Should all Friendly Forces deaths be made public?

#1
In a week that has seen the deaths of nearly 50 service personnel in ISAF, UK is reporting only one.

Should the public be told of all deaths from all nationalities, in order to better inform their views of the sate of the campaign, the ferocity of the fighting and our relative success in Afghanistan?
 
#3
Casualty Report | ISAF - International Security Assistance Force

The "Exam Question" is, would UK Public care? We show a general parochialism as it is, are the BBC/ITN/C4 News going to "waste" 1 or 2 minutes of precious airtime to report a French or German death when there are much more important things to discuss (viz. Football all the way to the Vauxhall Conference....)
 
#4
In a week that has seen the deaths of nearly 50 service personnel in ISAF, UK is reporting only one.

Should the public be told of all deaths from all nationalities, in order to better inform their views of the sate of the campaign, the ferocity of the fighting and our relative success in Afghanistan?
Set up an e-petition.

Why do you persist in asking leading questions on here? Are you a secret journo?
 
#5
if people cared it would get more coverage, at the moment you'll get something like "a NATO soldier has....." on the scrolling bar but as soon as they know they're not British its forgotten.
 
#7
Probably not, in the grand scheme of things, but it would bring the level of combat to the door of the great masses. Too many of "der publik" think that we are having minor skirmishes and only suffering the occasional, "unfortunate - almost accidental/avaiodable" death out there. Those who know better realise that the truth maight be unpalatable but it is still true!
 
#8
What worries me slightly, is that you keep posting questions that you already know the answers to.

F'instance - Redundancy and LOA - you bloody well know what the outcome is, but you still look for little comments from people on here.

A senior Army Spokesman today said that it's all a bag of shite and I'd rather have a canny bag of Tudor with me wages man.
 
#9
I think that it's unncessary. Already we have three deaths per fatality - an announcement that a soldier has been killed, then his name being released a few days later, and a week on from that there's a video of his hearse puttering through Wooton Basset (until recently). This makes matters protracted enough as it is and exaggerates the casualty rates at a time when the public is unreliable and don't need provoking; expanding it to include all members of ISAF also smacks a little of distasteful grief tourism.
 
#11
What worries me slightly, is that you keep posting questions that you already know the answers to.

F'instance - Redundancy and LOA - you bloody well know what the outcome is, but you still look for little comments from people on here.
Don't worry, leave that to others, Enjoy the sunshine.
 
#12
Probably not, in the grand scheme of things, but it would bring the level of combat to the door of the great masses. Too many of "der publik" think that we are having minor skirmishes and only suffering the occasional, "unfortunate - almost accidental/avaiodable" death out there. Those who know better realise that the truth maight be unpalatable but it is still true!
Having no life and being at a loose end one afternoon, I decided to check out how many coalition troops had died during the year I was in Iraq. I was faintly suprised to find that the total was 815 - the vast majority of them Yanks, but 29 of them British.

I don't see much point in broadcasting every non-British death but maybe there's something to be said for putting the ISAF grand total out there now and again.
 
#13
I think that it's unncessary. Already we have three deaths per fatality - an announcement that a soldier has been killed, then his name being released a few days later, and a week on from that there's a video of his hearse puttering through Wooton Basset (until recently). This makes matters protracted enough as it is and exaggerates the casualty rates at a time when the public is unreliable and don't need provoking; expanding it to include all members of ISAF also smacks a little of distasteful grief tourism.
But that is the reality, not grief tourism at all. Are the public not ready to understand what is being done in their name?
 
#14
I doubt that any other country reports the deaths of other nations with more than a passing reference, im sure they feel that, whilst sad, at least it wasnt "one of ours". To report the true scale of the combat would also put additional worries on the families of troops out there. Every time the news came on there would be reports of another 2,3 or 4 deaths.
 
#15
I think that it's unncessary. Already we have three deaths per fatality - an announcement that a soldier has been killed, then his name being released a few days later, and a week on from that there's a video of his hearse puttering through Wooton Basset (until recently). This makes matters protracted enough as it is and exaggerates the casualty rates at a time when the public is unreliable and don't need provoking; expanding it to include all members of ISAF also smacks a little of distasteful grief tourism.
That makes no sense :)

How about the enemy forces? or is that just being tacky?
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#18
That makes no sense :)

How about the enemy forces? or is that just being tacky?
The US used to report enemy 'bodycount' in Vietnam. It was supposed to be an indicator of success. Unfortunately it was more like a New Labour 'target'. The 'statistics' where unreliable and it had some disastrous effects and as we all know simply killing the enemy does not normally win in asymmetric wars.

I do think that allied casualties should be reported because I'm in favour of people being better informed.
 
#19
Probably not, in the grand scheme of things, but it would bring the level of combat to the door of the great masses. Too many of "der publik" think that we are having minor skirmishes and only suffering the occasional, "unfortunate - almost accidental/avaiodable" death out there. Those who know better realise that the truth maight be unpalatable but it is still true!
How would bringing the "level of combat" to the door of the "great masses" aid the siutation? All civvies have to do to get a brief picture of the scale of fighting is to pick one of the many programmes shown over recent years that have been filmed in Helmand (Ross Kemp anyone?) So lets not make out that poor old Tommy is fighting it all alone and unreported in the irrigation ditches of Helmand whilst joe public sits at home blind to it all.

On the subject of reporting Soldiers deaths. No point trying to shield figures from the public. It's just a pity that the BBC only takes an interest in the Afghan campaign when "another British Soldier" gets killed. It just causes the civilians who do take an interest, to take pity on Soldiers instead of actually taking an interest in what they are doing and trying to acheive. Ultimately I don't think the majority of the public care about British deaths (certainly not allied deaths) because most the blokes I served alongside didn't particularly take an interest either, unless it effected them or their mates directly.
 
T

Taffd

Guest
#20
If someone's interested in 'the big picture' and the total number of deaths, then the information is available.

Thing is, there's so much death and destruction around, there's not enough emotion to encompass it all and the figures become simply numbers, rather than individual people. Who now thinks of the tsunami?

As a civvy with a son out there, my thoughts upon hearing of a fatality, run along the lines of -Was he British? Where did it happen? What unit? Was there any association with my son, or his area/unit? Is my son ok? Are his mate's ok? Did this fatality affect him or his mates in any way? Does this affect the situation in his area?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top