WMD: Today's Globe had yet more coverage of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. It included Christie Blatchford's latest love letter to men in uniform (she really likes real men) and letters from individual soldiers themselves describing their jobs and what it's like to spend Christmas in a combat zone. On the whole, it's reasonable stuff, if you think any coverage is good coverage since it provides information about what our soldiers are facing in a situation we, through two successive governments of two different political parties, have put them in. But ultimately I don't trust the coverage. Reporters working with the blessing of the Canadian Forces, which is probably the only way to adequately cover the Canadian troops with any access, face rigorous military censorship. Some is absolutely understandable, such as locations of troop movements or installations and advance notice of offensives (although NATO seems to like handing out press releases about these anyway). Other censorship seems more politically motivated and inspired by the way the American military has neutered coverage by U.S. journalists of its wars: casualties cannot be shown, nor can damaged vehicles. Isn't that what war is about? We also have, perhaps for very good reasons, precious little coverage of the enemy, the guys on the other side. Who are they? What do they want? Why are they blowing up our soldiers? How about letters from them in the Globe explaining themselves? I have no problem with our soldiers shooting Taliban for a good reason. But I want to understand why.
The other reason I'm skeptical about coverage is that, as Geoff Olson has observed, Canadian journalists seem to have fallen in love with anything in a uniform. The first major shooting war for Canadians in half a century is a damn exciting story, so journalists are flocking to it, but the coverage so far suggests our troops can do no wrong and that it's all a big adventure. The choreographed and respectful scenes of funeral services of those who have died only seems to reinforce this feeling.
It's almost as if journalists are afraid of the charge that they "don't support the troops," a spurious phrase as useful and as honest as asking "have you been beating your wife lately."
I don't want dirt, I don't want sensationalism. By all accounts, and those accounts are all we've got to go on, our troops are indeed being professional and brave in a difficult situation. But I suspect we're not getting the whole story, the whole truth of what it's like for our soldiers and their mission, and we won't get that for years after.
It's why I've turned to Carol Off's book The Ghosts of Medak Pocket for some insight into the Canadian military and how it operates in the field. An account of one of the lesser known, but also most dangerous and violent episodes of Canadian "peacekeeping" in the Balkans in the 1990s, it's a reasonable read (and you can read about what some readers, including soldiers who participated in the events Off's describes, here), but timelines, locations (maps would have helped) and characters tend to be a bit confusing at times. And the high point of the events, when Canadians squared off against Croat troops in an intense firefight over 15 hours, is passed over almost too quickly. But it's still gripping:
Speiss had been watching the shooting match between the Serbs and
Croats when all of a sudden the first bullets whipped past the heads of
his own section. Speiss at first didn't notice that the trajectory of
the firefight had shifted. He was standing on the carrier when he saw a
fellow peacekeeper with his rifle on his shoulder. "And I asked, 'What
are doing, man? You're going to draw some fire' And he goes, 'We're
being fucking shot at.' And that's when it kicked in." Speiss got
behind the mounted gun as the air around him split with noise. "It was
deafening. I can't explain it to you. And then we got the order to fire
back. I'm beside the carrier and behind the gun. And I opened up and we
just started knocking some guys down in the hedgerow that was in front
of us, about two hundred metres away."
The book is quite strong on the background politics and diplomacy, which put the Canadians -- who were about the only UN troops in that area of the Balkans with the courage, training and willingness to do anything difficult -- into what was essentially a failed UN mission. It notes how much of the movement and financing to create and arm an independent Croatia as Yugoslavia fell apart came from the Croat diaspora in Canada, a certain irony for the Canadian soldiers who ended up in combat against Croats on the ground. The Canadian soldiers on the ground were mostly reservists, untested, and cobbled together from a military reeling from cutbacks and troop level reductions and the strain of overcommitment to foreign peacekeeping efforts. They were also jerked around by international politics. Off has obvious respect for the soldiers she talks to-- it's the reason she wrote the book -- but she doesn't flinch from noting their problems, such as antiquated equipment, the uselessness of UN troops from other countries (eg the Kenyans in the Balkans willingly allowed themselves to be disarmed by the Serbs and sold their gasoline rations on the black market), disputes between officers, a bizarre near-mutiny in which soldiers tried to poison their officers and the emotional toll of a mission -- to protect civilian lives -- that was falling apart around them. That the Canadians did as well as they did, and were regarded for it, is a testament to their bravery and skill. But at least with Off, and other accounts of Medak, we're getting a fuller picture of what those Canadians went through. A decade after it all happened ...
Today's bLINKit: Americans love to shop online. Canadians don't.
Recent Comments