BEATING WIKILEAKS TO THE PUNCH ON AFGHANISTAN

Canadian reporter Scott Taylor (left) and Sasha Uzunov (right) in Kandahar, Afghanistan to film a documentary in 2007 for Canadian television. Uzunov does a Jim Waley impersonation by donning a flak jacket and helmet.

It has has taken The Sunday Age's (Fairfax newspapers) self-appointed

defence expert, Tom Hyland, three years to reveal, courtesy of wikileaks,

what TEAM UZUNOV reported back in 2007 about Australia's mission in

Afghanistan, in particular the difficult relationship with our ally the Dutch.

Here's Hyland's story:

www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/bickering-warriors-in-coalition-of-unwilling-20101225-197es.html

Bickering warriors in coalition of unwilling

December 26, 2010

Mistrust, indecision and hostility undermined Australia's alliance with the Dutch and Americans in what was supposed to be a united front against the Taliban and in restoring stability to Afghanistan, writes Tom Hyland.

We squabbled with our allies, yet in public we talked of close co-operation. We frustrated the Americans with unfulfilled promises. Our politicians big-noted in public, but dithered in private.

Our bamboozled bureaucrats tried to make sense of the details. All along, the public was kept in the dark. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we now have an insight into the diplomatic and political skirmishes behind the war in Afghanistan, now in its ninth year and which has cost 21 Australian lives.

Cables from 2007 reveal intense distrust between Australian and Dutch forces in Oruzgan province, where Australia was part of a Netherlands-led force....

In February 2007, Australian officers, concerned that the Taliban were preparing a do-or-die offensive, started planning to send special forces back to Oruzgan.

This was just five months after the Howard government pulled them out, in September 2006, when it argued Oruzgan was ''relatively stable''.

The government and defence chiefs defended the withdrawal at the time, saying Australian reconstruction troops remaining in the province were well-protected, with their own forces and 1400 Dutch soldiers.

But their claims of stability and their stated faith in the Dutch were undermined by early 2007, when intelligence reports warned of a Taliban resurgence....

http://newmatilda.com/2007/06/06/news-front

AFGHANISTAN

6 Jun 2007

News from the Front

By Sasha Uzunov

Australian journalist Sasha Uzunov reports from the Afghan front

The Forgotten War

Sometimes it takes an outsider to tell us the most uncomfortable truths.

Last week, Defence Minister Dr Brendan Nelson took a swipe at critics who question the pace at which Australian troops are securing their designated province in Afghanistan, saying:

Any suggestion Australian troops are not pulling their weight in southern Afghanistan is beneath contempt. Australia is steadfastly committed to Uruzgan as shown by the recent decision to deploy a Special Operations Task Group of approximately 300 people to the region.

However, the recent decision to send Special Forces back to Uruzgan could also be read as a tacit admission that not all is well with the mission. (Who was the genius who decided to remove our Special Forces soldiers from Afghanistan late last year?)

When I asked the Defence Minister if a rift had developed between Australian troops and the Dutch Army engineers they are serving alongside, over who was doing the most to secure Uruzgan, Nelson would not comment.

The controversy was sparked by prominent German journalist, Ulrich Ladurner, who claimed, in an interview he gave to me at Kabul airport on 14 May, that both the Australians and Dutch were being slow in establishing security in the province.

read more at

http://newmatilda.com/2007/06/06/news-front

Tom Hyland's Fairfax colleague, Suzanne Carbone, had the courtesy to give credit where credit is due.

Perhaps Hyland should realise that Australia's Defence debate is not the preserve of "experts" but belongs to the Australian taxpayer who has to pick up the tab.

http://teamuzunovmedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/holding-peacemakercircuit-breaker.html

Friday, January 30, 2009 - TEAM UZUNOV

MINISTER ON AFGHAN FACT FINDING TRIP?
ExclusiveTim Holding - Brumby’s man turned PM Rudd’s international man of mystery?

VIC MINISTER WON’T CONFIRM OR DENY AFGHAN TRIP

By Sasha Uzunov

Copyright 2009

Mr Tim Holding, a Victorian State government minister who is a former Australian Army Reserve Special Forces soldier, will not confirm nor deny speculation about him undertaking a short fact finding mission to Afghanistan on behalf of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

A prominent strategic analyst, who has the close ear of governments, and speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he wanted to “float the idea of Mr Holding undertaking a fact finding mission to the Australian base in Tarin Kowt province [in Southern Afghanistan].”

“Mr Holding is an intelligent young politician with links to Special Forces. The Australian media underestimate his ability, which is why he would be ideal for the mission: he would slip under the media radar,” the strategic analyst said. “Mr Holding has not been informed of the proposed trip.”

The analyst said Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was not happy with the flow of information about Afghanistan coming from the army chain of command and needed his own “eyes and ears” on the ground for a couple of weeks to assess the situation.

Mr Holding’s office was contacted a week ago to confirm or deny if Mr Holding knew the speculation about the Afghanistan trip. But no comment has been forthcoming.Mr Holding served as a Signaller or communications expert with the elite Army Reserve Special Forces unit, 126 Commando Signals Squadron, then attached to 1 Commando Regiment, 2nd Company, at Fort Gellibrand, Williamstown, Melbourne, Victoria from 1991 to 1993.

Greg Sher the eighth and most recent Australian soldier killed in Afghanistan was also a member of 1 Commando Regiment (1 CDO Regt).Mr Holding is the Minister for Finance, WorkCover and Transport Accident Commission, and Minister for Water, Minister for Tourism and Major Events in the John Brumby ALP state government.

A former Australian intelligence agent, with extensive Middle East experience, and also speaking on the condition of anonymity, said he believed that Prime Minister Rudd would change Australia’s current military policy and commit a regular army infantry battalion (about 500 soldiers) to Afghanistan very soon.

Current military policy is for Australia’s Special Forces units, SASR and 4RAR (Commando) to do the frontline fighting in Afghanistan, which according to standard doctrine should be carried out by regular infantry.

SASR and 4RAR (Cdo)’s traditional roles include surveillance of the enemy, information gathering or carrying out raids against targets or securing entry and exits points for other army units.

SASR, 4RAR (Cdo) and 1 CDO Regt fall under the Australian Army's Special Operations Command (SOCOMD).

In contrast the Canadian army, after decades of peacekeeping, has regular infantry fighting the Taliban in the dangerous southern Afghanistan province of Kandahar. But over 100 Canadian soldiers have been killed.

(end)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Age, Diary Column, Tuesday, 3 February 2009.

Timmy, don't forget to pack the water canteen
by SUZANNE CARBONE

TIM Holding was dubbed "Twinkle Twinkle" because he was considered a little star, and he's really made an impact in the water portfolio with those faulty four-minute shower timers that last for 40 minutes or four hours. But Dim's moment to shine may have arrived.

Former Australian soldier Sasha Uzunov, now a photo-journalist, writes in his blog that Holding (below) could be destined for Afghanistan as Kevin Rudd's "eyes and ears" on the ground. You see, Holding is well credentialed as a former member of the Army Reserve in the 1st Commando Regiment - and he's Tourism Minister.

A "prominent Canberra strategic analyst" told Uzunov: "Mr Holding is an intelligent young politician with links to special forces. The Australian media underestimate his ability, which is why he would be ideal for the mission: he would slip under the media radar."

The analyst claimed the PM was not happy with the flow of information from Afghanistan so the analyst would suggest Holding embark on a "fact-finding mission" to the Australian base in Tarin Kowt. Diary asked Commando Holding about swapping a fluoro vest for a flak jacket, and he said:

"While I will sit by my phone awaiting the Prime Minister's call, I will make it clear to him that I will only travel to Afghanistan in the company of my friends at The Age Diary."

Who knew Twinkle had a sense of humour? We'll only go if he acts as our human shield. And brings a shower timer that works.

(end)

-------------------------------------

Canadian film on Afghanistan

View the complete film at this link:
www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=4759

Canadian documentary film, "Afghanistan: outside the wire," 60 minutes long, camerawork by Scott Taylor (host/producer), David Pugliese and Sasha Uzunov.

CPAC Special"Afghanistan: Outside the Wire"

Afghan scandal & Australian media response

www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10227

Online Opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate.

Scrutinising the media's scrutiny of defence
By Sasha Uzunov - Tuesday, 30 March 2010

If the media scrutinise the tip of the spear in combat - recent Australian soldiers' behaviour on the ground in the Afghan war - then they need to scrutinise the spear throwers - the politicians and defence experts and journalists.

A case in point has been SBS TV reporter Sophie McNeill and Fairfax newspaper journalists Jonathon Pearlman and Tom Hyland who have been ferociously targeting the Australian Army’s 1 Commando Regiment over a botched raid which resulted in the killing of children in Afghanistan last February.

Soldiers from that unit, largely reservist, could possibly face legal proceedings for murder, manslaughter, negligence and so on. But there are three important issues about the Afghan incident: due process of law, the presumption of innocence and who shapes Australia’s defence policy.

McNeill, Pearlman and Hyland have probably sensed Army blood and a possible Walkley Award for what they perceive is “Australia’s My Lai”. But some of us who are journalists and ex-soldiers believe that McNeill, Pearlman and Hyland have a democratic right to scrutinise the military. We would uphold their freedom of speech. The irony is that the media do not believe that the ordinary tax payer has the right to scrutinise the media in its coverage of defence issues.

In 2008 McNeill requested I not contact her to discuss defence issues, including Afghanistan. Hyland has gone on the record to allude that those who are not Fairfax journalists but who scrutinise defence experts are involved in a curious crusade.

The question is why are Australia’s big name reporters so tough when it comes to “exposing” defence scandals but are so panicked by a few straight forward questions about their war reporting credentials?

McNeill’s boss at SBS TV’s Dateline, Peter Charley, also does not like being questioned over how defence issues are covered.

Methinks SBS, the ABC and Fairfax protesteth too much!

Hyland the “defence expert” for The Sunday Age wrote in “Deadly Afghan raids expose leadership failings” on March 21, 2010:

The regiment's experiences have triggered an intense debate within army ranks - about Special Forces tactics, and wider questions about a political and military preference for sending Special Forces, rather than large infantry units, to conflicts like Afghanistan.

It is funny for Hyland to ask this question because the answer may not be to his liking. In fact it might be too close to home, if you pardon the pun. Let me explain.

On January 21, 2005 I wrote an op-ed piece for The Herald Sun newspaper in which I was the first to indentify this change in Australian Army warfighting doctrine.

Some have criticised General (Peter) Cosgrove on his over reliance on the SAS (Special Forces) to do the fighting in East Timor that would normally have been taken up by the regular infantry. But I think this criticism is unjustified.

Criticism should be aimed at the government of the day (Howard 1996-2007) and those at home squeamish about seeing a 19-year-old lad away from home for the first time fighting a war. Better to send the SAS, whose identity cannot be revealed ...

On September 9, 2008 I wrote:


To top that off, a legacy of the Nelson-Howard military doctrine has the Special Forces doing most of the fighting (in Afghanistan), because of the fear of casualties to our regular infantry units. The long term effect could be burn out of our Special Forces. But the irony is if we withdraw our SF units and do not replace them with infantry units, then the pressure on Taliban is eased. It is one contradictory military doctrine, to say the least.


Here is a key point that has been missed, until recently: why is it Australian Defence Policy to use Special Forces in an infantry role in Afghanistan, as well as throwing Army reservists in the deep end? Who caused this dramatic shift in defence thinking?

Something Hyland has not touched upon is that the change came about in Defence policy when two key “experts”, Professor Paul Dibb and ex-Fairfax journalist turned government advisor Hugh White, decided to cut back the number of infantry. This led to the consequences of using reservists in combat roles and stretched our Special Forces to breaking point.

During Bob Hawke’s Prime Ministership (1983-91) he brought in British academic Professor Paul Dibb and ex-Fairfax journalist Hugh White. Their brief was to transform the defence department with a number of reports, Defence White Papers and so on. Instead we ended up with a mess that took more than a decade to bring under some form of control.

Mr Bruce Haigh, a former diplomat revealed during an interview with SBS TV’s Dateline program on September 27, 2000 that:

Defence is the department that’s divided amongst itself, as far as I can gather, and there are certain people inside Defence who’ve taken a certain line for a long period of time - the Paul Dibb line, if you like, which is high-tech, US-alliance - and you’ve got others who are saying, "No. We’ve got the situation to the north- we need to have more people in uniform, we need to have them trained, we need to have night-vision equipment provided for them. “… the Australian Army can see what needs to be done, but many of the civilian Defence personnel, who’ve built their careers on playing up to this particular line, are arguing the other case, and feeling increasingly isolated, because they are not facing reality. That’s the problem.

Respected Brigadier Jim Wallace, former Special Forces Commander, wrote in 2003:

Unfortunately, Australian defence policy has been mainly wrong for the whole of this period. Even after we committed troops to East Timor, Professor Paul Dibb, the policy's chief architect, was standing in front of parliamentary committees vowing that Australia would not be conducting what he called "expeditionary" operations out of the region. This was despite a series of major UN deployments over many years to places as far afield as Rwanda and Somalia. Afghanistan and Iraq have hopefully now discredited this logic.

At the same time, Dr Hugh White was arguing in initial drafts for the 2000 white paper to reduce the size of our army to about 19,000, on the basis that, like Professor Dibb, he didn't see the Government needing options for deployment out of the region, particularly for sending the army. The result has been an incredible demand on the dedication and professionalism of our special forces as they have again been thrown into the breach that our supposedly expert defence planners couldn't predict.

We now await to see if McNeill, Hyland and Pearlman will be ferociously chasing ex-Fairfax journalist Hugh White for answers. Perhaps this is not part of the script. Only those who serve in uniform can and do make mistakes, those who are arm-chair generals can do no wrong!

-----

MEDIA SHERIFF'S BADGE

More to SAS-Dutch Afghan story.....

Some big name journalists at Fairfax newspapers have a "special licence" or media sheriff's badge to investigate but freelance journalists are not afforded the same privilege....

It is also called Selective Freedom to Scrutinise Syndrome (SFTSS).

read on...


Online opinion - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9078&page=0

A special licence to investigate

by Sasha Uzunov
Wednesday 24 June 2009

Fairfax newspapers' self appointed defence expert Tom Hyland has made a very clever and subtle attack against the Defence Department over its refusal to divulge details about the heroic and ferocious battles being fought by the Australian Army’s elite SASR in Afghanistan.

However, it is a bit rich for Hyland to be complaining that freelance journalists/bloggers are on a “curious crusade” if they scrutinise or criticise defence experts, in particular journalists and writers such as Vietnam War draft resister Garrie Hutchinson.

Hyland’s piece ran in the Sunday Age and Sun Herald on June 14, 2009 and reveals the story of a brave Dutch commando Captain Marco Kroon who fought alongside the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) in Afghanistan in 2006. Here’s the tone:

"The story of a Dutch soldier's courage reveals what our army keeps secret, writes Tom Hyland.

"A veil of official secrecy shrouding combat involving Australian SAS troops in Afghanistan has been lifted in Holland, revealing details of harrowing fighting that is still withheld by the Australian military."

Perhaps Hyland is not aware of the reason why the SASR remains successful: it is because it keeps away from the glare of publicity.

What is surprising is that it has taken Hyland three years to track the full details. Surely, with the bevy of highly paid defence experts in the Fairfax stable such as Paul Daley, Peter Hartcher, Hugh White, Nick McKenzie and Paul McGeough, all of whom have never served in uniform, they would have helped Hyland out? Ah, but perhaps this is a curious crusade …? We must not go there!

The reality is, for all its faults, the Defence Department bends over backwards to satisfy the whims of Australia’s big name journalists. But then again, the Defence Department now would probably be wary of dealing with Fairfax newspaper, The Age. The Age was recently found to be wrong in reporting that the Defence Department spied on the then Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon.

Big name journalists, because of their power and influence, can become accustomed to getting their own way. They can also suffer from Selective Freedom to Scrutinise Syndrome (SFTSS): that is some of them believe they have a special licence, or a media sheriff’s badge, to kick down doors and investigate - but this does not apply to freelance journalists or bloggers or non-ABC TV journalists.

Ex-ABC TV reporter Max Uechtritz is a classic example of SFTSS.

Paul Moran, 39, was killed on March 22, 2003 by a car bomb while covering the war in Northern Iraq for ABC TV. He was an Adelaide-raised freelance cameraman who worked on and off for the ABC as well as US public relations firm Rendon, which had ties to the CIA and the Bush Administration.

Walkley Award winning Australian journalist, Mr Colin James, of the Adelaide Advertiser newspaper, was the first to break the story about Moran’s shadowy past when he attended Moran’s wake in Adelaide. He talked to relatives who revealed that Moran had a James Bond other life but the ABC did not follow up on this story.

ABC TV news boss Mr Uechtritz, in his reply to ABC program Media Watch aired on April 14, 2003, wrote: “The ABC is not in the habit of following up Adelaide Advertiser stories.”

The Media Watch program chastised the ABC and Uechtritz: “The story was followed up by some parts of the media, but not by the ABC. It should have been.” (“Death in Bagdad”, April 14, 2003).

The irony of all this is Mr Uechtritz complained to The Age newspaper on June 30, 2003 about freedom of speech after coming under attack from the then Communications Minister, Senator Richard Alston, for alleged biased reporting of the Iraq War by the ABC.

“It is the duty of independent journalists in a robust democracy to question everything,” Mr Uechtritz wrote. “The senator seems to think the media's duty in time of war is to fall meekly into line with the government of the day.”

But it appears this does not apply to non-ABC journalists scrutinising Paul Moran!

Another example of SFTSS is the bizarre legal case involving a reporter with the London Times newspaper, Patrick Foster, taking action to find out the name of an anonymous blogger NightJack, who turned out to be a Lancashire policeman, Richard Horton.

Legal Eagle who contributes to the blog Skeptic Lawyer (run by Helen Dale of Helen Demidenko infamy) wrote:

I can’t help finding the action of The Times rather petty and malicious. For some reason, some journalists seem to despise blogging and bloggers …

There’s a suspicion in my mind that this journalist thought to himself, Let’s bring down a blogger who is writing something that is interesting and exciting. Jean Seaton, the director of the Orwell Prize, said:

“… But, surely what matters is the accuracy and insight of the information. No one has disputed what this blog said: it was not illegal, it was not malicious. Indeed, in a world where local reporting is withering away as the economic model for supporting it disappears, we know less and less about our non-metropolitan selves and this lack of attention will surely lead to corruption. So this blog was a very good example of reporting bubbling up from a new place.”

Further confirmation of The Times story can be found here.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6509677.ece

What is puzzling is The Times’ attack. The paper has made an intelligent use of blogs, and has been good at fighting the use of the courts to close down expression. NightJack was a source and a reporter. They would not (I hope) reveal their sources in court. Even odder is their main accusation against him: that the blog revealed material about identifiable court cases. The blog did not do this - cases were disguised. However, once The Times had published Horton’s name then, of course, it is easy to find the cases he was involved with. The Times has shut down a voice.

When Herald Sun newspaper reporters Gerard McManus and Michael Harvey were fined $7,000 for contempt by the Victorian Country Court over the publication of leaked documents, there was an almighty uproar about freedom of the press.

Once again the question is, whose freedom is it to scrutinise?

Rather than whingeing about the Defence Department not talking about the heroic exploits of the SASR, Hyland should examine two options open to him. First cultivate SASR soldiers as contacts or better still jump on a plane and travel to the frontlines of Afghanistan without a military escort. Respected Australian war reporter John Martinkus has been doing it for years in East Timor, Iraq and Afghanistan. Perhaps Hyland should be taking tips from him. Ah, better not suggest that it might be seen as a “curious crusade”.

(end)

About the Author
Sasha Uzunov is a freelance photo journalist, blogger, and budding film maker whose mission is to return Australia's national defence/ security debate to its rightful owner, the taxpayer. He also likes paparazzi photography! He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Journalism from The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology in 1991. He served as a professional soldier in the Australian Army from 1995 to 2002, and completed two tours of duty in East Timor. As a journalist he has worked in the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. His blog is at Team Uzunov.

Other articles by this Author

» Science v sorcery: the risky business of predicting the future - May 22, 2009
» Vietnam nightmare ends with newsman’s death - April 24, 2009
» At war with his own Defence Department - March 31, 2009
» When politicians should step aside - March 19, 2009
» CSI Dubrovnik: the Britt Lapthorne mystery - March 4, 2009
All articles by Sasha Uzunov