« Math And ProtocolMedic Murdered »

Aftermath Anger

UK Telegraph reports senior British Army sources voice anger that a soldier was killed rescuing a New York Times reporter who ignored security warnings and went into a Taliban-controlled area. An Afghan translator was also killed, unclear by which side. The military believed that the situation might be about to deteriorate.

Caught a few moments of what sounded like NYT Executive Editor Bill Keller on NPR yesterday saying that he didn’t think military intervention was warranted in this case, that they had had contacts and felt like they might be able to resolve the situation. However, NYT’s own report says this: 

Neither The Times nor Mr. Farrell’s family knew that the military operation was taking place. But they had discussed with the military under what conditions they might attempt a rescue. Basically the answer was they might act if they had intelligence that they could act on quickly and with a high probability of success.

Here’s another view from the Times of London. Negotiators angry, too:

Hostage negotiators expressed shock and anger at Gordon Brown’s decision to approve a commando raid to free a kidnapped British journalist, saying that they were within days of securing his release through peaceful means.

Maybe, though slain translator Munadi might have come out if it without his head in that deal, anyway. Here’s Farrell’s account of his taking, four days captivity and rescue. Yes, they were warned. Interesting read about his time with the Taliban. He had some concerns about being handed off, as the military suggested he might. He did not expect to be killed but believed Munadi faced a high risk of beheading.

Here’s NYT’s John Burns with some thoughts on the job, risks, being taken and being rescued.

Tough issue. Both sides of the argument have merit. It isn’t exactly like the surfer or boater who goes out in a storm for kicks and endangers the Coasties who have to rescue him. Maybe more like the fishermen who do it so you can eat crabs, lobster and cod and everyone in the fishing industry can make a living. Storms happen, they make their calls, and they sometimes also put Coasties in danger. The news can be a risky business, but we all benefit from the information they fish for, in this case even from the brief view within Farrell offers. Which in this case might come as a surprise to you. Isn’t the north supposed to be under wraps, all the trouble in the south and southeast?  

If NYT … WSJ, CNN, Fox, assorted freelancers, the lot of them … stopped taking risks, we would have very little information about what happens in bad places. I don’t believe that most of them do it lightly, though I’ve known a few who do it irresponsibly and have been lucky they didn’t end up in this situation. A lot of them now have considerable time incountry, experience with these issues, and receive professional training and advice. A lot of them have also died, been injured, or spent time in captivity. It often comes down to judgment calls about what level of risk to take. Here’s an easy call to make in the aftermath: It looks like Farrell made a bad one. Harder to say about the military, which also had the option of standing off and exercised its own judgment in the moment.

Jawa‘s with the senior Brit military sources on this one.

(Care to comment? Registration is shut down, due to persistent spammers. Use the “contact” link to assure me you are a real human being interested in commenting on the topics at hand, include the screenname and temporary password of your choice, and I’ll create a logon for you. Lefty Kumbayah singers, moderate handwringers, meanspirited rightwingers all welcome. Just keep it clean and make an effort to be accurate.)

Topics: Afghanistan,media,military

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 11:46 am Comments (2) on Thursday, September 10, 2009

2 Responses to “Aftermath Anger”

1. Surprise! New York Time’s Kidnapped Journalist A Moron Who Cost A Soldier And Friend Their Lives–UPDATED « Blog Entry « Dr. Melissa Clouthier Says:
   September 10th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

   [...] Jules Crittendon says this: If NYT … WSJ, CNN, Fox, assorted freelancers, the lot of them … stopped taking risks, we would have very little information about what happens in bad places. I don’t believe that most of them do it lightly, though I’ve known a few who do it irresponsibly and have been lucky they didn’t end up in this situation. A lot of them now have considerable time incountry, experience with these issues, and receive professional training and advice. A lot of them have also died, been injured, or spent time in captivity. It often comes down to judgment calls about what level of risk to take. Here’s an easy call to make in the aftermath: It looks like Farrell made a bad one. Harder to say about the military, which also had the option of standing off and exercised its own judgment in the moment. [...]

2. The Captain’s Journal » About that Rescued New York Times Reporter Says:
   September 10th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

   [...] Jules Crittenden has a roundup of reactions to the British Special Boat Service troops (also see The Washington Post).  Its’ impressive to me that the British took on this responsibility.  But it is the solemn duty of a country to mourn its lost, grieve its wounded, and bear the national burden of moral judgments during a time of war.  To be sure, there are limits as we have discussed in the release of the photo of young Joshua Bernard.  The concern there is not national exposure but protection of the family. [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.