Today’s BBC anti-Trump front page quota is met by this story:
The father of a US Navy Seal killed in a raid on a suspected al-Qaeda compound in Yemen last month has said that he refused to meet US President Donald Trump when his son’s body arrived home.
“I’m sorry, I don’t want to see him,” he said he told a chaplain at the time.
The raid on 28 January was the first such operation authorised by Mr Trump.
Bill Owens, whose son William “Ryan” Owens was killed, told the Miami Herald that “the government owes my son an investigation”.
“Why at this time did there have to be this stupid mission when it wasn’t even barely a week into his administration? Why?” he said in an interview with the newspaper published on Sunday.
“For two years prior, there were no boots on the ground in Yemen – everything was missiles and drones – because there was not a target worth one American life. Now, all of a sudden we had to make this grand display?”
A father who has recently lost a son in a military operation has every right to grieve and to be angry. Such a reaction is expected and one can’t blame him for the words he’s chosen, and I hope he finds comfort somehow. That doesn’t mean that he is right, though. This article is a good demonstration of why quoting people who are in states of high-emotion is neither informative or good journalism.
It is a certainty that the raid in question would have been planned before Trump’s inauguration, including an assessment of the risks versus its benefits. This would have been done (one would hope) in a manner which is independent of who sits in the White House or politics in general. Yes, Trump authorised the raid – as Commander-in-Chief he has to – but this was about as much as he’d have had to do with it. Trump cannot be expected to second-guess the military planners on issues like this so soon into his tenure, and if he would have done so he would (rightly) have been accused of interfering in things he didn’t yet understand. It is perfectly normal that things like military operations are carried out with the expectation of continuity between different administrations, and that was surely the case here.
The rights and wrongs of this raid, and the reasons why the US is carrying out such operations in Yemen, are important and worthy of investigation, but the failings associated with it cannot be pinned on Trump. But this being the mainstream media, such an opportunity to bash Trump can’t be passed up. The SEAL’s father seems to be convinced that Trump changed policy in order to make a “grand display” and this got his son killed. This is demonstrable bollocks, but as I said we can forgive him for pretty much anything right now. The behaviour of the media in exploiting him in this way is less forgiveable.
And of course:
The raid – approved by President Trump just six days after he took office – is believed to have killed several civilians, including children.
The BBC just had to make sure the words “approved by President Trump” appeared in a sentence about the killing of children. And they wonder why Trump’s administration is excluding them from briefings.
Other than reading about the history of warfare I have no experience of what goes on in military matters. Just like al-beeb I have no real idea what really happens in such events, or even why they happen. I am sorry for this father’s loss and indeed wish him and all his family every speed in coming to terms with the tragedy.
Would however this man have willingly met president Hillary if she had ordered it? The president may have to approve such things, but I suspect that the intelligence gathering and planning took place by military people with good knowledge well before Trump took office. If it was grand-standing, it was very quiet grand-standing as I don’t think it was blazed over every media outlet in the west at the time.
I hope the soldier involved did not die in vain, that his company achieved the aims of the mission. We may never know, and just like our state propaganda machine, we can only speculate. I suppose the difference is in which direction we choose to speculate.
Funny, the Beeb’s favourite paper (or the print edition of the Beeb, if you like) has recently been complaining about the US withdrawing from it’s global role.
Can’t satisfy ’em, so no point worrying about it. If there was any reasoning with them, maybe there would be. There isn’t.
The raid – approved by President Trump just six days after he took office – is believed to have killed several civilians, including children.
“is believed”. Wow, fantastic journalism there. Really getting a hold of the facts on the ground. Would have been a bit more honest to say:
The raid was approved by President Trump six days after he took office. We haven’t the foggiest if it killed any civilians or children. But we want to get the words “Trump” “killed” “civilians” “including” “children” into our report.
Might also be worth remembering that the US has been in at least low-level combat in the Middle East since the ’91 Gulf War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Southern_Watch
Oh well, at least it isn’t Fake News. Apart from maybe the “is believed” bit.
“ever since the ’91 Gulf War”, I meant to say.
Trump may well have been a mug to approve it. It may have been set up as a trap for him. Indeed, once he knew it had been planned under O but that O had left him, Trump, to make the decision, he should probably have said “No, not until our new people have had time to analyse it properly”.
As a pol he’s an amateur.
A fine example of micromanagement was when President Jimmy Carter reviewed plans to rescue the US hostages in Iran. He whittled the number of helicopters down below the minimum required and pored over details of each participant’s family responsibilities.
Soon after the raid, I read a report that the Military believe the raid was betrayed, probably by the CIA.
Given other developments, it seems reasonable to wonder if the Deep State, as they call it, was involved.
“This article is a good demonstration of why quoting people who are in states of high-emotion is neither informative or good journalism.”
What is ‘good journalism’ these days? Would we know it if we saw it?
I find it interest that the BBC reports on the use of witchcraft to subvert the American democratic process without mentioning the constitutional issues it raises;
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39090334
This article is a good demonstration of why quoting people who are in states of high-emotion is neither informative or good journalism.
Yeah. Same goes for the mother of a cyclist killed by a truck turning left, the brother of a sister killed when her boyfriend lost control of the car at 02:00 in the morning, you can write the story yourself.
After a while, you start to realise that being informative or good journalism wasn’t really the point.
I’m maybe just about old enough, or sober enough, or maybe pissed enough to find Auntie Beeb terribly disappointing these days.
This sort of reporting would never have been allowed to have taken place if Ronnie Corbett was still alive.
Or probably Wigan.
Wogan.
Terry Wogan.
Bugger.
Another low from the media using the grieving father and more of their usual incomprehension as to how the military plans and works, nothing new there.
Meanwhile the economy grows and powers up a few notches.
TRUMP’S MYSTERIOUS STOCK BOOM
Markets hate uncertainty, so why do they love an unpredictable President?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/06/trumps-mysterious-stock-boom
Wow, fantastic journalism there. Really getting a hold of the facts on the ground.
Indeed!
What is ‘good journalism’ these days? Would we know it if we saw it?
Those calling themselves journalists wouldn’t know it if it came and bit them on the arse.
Soon after the raid, I read a report that the Military believe the raid was betrayed, probably by the CIA.
I expect it was just a standard fuckup. These things happen.
It may have been set up as a trap for him. Indeed, once he knew it had been planned under O but that O had left him, Trump, to make the decision, he should probably have said “No, not until our new people have had time to analyse it properly”.
As a pol he’s an amateur.
I assume Mattis had a look at it. No amateur, he.