JDSC now sprends a considerable proportion of the JCSC dealing with media ops at the Coy HQ level. Officers are taught how to handle situations where there is intense media interest and how to fight and/or conduct an operation in this environment. At no point is operational effectiveness to be compromised, and where it is likely SOPs are in place to handle the media presence in such a way as to minimise the risk of compromise and any serious and unnecessary risk to the film crew. JDSC have managed to address this problem sufficiently well to ensure a compromise between freedom of reporting and operational effectiveness where operational effectiveness is the overriding factor.
What planet are you on? What relevance is this to a war several thousand miles away where the troops are getting shot at and killed. Do you think any of them give a cr@p about JCSC. Mr Caleb's letter that you use to back up your argument is only relevant in so much as it is obvious that you and he are equally unable to separate your prejudices for how you believe war shouild happen in a civilised society.
It is f^^king dangerous. It is f^^king frightening, it is not like it is in the movies or the text book that you were given at JCSC. I agree that the pictures themselves were unfortunate, but I wouldn't have had the camera there in the first place. You talk about operational effectiveness not being compromised, well this isn't an argument about that is it? Operational effectiveness doesn't change whether they whoop and holler or not. What does affect their operational effectiveness is when they are critcised from thousands of miles away by armchair warriors who wouldn't know a Kalashnikov if it was stuck up their arse.
And thanks soooo much for quoting St Thomas. After all, he died only 700 years ago, so his opinion at this moment is truly useful. How arrogant and patronising can you be. I don't know anybody who delights in the death of another human being, for you to suggest that those soldiers won't feel the after effects of what they have had to do is insulting in the extreme. If that isn't pompous self-superiority I don't know what is. Just because you know a bit about the Army (I am assuming that you have a uniform) and a bit about the US army doesn't mean that you know squat about what it is like to be in battle.
These men will have to live with what they are doing for years to come. At the moment they are excited to have done their job well, and to still be alive. Who the f^^k are you to take that away from them?
Oh, if you want to interpret my opinions as a personnel attack on you, then that is up to you. My 'vitriol' may be emotive, but I am afraid that I am allowed to get angry and pissed off at those who criticise and judge without any experience of what they are talking about. I don't even know who you are so I am unable to attack you personally, I just think that you are talking rubbish!
Jacko,
as I said before, you just can't have it both ways. You want the media involved, but you don't like it when the cameras catch something that offends your weak sensitivities. Perhaps the best thing for all concerned would be to have the TV news teams in Kuwait.
I am getting sick of the superiority complex that you are fostering over the Americans. I tell you again, there has been some British whooping and hollering, you just haven't seen it on TV, so don't keep telling everyone how we have the morale high ground in the whooping and hollering stakes, it is an insult to us and the Americans.
And stop going into a Jacko "well, I'm not allowed to talk then, hmmph, nurr" sulk every time Danny flattens your argument. It's kind of childish.