discourse would be benefit us.

-C/D
 
Cognitive-Dissonance said:
This is how human rights violations occur, is by excessive dehumanization.

Wrong. 

Milgram.  Zimbardo.
 
Shamrock said:
Wrong. 

Milgram.  Zimbardo.

A video of a more resent test.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6GxIuljT3w

But it only answers part of the reason why human right violations occur.  What about the Somalia event? I think more than following orders or taking on a role. But I don't know enough to answer that.

cheers,
Frank
 
For what its worth, were did any Allied reporters sneak over to the Axis side to "humanize" the Nazi's et al? Don't think so.

I know....different times, different morality.

If you have no stomach for a fight, don't join. Have a nice day Cog Diss.
 
Shamrock said:
Wrong. 

Milgram.  Zimbardo.

While authority certainly comes into play in these types of situations, however dehumanization still propels a person to believe what they are doing is "right". It is a means in which to avoid cognitive dissonance. Otherwise humans innate abhorrence of killing other human beings kicks in and it is a lot harder to do such an act. The mere act of killing requires professional conditioning, appeals to authority and it is much helped by dehumanization. I am reminded of WWI stories of "the huns" killing Belgian babies as a good example. Now I am not making a moralist question on killing or not, I am merely making a point that naturally speaking human beings are reluctant to kill other human beings. It takes training and other factors to make it a possibility.

Torture, human rights abuses etc. all can happen when the enemy is so dehumanized that, in the eyes of the undertaker of these horrors, no longer sees their victim as a fellow human being but as something else. Thus, they do not feel the sting of remorse in doing horrible things to other human beings, because in their mind their victims aren't human beings. Thats why I am hesitant and very wary of the dehumanization that many people undertake. Its certainly psychologically understandable, and frankly speaking I have my doubts if we can even avoid it. However for us who realize this fact its important to be careful not to get under the influence of such vitriol and hatred of enemy elements. If we kill them, we do so because it's our job. It's not good, nor is it bad. It just is.

-C/D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top