How much does Andrew North really know?

[owe ver chute]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4521318.stm

[AHQHI656SQN]

OVC, check your PM's

[Vortex what...ouch!]

Don't want to spend too much on this. 50 blokes and a few rovers should do the job.

[L J R]

OH AHQHI656SQN do tell........

[Proman]

Andrew North certainly has good contacts, but it's not the same as being well informed. He's been in Kabul for a number of years, and likes the posting, as the BBC's continuing bill at the luxury Intercontinental Hotel will testify.

Compared to Baghdad/Basrah, Kabul and indeed AF in general is a good media posting. Put simply there isn't the rate of attrition elsewhere, despite the recognised increase in Taleban/AQ activity in the last eight months, and with some basic security precautions the lifestyle is very good in a Colonial way.

This makes Andrew's job of convincing his bosses in London to keep him and his crew there a bit difficult (nearly every other network from CNN down has closed its permanent station through a lack of stories - I was there for three months at the end of last year and even the stringers were pulling out because there was nothing to sell).

The result is that every small incident is flamed up as a major outbreak, things that wouldn't merit coverage elsewhere get promoted up the agenda because of extensive speculation and purple prose, and every snippet of information Andrew gets, he uses to pretend how important the theatre is, and thus why he should be left alone by his bosses. Read this story for example and ask yourself one question - is any single source identified, even in general terms? It's an old hacks's trick of flying a kite, then getting people to respond to give credibility (such as the quoted AF Government in this case), and then reporting it as a story.

For those of us in the mil media ops business it's very frustating. NATO's efforts in Af have produced real fruit, and while there are still bad people around, they're a minority to the extent the local people hand them in or report them because they like the idea of peace. What we've acheived for the country is great. This does not get mentioned.

While I was in Kabul we had four shooting incidents...in Liverpool over the same period there were 17. Yet I'm sure world opinion is that Kabul is a highly tense and dangerous environment - this is all down to the type and level of reporting discussed above, as it's purely through the media that the image is projected to ordinary folk.

Of course nasty things happen, but it's never contextualised...how many people realise for example that Kabul is a city of 2+ million plus people. Four shooting incidents (or whatever type) in three months is actually remarkable not because they happen, but because simply on a numerical basis, there aren't more. The rocket attacks are amateur and haphazard (five to minimal effect when I was there) and I believe only happened because they got continual media publicity and speculation as to whether each one indicated a deteriorating security situation. Not!

On the actual facts of this BBC story, the bit about Helmand Province and the lack of UK committment is rubbish, but I can't say more here. Equally the Dutch have been staunch supporters of ISAF, and their Appache det at KAIA was a major contribution, so it would be surprising if they've wobbled as much as reported, but that's my speculation.

Good luck to those who go with the ARC, stay safe. There are key issues, such as AQ in the South and the outstanding huge warlord and drug issues which means there's work to do. But this isn't Iraq, and for the record from one who's done the tour, I'd be very happy to go back. My bag's packed in case I'm asked, to regain the feeling that we 're actually using our force for demonstrable good. Please!

PS: I should add finally, having met Andrew on many occassions, that he's a fine man who is very friendly and capable, and what I've said isn't meant personally but I believe would apply to anyone in his position doing this job.

[owe ver chute]

Proman, a very detailed post, thank you. It would appear that there is a lack of determination over the troops going to Afghanistan, the build-up of troops isn't gaining any momentum at all, indeed the 16 Bde units who are going, haven't yet been told that they are, because actually, they might not be! If the UK is holding back, no wonder the Dutch are a little bit hesitant; the Yanks can't wait to draw down Uncle Sams commitment, they have been doing more than their fare share (you could argue that they started the conflict in the first place!) for long enough.
What I can’t reconcile is the funding being an issue for the UK. As a nation we have never been slow in coming forward when getting the Armed forces a job to do, the Army must be keen to get the Apache into a bit of aggro, and the Para Regt are never far from a good scrap. If the whole thing is scaled down I know a lot people will be very pleased, equally lots will be a little disappointed.

[FrogPrince]

The current administration don't have a good record for providing clear direction to the military, do they ? It's not even as if they're waiting on a vote at the UN this time.

I wonder how many UOR's are starting to gather dust in an In-Tray somewhere, waiting for Dr John et al to climb off the fence and commit. Still, that's politics, I suppose.

I don't want to really go off thread, but I read Proman's informative post and found my teeth gnashing. If we had spent 10% of the expenditure dispersed on Iraq in Afghanistan instead, in concert and possibly even harmony with our NATO allies, can you imagine where the country would be now ?