The Bigger Threat From Pakistan
Posted on 06. May, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
New York City caught a break this week after a car bomb failed to detonate in Times Square. The alleged attacker, Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-born American citizen, reportedly claimed he learned his terror craft at a training camp in North Waziristan, an insurgent stronghold in Pakistan’s tribal belt. America, Britain and Europe have understandably grown fearful of tribal belt insurgents exporting violent jihad to western shores and this latest incident has garnered considerable media attention, not to mention, a deluge of official reaction from some powerful players. Scary as Shahzad may be though, obsessing about a disgruntled, young militant with poor bomb-making skills strikes me as misplaced considering what’s really at stake in Pakistan.
Pakistani militants have made a much bigger mark on their home turf than they have abroad. Though Pakistan has long been accused of being soft on militants due to Afghan Taliban taking refuge within its borders, in recent years Islamabad has been contending with a growing wave of violence unleashed by the TTP, an umbrella group for the Pakistani Taliban. To the consternation of Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar, the TTP isn’t concerned with driving western forces out of Afghanistan. Its goal is to topple Pakistan’s central government, abolish democracy (which it views as un-Islamic) and establish a Caliphate; in short, to shake Pakistan to its very foundations.
Could always be worse: At least he didn't have WMDs
Islamabad has responded to this challenge by launching several military offensives in the tribal belt where TTP is based. The fighting has been brutal and Pakistan’s military has taken heavy causalities. If it extends its campaign into North Waziristan (and there will undoubtedly be pressure from the West to do so after Times Square) the military’s resources will be stretched further still. Moreover, the fallout from these incursions is not confined to the tribal areas. The specter of Muslims killing Muslims has done much to enflame Pakistan’s considerable ethnic divisions. Throw in a long-running separatist movement in Baluchistan, Pakistan’s largest and most resource rich province and what you have is a recipe for massive instability and civil unrest in a nuclear power. That is scary.
The Times Square bomber has been charged with terrorism and ‘attempting to detonate a weapon of mass destruction.’ Call me old fashioned, but I still think of WMD in terms of NBC -nuclear, biological and chemical; not FPG- fireworks, petrol and gas. Sadly though, my version of WMD did not receive as much coverage this week even though a review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is underway at the United Nations in New York.
Pakistan and its neighbor/arch nuclear rival India are not participating in the UN conference because neither country has signed the NPT. But they are there in spirit due to nuclear energy agreements; one between the US and India, another between China and Pakistan. Think of it as the post-Cold War version of mutually assured destruction: MAD by proxy, only more frightening because both India and Pakistan are dealing with considerable domestic unrest.
By enhancing Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear capabilities, China and the US are not only making a mockery of the NPT; if Iran realizes its nuclear ambitions, the stage will be set for a terrifying set of nuclear dominos. External agitation could be the trigger that sets them in motion but so too could internal strife. Diminishing – or better yet, dismantling those dominos is one of the most pressing security issues in the world today – one that deserves above-the-fold, front-page headlines.
Granted, Faisal Shahzad makes more interesting copy than a bunch of talking heads at the UN. But the escapades of an inept terrorist who left a trail of clues before deploying his failed fireworks display won’t seem nearly as significant if all hell breaks loose in South Asia.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Political Pissing Matches
Posted on 29. Apr, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Private security contractors working for Western PSCs in Kabul added another occupational hazard to their already considerable portfolio this week after Bill Shaw, a manager for Britain’s largest security firm was convicted of bribery by an Afghan court and sentenced to two years in prison. I have no doubt that Mr. Shaw was acting in good faith when he paid a $20,000 fine for the release of two improperly licensed vehicles owned by his employer, G4S; parent company of ArmorGroup. By all accounts, he is an upstanding manager who got caught in a political pissing match between Karzai’s government and the West over who is fuelling corruption in Afghanistan.
In light of the recent rows between Karzai and his western backers, the railroading of Mr. Shaw certainly smacks of the Afghan President getting a little of his own back. But harassment of foreign PSCs in Afghanistan is certainly nothing new. Since at least 2006, Afghan authorities have been stopping foreign contractors at police roadblocks, confiscating weapons, communications systems and vehicles, raiding security company compounds and arresting consultants on fabricated charges. Some have argued that such activities are needed to rein in rogue contractors. While a small minority of foreign security personnel in Afghanistan have behaved like cowboys, it’s my firm belief that the hounding of foreign PSCs has nothing to do with law enforcement and everything to do with lining the pockets of corrupt Afghans.
So-called ‘fines’ are just the tip of the iceberg. There are shed loads of cash to be made servicing commercial security contracts in Afghanistan and the country’s warlords and Generals who run their own local PSCs/militias have been trying to get rid of the foreign competition for years. As poor Bill Shaw discovered, that agenda has now converged with Karzai’s need to demonstrate that the international community is also to blame for corruption in his country.
Political Pawns?
The Times reported that Mr. Shaw cleared the fine with his head office in London before paying it and that immediately prior to his arrest; ‘someone’ suggested he ‘leave the country on a British military flight.’ Having managed commercial security teams in Afghanistan since 2004, I would have thought G4S’s managers in London would have insisted he leave the country the second he was called in for questioning. They were incredibly naïve in my view. There are no objective rules in Afghanistan. The Afghans make them up as they go along. After nine years, G4S and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which encourages British businesses to come to Afghanistan should know this. I hope both are playing hardball right now to secure Mr. Shaw’s release.
Of course, the real sting in the tail is that the judicial system that convicted Mr. Shaw is partially funded by the British tax payer. How can Britain continue to justify pouring money and troops into Afghanistan when men like Bill Shaw who are trying to facilitate business and development in the country are hung out to dry?
Finally, let’s not forget Maiwand Limar, the Afghan G4S employee who was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison alongside Bill Shaw. You can guarantee poor Mr. Limar won’t be enjoying any special treatment in Kabul’s notorious Pul-e-Charkhi prison. I hope G4S are working as hard to clear his name as they are Mr. Shaw’s and that both men’s families will be fully provided for while this political storm rages.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
The Defense of the Realm
Posted on 23. Apr, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Last night’s leaders’ debate made it official; the future of Britain’s nuclear deterrent is the stand out issue of the election. Prime Minister Gordon Brown berated Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg’s proposal to scrap the next generation Trident II nuclear missile system, telling him to ‘get real about the danger that we face,’ from Iran and North Korea. Conservative Leader David Cameron wasn’t as forceful but his message was on par with Brown’s. ‘We are safer having an independent nuclear deterrent in an unsafe and uncertain world,’ he argued.
I agree with the Lib Dems on this issue. Trident II is outdated and the world has moved on. Committing upwards of £80 billion on a weapons system designed for the Cold War at a time when we’re gutting the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy to pay for operations in Afghanistan could very well compromise our defensive capabilities more than it will enhance them. Invoking the specter of rogue states hitting the launch button is scare mongering in my view. Iran and North Korea are no threat to Britain. As I’ve argued before, the hazards we face are much closer to home; specifically internal terrorists such as radical British Muslims hell bent on turning this country into a Caliphate or the Real IRA and its affiliates. Twice in the last ten days dissident republicans have targeted a police station in Co Armagh with car bombs, putting Northern Ireland on its highest security alert in twelve years. Replacing our ballistic missile deterrent on a like-for-like basis won’t curb these types of threats.
Who's got the goods on nuclear deterrence?
Binning Trident II and scaling back to a minimal nuclear deterrent will however force Britain to reassess its role in the world. The question of Britain’s global might is at the heart of this debate and indeed our broader defence and foreign policy strategies. A survey out this week revealed that 88% of defense and security specialists think the UK needs a radical reassessment of the position it wants and is able to play in the world.
‘Little Britain’ has always liked to punch above its weight. Historically, it’s not our nuclear arsenal but our outstanding ground troops, arguably the best in the world that has enabled us to do this. The reputation of our armed forces has taken a beating in recent years with charges that the British army ran away from Basra and parts of Helmund. Any failures though were not the fault of our extremely professional soldiers. As far as I’m concerned, blame lies squarely with military and political leaders who placed our troops in impossible scenarios in insufficient numbers.
Britain can outperform in future provided we deploy our military assets more wisely and allocate our financial resources strategically. The criteria we use to commit our troops to overseas campaigns must change. We cannot jump every time America snaps its fingers. We need to assess whether there is a real threat to our national security and then proceed accordingly.
I think it is criminal we won’t have a strategic defense review until after the election. Right now, it won’t include Trident, but I hope that will change. I also hope a defense review will examine the impact of our military campaigns and broader foreign policies on home grown terrorism. The world is unsafe and it is uncertain. So let’s get real and stop clinging to outdated notions of what it will take to protect our shores.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Running Away From Death Valley
Posted on 15. Apr, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
I applaud General Stanley McChrystal’s decision this week to withdraw US Forces from the Korengal Valley in the notorious Kunar-Nuristan corridor of Afghanistan. Even with roughly 150,000 troops soon at his disposal, it’s a brave call to abandon what was touted as an operationally important area—especially when the Taliban will undoubtedly claim the move as a victory. The pullback is being billed as part of a larger ‘repositioning’ of US and NATO forces to more populated areas of Afghanistan. Still, repositioning or not, some places cannot be dominated.
Eastern Afghanistan's Unforgiving Terrain
I speak from experience when I say that the Kunar-Nuristan corridor falls into that category. Back in 2007, I had occasion to travel to the region on a military embed with a small TV news crew. The embed took us from FOB Kala Gush in western Nuristan across to FOB Naray in Kunar and finally onto FOB Keating in eastern Nuristan. I have never in my entire life been to a military location as vulnerable as Camp Keating. Based at a junction of the Kunar River in a deep valley overlooked by sharp mountain peaks, the place was an insurgent’s Valhalla.
Militants could nest in a tree line or behind a boulder for days; studying the soldiers’ routines, working out the best time to strike. The poor troops stationed at Camp Keating were patrolling with eyes on stalks. FOB Keating’s mission at the time was provincial reconstruction and security sector reform; difficult tasks in any insurgent rich environment, let alone one with unforgiving terrain, ancient ethnic rivalries, lumber-smuggling syndicates and rampant xenophobia. I was never so happy to leave a base – and never so angry. I couldn’t believe any commander in their right mind would send great, young warriors to operate in such a location, especially when you consider that Soviet forces were hammered in Kunar-Nuristan during their ill-fated occupation. It was sheer lunacy. McChrystal’s predecessors were clearly not history buffs.
Camp Keating was abandoned late last year following the infamous ‘Battle of Kamdesh’ in which a large force of insurgents assaulted the outpost, killing 8 soldiers and wounding more than 20. The Yanks didn’t have an easy time in the Korengal Valley either. Known as Death Valley, it has claimed the lives of 42 American soldiers and wounded hundreds of others since 2005.
Concentrating troops in areas where they have a hope of dominating the ground is definitely a sounder strategy. Still, I think it’s too little too late. It certainly puts neighbouring Pakistan’s challenges into perspective as well. For years the West has criticized Pakistan for not doing enough to go after extremists on its side of the Durand Line—the historic border with Afghanistan. Now that Pakistan has launched multiple operations against insurgent strongholds in its border regions, it has every right to slate the West for not pulling its weight in Afghanistan.
So the Pakistanis have a legitimate grievance and the US will be accused of running away from Kunar-Nuristan. But at least McChrystal has taken his forces out of an impossible situation. Critics be damned.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
The Kyrgyz Way
Posted on 08. Apr, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized
Back in the early 2000s, I was living in Moscow, and as any Western expat in Russia knows, once a year you have to take a little trip. You have to travel to a Russian consulate in a foreign city and hope and pray the consulate officer will take pity on you, issue you a new visa, and not make your life a living hell. Most Westerners I knew traveled to Finland or the Baltics – at least they could suffer against the backdrop of civilized Europe. I guess I wanted to be different; I went to Kyrgyzstan.
I remember strolling off the plane in Bishkek alongside some US soldiers heading to the US’ Manas air base – installed in northern Kyrgyzstan shortly after 9/11 to aid the war in Afghanistan. I was wearing flip flops and shorts, and my friend Tom, a Peace Corp volunteer who’d come to pick me up, shook his head. “I can’t believe you wore flip flops to Kyrgyzstan!”
Kyrgyz National Hat... Atop a Bus Stop
He took me first to the Russian consulate. I knew things weren’t going well when I confused the name of Bishkek’s main avenue “Prospekt Chui” with a Russian swear word. The consulate officer looked at me like I was crazy, and then let it be known that, unless I shelled out $1000, I’d be staying in Bishkek for a month – which I ended up doing.
So Tom and I jumped on a marshrutka – a crowded, sweaty commercial passenger van – to Lake Issyk Kul, Kyrgyzstan’s main tourist attraction. It’s the fourth largest lake in the world, and apparently Boris Yeltsin used to vacation there. On the way, we passed numerous billboards showing then-President Askar Akayev smiling paternally.
Akayev was considered a relatively liberal leader by Central Asia standards. He wasn’t an autocratic like his counterparts in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan. Sure he stacked the government with family members and made a number of personally lucrative business deals, but hey, this was Central Asia.
Before getting to Issyk Kul, the marshrutka stopped at a convenient store. Tom and I took the opportunity to relieve ourselves out in the woods. When we walked back to the van, two Kyrgyz police officers stopped us. “What were you doing down there,” they asked, chuckling. “Come with us!” They brought us into a wooden shed with nothing but a rusty metal table. This must have functioned as the local police precinct, and it seemed the perfect place for two naïve Americans to get their butts kicked.
We got off with a $20 fine, and back on the marshrutka, Tom said, “Man, we were really lucky. They do whatever the f&@# they want out here!” “What do you mean they do whatever the f&@# they want out here?” I needed some clarification on this point. Then Tom told me a story I’d never forget.
“One day,” he said, “I was walking around outside Bishkek, when a Kyrgyz man galloped up to me on a horse. He took out a whip and started whipping me. I tried to run away, but he chased me around for over three hours. By the grace of god, I ran into a family on a picnic, or he would have kept on chasing me forever… Yeah, they do whatever the f&@# they want out here.”
Shortly after I left Kyrgyzstan, the so-called “Tulip Revolution” toppled Akayev and brought Kurmankbek Bakiyev to power. It was the last of a wave of US-backed uprisings that attempted to infuse post-Soviet republics with democratic values and western leanings.
And what did Bakiyev do? You guessed it: whatever the f&@# he wanted. He turned out to be even more authoritarian and crooked than Akayev. He played off the Americans against the Russians to get an increase in rent on Manas. He spread the funds – and key government posts – to his family and friends, and then sat back and watched as consumer energy prices rose and rose – the one issue everyday Kyrgyz really care about.
- Ivan Weiss
WikiLeaks’ Collateral Murder
Posted on 08. Apr, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
Millions of people have viewed the now infamous classified video leaked earlier this week by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.org. Collateral Murder shows an incident in Baghdad in 2007 in which two US Apache helicopters fired on a group of civilians, including two Reuters employees. The video is highly disturbing and has sparked a valid debate about the Rules of Engagement. It also serves as a cautionary tale for any journalist operating in a hostile environment. These are important topics that deserve serious discussion. Still, I fear that the way in which they were raised has handed jihadists a major propaganda victory.
While I admire WikiLeaks’ mission to expose government and corporate misconduct, I think it was totally irresponsible for the organization to release Collateral Murder on the internet where anyone can exploit it. You can bet that fair-minded truth seekers aren’t the only ones pressing play. Jihadists the world over are probably thinking of ways to harness the video as a recruiting tool – if they haven’t already. I sincerely doubt WikiLeaks had any intention of bolstering jihadism. But when material of this nature is released indiscriminately, collateral damage will result.
Fog of War?
One group of people I would like to see benefit from watching Collateral Murder is journalists who cover conflicts. There is a lot to be learned from this tragedy. WikiLeaks provided graphic inserts to highlight the two Reuters employees killed in the incident. Some journalists may be tempted to conclude that even without the graphics, the Reuters men were obviously media. That would be a grave mistake. I’ve watched this video a dozen times and I can easily see how the Apache crews mistook photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen and his driver Saeed Chmagh for combatants. First, you have to consider the context in which the Apaches were operating that morning. There was a full scale US military operation going on in the area. Any journalist operating there unilaterally was in danger. The fact that the Reuters men were in the company of at least two armed men wearing civilian clothing seriously increased their chances of being mistaken for combatants. Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh were also carrying cameras which when viewed from a distance can look like weapons. At one point in the video, Noor-Eldeen is in the crosshairs of the Apache as he pokes his long lens around a corner of a building. One of the Apache crew members declares ‘he’s got an RPG.’ I’ve viewed this segment many, many times and from that angle the lens absolutely resembles an RPG launcher.
There is no denying that what happened to the Reuter’s men was disgraceful and the US military should do everything in its power to make sure the same mistakes aren’t repeated. But in my view, Reuters and other major media organizations should also be doing some soul searching. By 2007, every major media outlet with operations in Iraq understood the pitfalls of operating unilaterally. Had Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh received a full course of hostile environment training before they were sent on assignment in what was at the time the most dangerous city in the world?
No journalist should attempt to cover a conflict – even locals working in their own backyards—without first receiving hostile environment training and a full scenario briefing from their bureau covering all the potential ‘what ifs.’ The onus is on managers to make sure the people they send into warzones have the right skills, equipment and resources to minimize risks. The terrible events captured in the WikiLeaks video may not change the way the military operates but the media can certainly learn from it.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
A War Zone – Not an Amusement Park
Posted on 01. Apr, 2010 by admin in Uncategorized, War on Terror
General Stanley McChrystal deserves a huge round of applause this week for shutting down fast food outlets on US bases in Afghanistan. According to a blog by McChrystal’s Command Sergeant Major, closing such non-essential amenities will free up storage and transport capacity for the 30,000 additional US troops and 7,000 ISAF soldiers deploying over the coming months. Some British newspapers have suggested that obesity among the rear echelon may also have factored into the decision.
Closing down the likes of Burger King, Pizza Hut and Dairy Queen may help with the battle of the bulge and most certainly will help accommodate the troop surge. Still, I suspect there is a deeper agenda at play here. In his blog, McChrystal’s CSM put the troops on notice. ‘This is a warzone – not an amusement park,’ he wrote. I couldn’t agree more. As a security advisor to media and other clients in Afghanistan, I’ve been going to Bagram Airbase and Kandahar Airfield since 2004. I have always found it unnerving to see what I regard as miniature Disneylands inside military bases, especially in hostile environments. When soldiers arrive in theatre they need to ‘tune in’ to their surroundings – not lose themselves in a bubble of home-style luxury. As soon as they step off the plane, they are on operations. Rest and recuperation should compliment this mindset, not destroy it. During my twenty-three years in the British military, R&R at a rear echelon base meant eating fresh rations from a large, well-stocked food hall, going to the gym, getting a decent shower and having good laundry facilities; comforts that refresh but don’t cause a soldier to ‘tune out’ completely. Do you think the Taliban tune-out during R&R – if indeed they ever take it?
No Fast Food Here Either
I’ve seen rear echelon troops in Bagram and Kandahar so relaxed that their weapons had no round in the spout. Some of them didn’t even have magazines. These are bad habits to get into. Any soldier can be sent to the sharp end at a moment’s notice and they need to be physically and mentally prepared.
General McChrystal’s actions this week are all the more admirable because he is not asking anything of his troops that he doesn’t expect of himself. McChrystal is known to be a workaholic whose daily routine includes running eight miles, sleeping just four hours and eating only one meal. This has earned him the nickname ‘warrior monk.’ Frankly, I think this is how all soldiers should behave whilst operational. The only way to succeed in a hostile environment is to live a monastic life. General McChrystal is leading from the front. Good on him. It’s a shame more mid-ranking NATO officers don’t follow his example.
Now that McChrystal has given US forces a reality check, I hope he’ll expand his crackdown on non-essential luxuries to all troops under his command. Banning alcohol and fast food on NATO bases throughout Afghanistan would be an excellent next step. I’d like to see all of McChrystal’s forces playing by the same rules. Then they can tune in together and really take on the Taliban.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
China: Making a Killing in Afghanistan
Posted on 25. Mar, 2010 by admin in Energy Security, Uncategorized
It looks like China is poised to cash in again on Afghanistan, despite having never fired a shot in anger there. This week, Beijing got a step closer to developing natural gas fields in northwest Afghanistan after signing three agreements with Kabul covering economic cooperation, training and trade. If you’ll recall, China won a major deal in 2007 to develop the Aynak copper mine outside Kabul – one of the world’s largest. Work on the $3 billion project has reportedly gone slower than expected due to deteriorating security, leading some observers to conclude that Beijing may be reluctant to significantly increase investment in Afghanistan. But if this week’s agreements are anything to go by, China will continue to do very well for itself in Afghanistan without having sacrificed a thing.
It’s outrageous to think that Britain, the United States and other countries have squandered vast amounts of blood and treasure trying to secure Afghanistan only to help Beijing secure its future natural resources needs. Beijing has much to gain from a peaceful Afghanistan including stemming the threat from militant Muslim separatists within its own borders. But it doesn’t have to commit military resources to stabilizing the country – not when it can sit back and watch the NATO-led coalition do all the hard work.
All for China?
Beijing also seems reluctant to expend political capital to help bring about a diplomatic solution to the Afghan quagmire. China has huge influence with Pakistan – its biggest Muslim ally. Not only does it sell arms to Islamabad; it has invested billions in developing energy routes through Pakistan including highways and a port in Gwadar in Baluchistan province. China could strong arm Pakistan whenever it likes – but it hasn’t and odds are it won’t because it doesn’t have to.
So what should the Coalition do? Should it continue to watch its troops die and pour billions of dollars into Afghanistan only to leave the spoils to China? I personally would like to see Britain wise up. Too many British soldiers have lost their lives in Afghanistan already. Our defense budget is under siege and our future security is being compromised to pay for the campaign in Afghanistan. It is madness to make Britain weaker only to make China stronger. It’s time to show a little more self-interest and bring our troops home. As China is proving, the only way to win in Afghanistan is to be selfish.
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
Intelligence Gathering Goes Private?
Posted on 18. Mar, 2010 by admin in War on Terror
Since 2002, I’ve worked as a security advisor to journalists in hostile environments including Afghanistan and Pakistan, which is one reason the headline in Sunday’s New York Times sent chills down my spine: Contractors Tied to Efforts to Track and Kill Militants. Sadly, the story that followed justified my reaction. In a nutshell, the New York Times reported that a US Defense Department official, Michael D. Furlong, established a network of private contractors in Afghanistan and Pakistan to gather intelligence on suspected insurgents — intelligence which may have been used to track and kill them.
As the New York Times pointed out, it is ‘generally considered illegal’ for the military to hire private contractors as spies. If it were up to me, it would be expressly outlawed. I’ve long argued against outsourcing military work to PMCs (private military companies) on the basis that profit driven enterprises can never match the military’s professionalism. Tasks such as close protection (body guarding) and running logistical convoys cannot be done effectively when driven by bottom line considerations. But this latest military addition to the private sector portfolio threatens to do more than compromise professionalism. If allowed to continue, it could compromise an entire profession.
Reportedly, Mr. Furlong’s private spook network used firms run by retired Special Forces officers and one which employed a notorious ex-CIA figure. (You’d expect as much.) The real shocker, in my opinion, was that Furlong also allegedly exploited the work of Afpax, a website conceived as a reporting and research network to be funded primarily by the US military.
Despite having received money directly from the military, Afpax founders, journalist/author Robert Young Pelton and ex-CNN executive Eason Jordan deny that they were ever in the intelligence gathering business. They claim that Afpax information was misused by Mr. Furlong, and that they severed ties with him last fall.
Mr. Jordan defended Afpax as an ‘open-source’ newsgathering operation that does not deal in classified information, while Mr. Pelton told one interviewer, “We’re no different than if you hired The New York Times to do a story.” I’m sure they see it that way. Still, open source or not, in my view, Afpax crossed a line when it sought military funding.
Legitimate newsgathering operations do not get paid by the military to aggregate information on the enemy, nor do they offer to set up meetings between the Taliban and American military commanders (a service which Mr. Pelton said Afpax provided). That is the job of spooks.
No matter how impartial, fact gathering by Western journalists and their local fixers in these areas can invite suspicion. In the most extreme cases, the Taliban have accused kidnapped journalists of being spies. If Afpax and its association with Mr. Furlong’s network ends up tarring all media in the region with the same brush, the cloud of suspicion that hangs over legitimate journalists could very well become a downpour. Journalists in Afghanistan and Pakistan face enough hazards without PMJs – Private Military Journalists—blurring the distinction between legitimate, impartial newsgathering and outsourced military intelligence operations. Perhaps the Committee to Protect Journalists has something to say on the subject…
—Bob Shepherd
Bob Shepherd is an ex-SAS soldier and bestselling author of The Circuit. To read more posts by him, please visit www.bobshepherdauthor.com.
“If I’m Kidnapped, I’m Gone”
Posted on 12. Mar, 2010 by admin in War on Terror
Any journalist who goes to Afghanistan knows he (or she) is only as good as his fixer. This would be the person who acts as interpreter, reporter and producer, setting up interviews and accompanying Western journalists around the country, often into dangerous circumstances.
Christian Parenti’s fixer was Ajmal Naqshband, who was only 24 when he was killed in a botched prisoner exchange, a murder that is significant not just from a humanistic perspective but as it reflects the current state of Afghanistan as well.
Parenti, who produced and is featured in the documentary “Fixer: The Taking of Ajmal Naqshbandi,” explains how the film was made, and why.
“Fixer” is currently playing at the Mayles Cinemas in New York City.