One should applaud the skill, planning and sheer bravery that went into to rescue this morning of New York Timesjournalist Stephen Farrell (pictured), and lament the death of a special forces soldier who died in the raid in order to secure his freedom and, most probably, save his life.
Reports, necessarily, are sketchy, but we are told that a British "commando" was killed in the pre-dawn raid, set up after Farrell and his Afghan interpreter, Mohammad Sultan, were kidnapped by the Taleban last Saturday after travelling to the site of the air strike near Kunduz in which up to 125 people were reported killed. Mohammed Sultan, unfortunately, was also killed in the raid.
Mr Farrell will now, undoubtedly, be fêted for his bravery and fortitude. Doubtless, he will dine out on his experiences for many a month and, in the fullness of time, launch a "best-selling" book, which will be lauded by his fellow hacks, who will heap praise upon him in a glowing series of reviews.
Small recognition will be given to the member of the special forces who died for his freedom – the man, as is the convention, will not even be named. And while Farrell undoubtedly takes risks, his courage is always tempered by the fact that, should he get himself into a predicament – as he did here – there are always men such as our anonymous special forces soldier, who are prepared to forefit their lives to extricate him.
One does not in any way denigrate Mr Farrell's own courage. We need journalists such as him who are prepared to put themselves at risk to gather information on the wars fought in our name. They are the foot soldiers in a different kind of battle, and they are an important part of the matrix from which we learn, and are able to build up an understanding – albeit imperfect – of what is going on.
This we noted in an earlier piece, when we applauded the efforts of Tom Coughlan, for his vivid reports from the front, putting himself at considerable risk in gathering his accounts.
But we would take issue with the comments of Stephen Grey, journalist and author of Operation Snakebite quoted – or perhaps misquoted – in The Daily Telegraph. He tells us, of Farrell, that: "He is the sort of person who realises that you have to get out of your comfort zone beyond the wire in order to work out the truth."
The issue here, of course, is the word "truth". Mr Farrell, any more than the rest of us, is not in a position to acquire that precious commodity. It is not there for the taking, but emerges only – if at all – from the labours of many, over a period of time. It is built on information from multifarious sources, needing most often the perspective which only time and distance can give.
As a custodian of the truth, in fact, Mr Farrell has a poor record. As a journalist in Iraq – where he was briefly kidnapped – he was one of the first to report on the growing power of the militias, reporting in May 2003, for The Times of the return to Iraq of Mohammed Bakr al Hakim, de factoleader of the Badr Corps, which was to give the British some grief in Basra.
Although Farrell continued covering the war in Iraq, reporting for The Times and subsequently for the New York Times, he was one of the many journalists who misread the signs and failed completely to understand the importance and political significance of Malki's operation Charge of the Knights in late March 2008.
Thus, in early April 2008 did Farrell, alongside his NYT colleague James Glanz, famously (mis)report that the "crackdown on the Mahdi Army militia is creating potentially destabilizing political and military tensions in Iraq."
Farrell, in common with many of his colleagues, from outside the "comfort zone beyond the wire", added much information on the situation – with some fine reporting and good follow-up, but missed the bigger picture.
No more now than then does any one journalist offer the "truth". But too many of them, from the narrow perspective they gain from being briefly at the sharp end, picking up part of the picture directly and thus contributing to the flow of information on which we all so much rely, believe they have a greater claim to being its custodian than perhaps is warranted.
And then, in the final analysis, the ultimate custodians are – for all their failings – the military. For only as a result of their bravery do the likes of Farrell live to tell their tales.
COMMENT THREAD
After their long summer break, the apparatchiks of the Socialist Republic of the European Union are slowly coming back to life – inasmuch as these zombie-like creatures can ever truly be regarded as "alive".
And right up front is agriculture commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, indulging in a bit of crude populism, declaring that the zombie-in-chief José Manuel Barroso is to consider allowing member states to ban EU-approved GM crops.
The European Commission President wants to "look at whether we can give the member states more freedom on this issue," says Fischer Boel, adding that she would support this idea.
At the same time, apparently contradicting the supposed effect of this new "freedom", she also advocates speeding up market approval for new GM maize lines "to lift trade barriers that have a emerged as a result of asynchronous approval of GMOs in the EU and in GMO export countries."
But then come the weasel-words. A distinction must be made between the importation of genetically modified plants and those grown in the EU itself, she says.
Then she adds: "I know that cultivation is a very sensitive issue." Member states do not have the right to prohibit the cultivation of GMO crops on their territory once it has been authorised in the EU, except if evidence is provided that the GMO is harmful for human health or the environment – which, so far, no member state has been able to provide.
Nevertheless, because there is little or no public acceptance for GMO acreage among the public, a majority of EU member states are lobbying to change this practice and Fisher Boel is making soothing noises about letting them have their way.
But all is not what is seems – it never is with that lot. Having been unable to break the logjam and get the member states to accept EU law on GMOs, and with the WTO breathing down its neck, the zombies are trying to pull a fast one.
Basically, the deal is that, at long as the member states accept the import of GM crops from Monsanto-land in Brazil and the USofA – thus keeping the WTO off their backs - the munificent EU will allow them to ban their own farmers from growing them.
I can see this going down a storm with our own NFU, and then the greenies won't be too happy either. But with the poison dwarf also playing games, the Poles telling the commission to get stuffed (in Polish, of course, when even "please" sounds like a swear-word), the zombies are really over a barrel.
So the drama continues, dragging on into eternity, we wrote last year. Nobody in the media here really gives a damn, the Tories don't want to touch it because it sets the greenies and their EU-luvvies on a collision-course, the government is running so fast from it that you can smell the burnt rubber at the top of Whitehall, and nobody listens to the farmers anyway. They're always moaning, so they can safely be ignored.
For all that, this really is a delicious conundrum – greenies versus zombies. It doesn't matter who wins, as long as they tear each other apart in the process.
COMMENT THREAD
A major public speech by a shadow defence secretary of an opposition party which will in all probability win the next general election should, by any normal measure, be an important event. It is in that light that we approach yesterday'skeynote speech from Liam Fox to the UK Defence Conference 2009.
We have summarised the speech onDefence of the Realm, with no detailed comments of our own, to avoid an intrusive "footprint" which might distort the message Dr Fox wishes to convey. This, presumably, is the platform the Conservative Party will present at the general election.
The main thrust of this "platform" – which will come as no surprise – is that a new administration will conduct a strategic defence review. Its purpose will be to define what Britain's strategic interests are and where they exist at home and abroad.
Unless you have clear foreign policy objectives you cannot have a proper defence strategy, says Fox. This will allow the strategic environment and the threats posed to our interests to be assessed within reasonably predictable limits. It will then determine the capabilities we need to protect those interests.
There is much sense in this approach. Defence capabilities – barring the insurance policy of home defence – should very much be the servant of our foreign policy, they being simply one instrument in a broader portfolio,
However, there is a significant omission here from Fox's speech. There is no mention of the European Union. Yet to a great and increasing extent, our foreign policy is determined either by or in consultation with the EU, yet we also have our own independent line, in relation to the United States.
Therein lies a major problem, in that this current government has been struggling (and failing) to resolve the conflict between incompatible and often conflicting foreign policy objectives. That Fox does not even acknowledge that conflict augers ill for any attempt by a Conservative administration to resolve it.
Further, there is no recognition that the UK no longer has (nor has had for some time) the capability for wholly autonomous military action. Any future action will either be in the context of a multi-national alliance, or with the material support of our allies.
Here, the conflict between the US and the EU presents the really difficult problems. In terms of physical and doctrinal interoperability, we can work with one set or the other – but it is very difficult to equip and structure our Armed Forces to work effectively with both.
Furthermore, each set has its own capabilities, the US bringing far more to the table than the EU. In that, effectively, we cannot provide a full suite of capabilities, our procurement programme and indeed our structures must be determined by our choice of ally. Trying to satisfy both leads to confusion, duplication and lack of cohesion.
We see, therefore, from Fox, a certain amount of evasion. He has identified a core issue, but he has not addressed it. Whether he will ever do so is a matter of conjecture.
COMMENT THREAD
Posts
