Thanks to the British military

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, September 9, 2009 - 12:50 PM Share

It was good of the British to find and free their kidnapped countryman, Stephen Farrell of the New York Times, near Kunduz, Afghanistan. A lot of us had known about his disappearance and had worried about it, but had refrained from mentioning it in print.

My condolences to the Times for the loss of Sultan Munadi, its Afghan interpreter (mourned above), and to the British military for the lost of a commando. And to the villagers who lost an unknown number of civilians.

Now a question for the Times and other media outlets: It is fair to ask people not to report the kidnapping of reporters when the kidnapping of other defenseless people, like NGO workers, is routinely reported?

Marco Di Lauro/Getty Images

EXPLORE:EUROPE, SOUTH ASIA, AFGHANISTAN, MEDIA, MILITARY, TALIBAN
 

GRUENDLICH

2:59 PM ET

September 9, 2009

Kind of a rhetoric question

Why did British SAS conduct the raid and not German KSK?

In any case, a job well done. My condolences to the families of the fallen soldier and the translator.

 

DA BUFFALO AMONGST WOLVES

2:58 PM ET

September 9, 2009

Some lives are more valuable

Some lives are more valuable than others:

"...civilians, including women and children, were also killed in the firefight to free the journalists... ...The Times also reports that Mr. Munadi, Farrell’s translator, was killed during the rescue operation."

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/09/09/kidnapped-new-york-times-journalist-freed-in-nato-raid/

War is a messy affair... It seems more so for the innocent bystanders and citizens of the countries we invade.

GET OUT NOW!

 

SWANIC

3:51 PM ET

September 9, 2009

Question about secrecy

I asked this on AbuM's blog, but nobody has responded.

I can understand Keller's desire to protect his reporter. But I'm not sure that I understand how it helps the reporter to keep news of his capture quiet. Is the theory that his captors don't know that he is a reporter and are therefore unaware of the extra leverage or propaganda value he gives them over an "ordinary" captive? I find it hard to believe that even the most ill-informed Afghan militant won't quickly figure out that a captive is a civilian reporter as opposed to a solider, diplomat or aid worker. But maybe I'm wrong about that.

 

TYRTAIOS

4:57 PM ET

September 9, 2009

Question of Ransom?

It might be interesting to know if ransom has been paid quietly in the past. And by keeping any reporter snatched-up a secret, these news services further keep any ransom negotiations hushed-up, to prevent it from becoming a cottage industry? Sometimes it can be hard to tell the insurgent from the common criminal.

 

SWANIC

4:35 PM ET

September 9, 2009

Another question about secrecy

Why was it important for Keller and the Times to keep it secret when the news was published in Germany and announced by both the local government in Afghanistan and the Taliban? I'm willing to keep an open mind about it, but I think Keller and the Times ought to explain why it was important (or necessary?) not to publish the information. Because it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Thomas E. Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008.

Read More