We Are Soldiers

[Zulfiqar]

Third Promo video:

 

[blain2]

Former armymen/independent analysis makes it politically controversial? How?

It's an army documentary not done by the army/ISPR, rather by an independent news channel.

Hence that's not it and it's not okay

The purpose of these documentaries is not always to go into the depth of all the pros and cons of the issue. The reason for this are many. First of all, such documentaries are produced for laypersons. They cannot understand all of the issues around the challenges of absorbing equipment, changes in training doctrine etc. etc. As such the idea is to give a very high level view of life for an infanteer.

The fact that this documentary incorporates certain technical critique is already a good thing because almost 99% of the urdu ones have been done for promotional reasons. Secondly, Armed Forces all over the world have very serious issues with their problems or challenges being brought out in the open. There are operational security reasons as well as a military culture which frowns upon sensitive issues being discussed out in public.

Usually such issues are discussed in much more detail in the writings and journals by officers (retd mostly) and the services themselves. If you really want to be a scholar of the military affairs within Pakistan and understand many of the issues facing the armed forces then you have to do quite a bit of the homework yourself. Hoping to get all the ins and outs of the armed forces through a documentary done by Dawn is not realistic.

The host of the show did what he is suppose to. He is not an expert or a scholar of such things and to expect him to be at ease with all of the subject matter is again expecting a bit too much. Most of the shows even in the West are documented and researched by a team and then the host goes about presenting the information gleaned via research. This is no different. I used to be able to watch some of the documentaries on Discovery's Military Channel and must say that a lot of that content was also for laypersons without divulging service or technical issues that crop up. The bottom line is that there is too much detail in such issues to be covered in a show. Most viewers would have no interest in such things.

Lastly, most retired personnel will not go on TV and critique the Army or its training philosophy etc. There are issues and problems that are dealt with internally and most like to keep it that way. Because these issues do not need to be in the public domain, there is no reason for such people to talk about them publicly on TV. This is the same reason that while you will see many, many retired officers on TV interview and shows, they will never discuss specifics of service, training doctrine, equipment evaluation etc. in detail. Maybe there has to be a slight shift in the military culture, but until that happens, expect closed doors on a lot of the details.

 

[SQ8]

The Idea is good, but the execution poor,
quite a few times the music was too load and off cue. Content was not matched with the description.
so the director needs to be given the axe.

 

[Elmo]

The purpose of these documentaries is not always to go into the depth of all the pros and cons of the issue. The reason for this are many. First of all, such documentaries are produced for laypersons. They cannot understand all of the issues around the challenges of absorbing equipment, changes in training doctrine etc. etc. As such the idea is to give a very high level view of life for an infanteer.

The fact that this documentary incorporates certain technical critique is already a good thing because almost 99% of the urdu ones have been done for promotional reasons. Secondly, Armed Forces all over the world have very serious issues with their problems or challenges being brought out in the open. There are operational security reasons as well as a military culture which frowns upon sensitive issues being discussed out in public.

Usually such issues are discussed in much more detail in the writings and journals by officers (retd mostly) and the services themselves. If you really want to be a scholar of the military affairs within Pakistan and understand many of the issues facing the armed forces then you have to do quite a bit of the homework yourself. Hoping to get all the ins and outs of the armed forces through a documentary done by Dawn is not realistic.

The host of the show did what he is suppose to. He is not an expert or a scholar of such things and to expect him to be at ease with all of the subject matter is again expecting a bit too much. Most of the shows even in the West are documented and researched by a team and then the host goes about presenting the information gleaned via research. This is no different. I used to be able to watch some of the documentaries on Discovery's Military Channel and must say that a lot of that content was also for laypersons without divulging service or technical issues that crop up. The bottom line is that there is too much detail in such issues to be covered in a show. Most viewers would have no interest in such things.

Lastly, most retired personnel will not go on TV and critique the Army or its training philosophy etc. There are issues and problems that are dealt with internally and most like to keep it that way. Because these issues do not need to be in the public domain, there is no reason for such people to talk about them publicly on TV. This is the same reason that while you will see many, many retired officers on TV interview and shows, they will never discuss specifics of service, training doctrine, equipment evaluation etc. in detail. Maybe there has to be a slight shift in the military culture, but until that happens, expect closed doors on a lot of the details.

Sir, I wasn't asking for an in-depth analysis nor a critique by former soldiers. Just a balance of views.

Also, I have no intentions/desire of becoming a military scholar

 

[Xeric]

Firstly, it was obvious that his researcher had a lot of help from the ISPR/army. the content certainly wasn't done by a lay-man.

Bad guess.

Secondly, the guy's accent and tone were overbearing and obnoxious. Inflections at the wrong time etc etc.

Why would that bother you?
i hope you were not the producer?

But my issue with the programme was its content: there was little independent analysis, say from former servicemen. You need to have the other viewpoint rather than current servicemen speaking only.

Agreed! It should have shown some 'independent analysis'
But what's so special about the former servicemen?(with due apology to Sir Fatman)

Oh so you are concerned that the hazir service dudes would only give sub accha hai report?

Dont get carried away with that 'Ex-Servicemen Society' kinda thing, how many other former servicemen did you see speaking 'bad' of the military?

Otherwise, the show will then end up more or less being an army recruitment promo.

And it was exactly meant to be one!

Tell me a military which show up on the media with an "Out Out..we dont need soldiers/ No need to join the military' attitude!

 

[Kasrkin]

"But my issue with the programme was its content: there was little independent analysis, say from former servicemen. You need to have the other viewpoint rather than current servicemen speaking only. Otherwise, the show will then end up more or less being an army recruitment promo...."

If I may be so bold as to ask exactly what 'balance of view' you are referring to? Be precise, if you found something i.e. a remark, an assessment or a suggestion to be unbalanced then please discuss it. I think as far as the technicals the impartiality was sound, he did not hesitate to explore the weaknesses of all the equipment he discussed and compared it with western equipment, etc. When he referred to Lal Masjhid, which was a successful operation according to military experts, he was careful to imply things were far from perfect. More than that, given that you yourself have admitted are no military scholar or expert, what were you expecting from the show? Perhaps you are referring to the organizational/command aspects that were related, but not discussed. You go any deep into the pros and cons of Pak military doctrine and organization then most people here, let alone Dawn News viewers, would find it not only boring but way over their heads. Maybe you found it ‘unbalanced’ because there was no explicit and undisciplined criticism of the army? Well, I feel that was what balanced it, not the other way round.

 

[Elmo]

Bad guess.
Why would that bother you?
i hope you were not the producer?
Agreed! It should have shown some 'independent analysis'
But what's so special about the former servicemen?(with due apology to Sir Fatman)
Oh so you are concerned that the hazir service dudes would only give sub accha hai report?
Dont get carried away with that 'Ex-Servicemen Society' kinda thing, how many other former servicemen did you see speaking 'bad' of the military?
And it was exactly meant to be one!
Tell me a military which show up on the media with an "Out Out..we dont need soldiers/ No need to join the military' attitude!

Yeah thanks for letting me know that a lay-man knows the intricacies of a G-3 rifle, its range, its make, its shortcomings, how it let armymen down in Siachen etc etc. That's information that's widely available on the internet. Bad guess on my part, whatever!
I am not the producer, if I was I would have certainly edited out certain parts out along with the music that kept skipping genres. Don't like incoherence in any work actually. As for ex-servicemen speaking badly, please go through Urdu newspapers more frequently. A week or two back, in a local daily there was a column by a former brigadier against the army operation in Swat and the way it was being conducted. One was not expecting the ex-servicemen to lash out against the army and I am least concerned about what the hazir or ghair-hazir servicemen have to say. As for military attitude on media, there is a reason why you have the "independent" logo attached to a documentary by a private channel which is owned by one of the most conservative media group. If it had an ISPR logo with it (like Alpha Bravo Charlie, Sunehray Din), it would have been fine, but it doesn't.

Lastly, I haven't bashed the army and you are currently just picking on what I have said for no reason --- and that's not fair!

If I may be so bold as to ask exactly what 'balance of view' you are referring to? Be precise, if you found something i.e. a remark, an assessment or a suggestion to be unbalanced then please discuss it. I think as far as the technicals the impartiality was sound, he did not hesitate to explore the weaknesses of all the equipment he discussed and compared it with western equipment, etc. When he referred to Lal Masjhid, which was a successful operation according to military experts, he was careful to imply things were far from perfect. More than that, given that you yourself have admitted are no military scholar or expert, what were you expecting from the show? Perhaps you are referring to the organizational/command aspects that were related, but not discussed. You go any deep into the pros and cons of Pak military doctrine and organization then most people here, let alone Dawn News viewers, would find it not only boring but way over their heads. Maybe you found it ‘unbalanced’ because there was no explicit and undisciplined criticism of the army? Well, I feel that was what balanced it, not the other way round.

First of all, I have much better things to do in my life than go scavenging for "explicit and undisciplined criticism" of the army. If I find something wrong with the army, I'll state that unhindered. I did not in this case find anything wrong with what the army was shown doing, so let's leave that matter aside. Not one post so far on this thread has been about the army. It's been only about the programme. So stop grossly extrapolating what I have written and insinuating arguments that were not elicited on my part. It's getting weary for me now.

Coming to main topic, the content of the show, I found it either way too basic (the organizational command, now you'll be really living in another world to not know what a brigadier does or who a three or four star general is etc etc) or way too technical to keep one's attention (like the rifle make). I certainly wasn't expecting an in-depth analysis of military doctrines (where is that coming from anyways?) or pros and cons. It was a detached programme -- talking about ammos and guns, that's not attention-grabbing or even attention-holding for an average viewer. Nothing much on the way a soldier feels or thinks. Lastly, I wasn't expecting anything from the show at all. It hasn't fallen down or gone up, I actually will watch the next instalment of "W.A.S." My assessment is on what I saw during it. Nothing less, nothing more!

Case Closed.

 

[Skywalker]

Sir, I wasn't asking for an in-depth analysis nor a critique by former soldiers. Just a balance of views.

Also, I have no intentions/desire of becoming a military scholar

After reading so much criticism from you in this thread and some other threads, the only advise I can give you is to come back to planet earth as earth is more civilized than pluto and can cure all your negativity. Just an advise.

 

[Elmo]

After reading so much criticism from you in this thread and some other threads, the only advise I can give you is to come back to planet earth as earth is more civilized than pluto and can cure all your negativity. Just an advise.

Keep rolling on the floor laughing... makes me happy that at least one person finds humour here

And I love Pluto... have no plans of coming back... so you kinda gotta learn to deal with that man!

 

[Xeric]

the only advise I can give you is to come back to planet earth as earth is more civilized than pluto and can cure all your negativity. Just an advise.

As the 'case' has been closed by our worthy Despot, i'll be keeping it out, but (sorry i cant help it)

N.B. i hope Sky, you have a place to run and hide now

 

[Kasrkin]

"So stop grossly extrapolating what I have written and insinuating arguments that were not elicited on my part. It's getting weary for me now..."

You have a habit of bitterly denying comments you’ve clearly made and I’ve ignored this out of courtesy before. But instead of saying ‘topic closed’ when you’ve failed to respond with a cohesive point or argument, you should be prudent in the first place while making comments that are likely to be challenged. You alleged that this show was biased along the lines of a ‘recruitment promo’ and talked about ‘no other viewpoint’. Obviously there is little genuine material to your contentions, because as we can see now you’ve jumped to decrying over ‘nothing much on the way a soldier feels or thinks’ (which is ironic given how you were just complaining about ‘only army point of view’ being expressed by ex-servicemen). This is a place where we discuss PoVs, there is nothing wrong if someone’s is incomplete or inconsistent. But there is no need to dramatize the situation.

Topic Closed.

 

[Elmo]

"So stop grossly extrapolating what I have written and insinuating arguments that were not elicited on my part. It's getting weary for me now..."

You have a habit of bitterly denying comments you’ve clearly made and I’ve ignored this out of courtesy before. But instead of saying ‘topic closed’ when you’ve failed to respond with a cohesive point or argument, you should be prudent in the first place while making comments that are likely to be challenged. You alleged that this show was biased along the lines of a ‘recruitment promo’ and talked about ‘no other viewpoint’. Obviously there is little genuine material to your contentions, because as we can see now you’ve jumped to decrying over ‘nothing much on the way a soldier feels or thinks’ (which is ironic given how you were just complaining about ‘only army point of view’ being expressed by ex-servicemen). This is a place where we discuss PoVs, there is nothing wrong if someone’s is incomplete or inconsistent. But there is no need to dramatize the situation.

Topic Closed.

"Biased along army recruitment lines"


Here's my original quote: "Otherwise, the show will then end up more or less being an army recruitment promo."

"End up" is way on the other end of the spectrum than saying outrightly it is "biased"! Where is this allegation that you are claiming I made?


"no other viewpoint’


Here's my original quote: "here was little independent analysis, say from former servicemen."

"Little" and "no" are again different.

which is ironic given how you were just complaining about ‘only army point of view’ being expressed by ex-servicemen


Here's my original quote: "Sir, I wasn't asking for an in-depth analysis nor a critique by former soldiers. Just a balance of views."

That's the only quote I have found of mine that had the word view in it!


I’ve ignored this out of courtesy before

Ahan!

You just don't stop drawing random conclusions from what I have said so I am consciously prudent to avoid you for your "dramatics". I in fact don't even post in the same thread as you do. make sure that I do not cross paths with you!

It's extremely easy to make personal attacks, I don't like that and refuse to be drawn in such arguments!

 

[Kasrkin]

No, don't argue over semantics. You expressed a view and you are incapable of defending it. Why would you have said these things if you weren’t referring to this show? You expressed your disappointment and you gave reasons, now should we believe that you were referring to entirely something else?

There is nothing ambiguous about how you expressed yourself, you can’t pretend that I drew the wrong conclusions in regards to your views when I read this:

"But my issue with the programme was its content: there was little independent analysis, say from former servicemen. You need to have the other viewpoint rather than current servicemen speaking only. Otherwise, the show will then end up more or less being an army recruitment promo...."

You stated you had issues with the program and its content, you then inserted a colon and went on to talk about a lack of ‘independent analysis’ in the show without which you claim programs are akin to ‘army recruitment promos’. So were you referring to some other show then, or was I suppose to take all that followed the colon to be inconsequential and unrelated grumbling?

When I went on to address these points you raised in regards to the show, incapable of addressing it you dramatize and accuse me of ‘grossly extrapolating’ and ‘insinuating arguments’. There are inherit contradictions in all you’ve said and you’re incapable of acknowledging or addressing them.

"Little" and "no" are again different.

Wow does that change the nature of your argument? Was I wrong in assuming that you found it unbalanced? Your only defense is ‘I said there is little independent analysis not no independent analysis’ and you ignored everything I said about it being largely imparial. Ssshhh….

"That's the only quote I have found of mine that had the word view in it!"

Here is your quote, "You need to have the other viewpoint rather than current servicemen speaking only..." Did that refresh your memory?

”I in fact don't even post in the same thread as you do. make sure that I do not cross paths with you!”

Now don’t you think that’s a bit of an over-reaction?

”It's extremely easy to make personal attacks, I don't like that…”

See what I mean by dramatizing the situation? Please be kind enough to point out one place where I have attacked your person and not your view/argument.

 

[Zulfiqar]

This documentary was probably made to help the army boost its image to a better level then what it is now( i am not saying that it is down but public awareness is a good thing).

Look at the timing, we have operations going on and the last thing we need is to criticize the army. The time is to build more support for the military and this documentary is the right tool for it and off course help in recruitment if possible.

The time is not right for playing devil's advocate.

 

[blain2]

Sir, I wasn't asking for an in-depth analysis nor a critique by former soldiers. Just a balance of views.

Also, I have no intentions/desire of becoming a military scholar

Agreed. However I think even interviews with jawans can be an issue for the Army and I say this knowing that its the same case across the border (pretty much in all of the South Asian countries).

Maybe in the future episodes and programs you will see more of the interaction at lower levels. So do not count that out.