Afghanistan in the picture, but not in the flesh
By Paul O�Sullivan
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jul 16, 2010, 00:13
of three more British soldiers by bullets fired by a rogue member of the Afghan
Guard turned on his allies was a story indeed.
with the British prime minister and a member from the MoD ascertained the war room
perspective: such incidents are exception rather than rule and focus on
strategy is imperative.
editors speculated on potential damage levels to the overall war effort -- the
breakdown in trust between allied and Afghan soldiers, affects on NATO�s
exit-strategy of substituting every allied soldier for one Afghan soldier and
report alluding to poor quality in the native ranks showed British officers
ticking off new recruits of the Afghan Army. The hashish smoking troops had
wounded some British with friendly-fire, a term usually associated with US
military and used in curt reports.
The New York Times an exception: the widowed, children left
fatherless or motherless and parents whose lives are riddled with emptiness by
war go undocumented. An industry responsible for the truth -- if that is ever
possible -- repeatedly shows how terrifically constrained they are by
monolithic organisations such the MoD.
If media are
interested in raw truth, we would see young, legless NCOs and corporals on
stretchers. Gunfire wouldn�t be edited as soon as the bullets found flesh. But
is showing history repeats. We can only expect to see those images when the
fighting is done, at photographic exhibitions or in books.
Paul O�Sullivan resides in Ireland. He can be
contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor