- Reaction score
- 5,398
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting concept - give a section commander a camera, send it into battle with the lads, and show us what you see...
Panzer Grenadier said:Good conceptually, bad for practice - security folks. I'm pretty sure one of the things I was taught was not to show the enemy, my tactics, loadout etc.
Shamrock said:Half the video was of his baby.
Shamrock said:Half the video was of his baby.
FastEddy said:I don't think "Panzer Grenadier" meant that segment to be used as a example to support his comment, which is very sound advice . Or don't you agree ?
DWHilborn said:I understand the need for secrecy when fighting a war, but the vehement protests against any kind of camera-work, especially when it's produced by the military and thoroughly vetted, are a little much.
Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is not solely a military one, but political, too, whereby we're trying to pave the way for a reconstruction of the country, extend human rights, and help stabilize the government.
Those are morally defensible goals, and there's no reason to hide.
Public information can help win this war. Indeed, public support is vital in a democracy.
See http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=472474
Remember, there were artists and photographers sent over in WWI - including my grandfather.
There were movie cameras in WWII.
Vietnam created the great media-military schism.
Afghanistan is not Vietnam.
Shamrock said:If you would be willing to indicate where, on the video presented, Cpl Carnegie's enemy, his tactics, his loadout etc. are displayed, I'd be much obliged. I'm pretty sure one of the things I was taught was to watch and shoot. Otherwise, I'd be making off-the-cuff comments about subject matter I was completely unfamiliar with simply to remind everyone I know all about OpSec.
Based on what I've read in the article and the video, I don't think this is another realities of war TV; I think this is more of an attempt to put a face on Joe Soldier -- as you intimated, an attempt to win the hearts and minds along the homefront. I speculate that as this develops, it will be focussed more on the soldiers in the blog than the events; it's reportage meets reality TV in a character driven plot breaking down the fourth wall through vlogging.
daftandbarmy said:Luckily he wasn't dumb enough to video his girlfriend too....
FastEddy said:Whats wrong with this kind of Camera work, well first of all, lets leave the Fighting to the Combat Arms and the PR to the PR Units.
daftandbarmy said:One big downside: what if he gets killed? (Gawd forbid).
I was peripherally part of something like this that was tried before in the UK: The Paras TV series. The BBC followed some troops through recruit training with the Parachute Regiment and then into action in NI. Now, there was no way the MOD wanted any of these guys splattered all over the landscape by a 1000lb bomb, so we were ordered to employed them on some pretty low risk tasks. The camera men followed them around on all their activities, and they definitely behaved differently when the camera was present. They also couldn't be integrated into any of the other normal rifle company routines so, suffice it to say, these guys were pretty much sidelined, were somewhat derided by their peers for being in 'safe' jobs, and most left the army soon after.
Although this case is somewhat different, if this young father gets assigned to the main action with his section, and he gets killed or wounded, what will that do for public sentiment? On the other hand, if they play it safe and he gets 'gate guard' for most of his tour, a protected position when his muckers are out doing the business, what will that do for him and the troops in his section?
I dunno, I assume that someone's done their homework on this, but now that everyone's had a look at his cute little tyke playing in the bath tub, the guy better come back in one piece or the government might fall.