[f1000]

PBS: Frontline: A Company of Soldiers

Over 30 days and 26 missions, the story of the men of Dog Company -- the Army's 1-8 Calvary Regiment stationed in South Baghdad on the bank of the Tigris River. The final battle for Iraq will be won or lost in places like this and by soldiers like these.

A Company of Soldiers will be available for viewing online starting Friday at 8pm eastern.

[demograph68]

I will definitely watch it.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by f1000:
PBS: Frontline: A Company of Soldiers

Over 30 days and 26 missions, the story of the men of Dog Company -- the Army's 1-8 Calvary Regiment stationed in South Baghdad on the bank of the Tigris River. The final battle for Iraq will be won or lost in places like this and by soldiers like these.

A Company of Soldiers will be available for viewing online starting Friday at 8pm eastern.

"Dog" company? Oh oh. That doesn't bode well for accuracy. The Army hasn't used the old phonetics -- Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy -- in over 40 years. "Dog" company should be "Delta." The modern NATO alphabet is Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, etc.

A lot of Delta companies are nicknamed "Delta Dawgs" and that could be the source of the confusion. Or the journalist spent too long watching Saving Private Ryan.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
"Dog" company? Oh oh. That doesn't bode well for accuracy. The Army hasn't used the old phonetics -- Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, Easy -- in over 40 years. "Dog" company should be "Delta." The modern NATO alphabet is Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, Echo, etc.

A lot of Delta companies are nicknamed "Delta Dawgs" and that could be the source of the confusion. Or the journalist spent too long watching Saving Private Ryan.

Odd- I know people who served in the army during the vietnam period, and they say Able Baker when spelling out things. They served in 1972, best I can recall.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Odd- I know people who served in the army during the vietnam period, and they say Able Baker when spelling out things. They served in 1972, best I can recall.

According to this the Navy adopted the NATO phonetic alphabet in 1957. I assume the other services adopted it at the same time. I doubt there is anyone on active duty whose service goes back that far.

In any case, I can postively state that Able Baker wasn't used at all in the Army at least as far back as January 1989, when I was taught the military alphabet. In seven years in the Army I was variously in a D Co, E Co, B Co, A Co, and two C cos. None were ever called able, baker, dog, or easy within earshot of me. I think I would have come across the useage if it was out there, but I never once did. Not even from the old timers like my CG who was in the Army in Vietnam.

I have no idea where these journalists heard D Co called "dog company" but I am pretty certain that is couldn't have been from anyone on active duty today. While that is a small thing in and of itself, it makes me wonder how much contact the journalists really had with the people they made the documentary about.

[popstand]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
While that is a small thing in and of itself, it makes me wonder how much contact the journalists really had with the people they made the documentary about.

Maybe you should watch it before carping on this minor point. The camera crew is nearly blown up by an I.E.D. during a patrol, and is present at the service for one of the fallen soldiers (an incredibly sad and moving moment). They obviously share a close relationship with the unit, it would be unavoidable under the circumstances. Perhaps Dog company is simply a vernacular that they adopted?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by popstand:
Perhaps Dog company is simply a vernacular that they adopted?

You may be right. It is also possible that it is both a good documentary, and one that took a few liberties. Here is a letter from Frontline's web site:

Dear FRONTLINE,

Dear Frontline,

I would like to say thank you, and that I really appreciated your story. It gave me a chance to see men that I have not seen since I was injured by an IED on 30 May 04. You see I am a member of Dog or Delta company as I knew it. Except I find myself in Texas recovering from my injuries and patiently awaiting the return of many of the brave men that you showed. Furthermore it gave me an oppotunity to see my sector of Baghdad the memories that these images evoked were not all bad. My only regret is that you did not show more of the brave men that belong to that company or talk to them. You see I am a scout and I wish you had shown more of them, but oh well. ...

I appreciate your honest and forthright portrayal of what goes on a day to day basis and your reporting of the facts. Facts that so many people have never seen from other media outlets. I really believe it is hard for the news to be reported from the safety of the Green Zone.

Once Again,
Thank You for your report,


karl pasco
copperas cove , tx

Link (emphasis added)

So a soldier from the company didn't know it as "dog company" but rather knew it by its normal name, delta company. It sounds to me likely that "dog company" was PBS's little embellishment.

On the other hand, as the letter implies, it could still be a fine tribute to the troops. That writer seems to think so. However, I'd be more trusting if they also got the little things right -- probably because the media so rarely does when it reports on the military.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, I'd be more trusting if they also got the little things right -- probably because the media so rarely does when it reports on the military.

The media doesn't get anything right ever. There's nothing special about the military when it comes to the media getting things wrong.

After it airs I guess we'll know for sure, but it seems a little hard to believe that they would get wrong something so fundamental as the name of the group they followed and were embedded with. But it wouldn't surprise me.

[Krusty]

I'm watching this right now... takes a while to load. Lots of traffic, I guess.

[edit] if you can click "Play in Real Player", it plays well at full screen

[demograph68]

I'm watching it too. It's unbelievable what our troops are faced with.

[macintologist]

I thought the media was supposed to be unpatriotic and hate our troops.

[demograph68]

I posted this on another forum.

Just thought I'd see what your reaction would be to some of their posts. The strange part is that even though I don't support the war, I felt as if I was defending it as a conservative would.

[Krusty]

Originally posted by demograph68:
I posted this on another forum.

Just thought I'd see what your reaction would be to some of their posts. The strange part is that even though I don't support the war, I felt as if I was defending it as a conservative would.

Nah, you were defending it as a liberal would. A conservative would say the war is right. A liberal (most of us, anyway) will say the war is wrong, but would go out of our way not to demonize the troops themselves. After all, the service they entered is as honorable an occupation as there is; it's not their fault if the people at the top decided to send them into the meat-grinder on a preemptive mission that looks a whole lot more like a faltering imperial mission.

[nath]

Originally posted by Krusty:
Nah, you were defending it as a liberal would. A conservative would say the war is right. A liberal (most of us, anyway) will say the war is wrong, but would go out of our way not to demonize the troops themselves. After all, the service they entered is as honorable an occupation as there is; it's not their fault if the people at the top decided to send them into the meat-grinder on a preemptive mission that looks a whole lot more like a faltering imperial mission.

Isn't the task at hand relevant to how honourable the job they are doing is? I'm genuinely interested in this - I can certainly feel sorry for someone committed to military action I strongly disagree with, but would have difficulty turning that into the fawning behaviour of much of the yellow ribbon brigade. The unthinking execution of orders by the military is by no means destined to result in honourable actions - do the troops themselves bear no responsibility for their own actions? Saying someone is in 'as honorable an occupation as there is' doesn't elevate that person much beyond the status of a fuel can or bullet casing, given the nature of the chain of command.

Please understand this isn't an anti-military posting. I can't imagine the mentality of someone who would spit on a soldier (or on anyone for that matter). At the same time I have been in the company of SBS personel who, whilst on tour, found the whole thing very amusing and not a little distasteful. It's a cultural difference that is quite fascinating, especially when you consider that Britain is a fairly militaristic society, as least compared to other European countries.

It would be nice to see a post in here *just once* paying tribute to the work done by America's school teachers, or police officers. It is a little strange that in the US service in the military is so highly valued compared to that given by other public servants. Some people even seem to get horny about it, I remember a virtual jerk-circle developing in one thread once, over (wait for it) the relative merits of a personnel carrier.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
It would be nice to see a post in here *just once* paying tribute to the work done by America's school teachers, or police officers. It is a little strange that in the US service in the military is so highly valued compared to that given by other public servants. Some people even seem to get horny about it, I remember a virtual jerk-circle developing in one thread once, over (wait for it) the relative merits of a personnel carrier.

Teachers don't volunteer to risk their lives -- except possibly in certain inner city school systems. So no, the level of potential sacrifice isn't there, and they don't deserve the same degree of public honor. That doesn't mean they should be disrespected, but what they do is just a job, not a sacrifice.

Firemen and police do generally get the same public respect as the military, and for the same reason -- they put their lives on the line for the sake of total strangers. When a fireman is killed in the line of duty, it is common for them to get the same degree of community support as a fallen soldier -- e.g. public recognition, and often a formal funeral. The same goes for cops. I pass the National Law Enforcement Officer's Memorial pretty much every day on my way to school. There are always visitors there, often school children on tours of Washington. Most (if not all) states have their own memorials as well. It's also extremely common for public roads, buildings, bridges, etc. to be named after fallen law enforcement officers. So you are wrong if you think their sacrifices aren't given attention. At least in the US that isn't the case.

Of course, without the sacrifice of those who wear a military uniform, you wouldn't have any of the rest of our freedoms. So in that sense, they deserve a special place of honor. I'm sorry that this bothers you, but I wouldn't change it and I don't think any but the most hard-left extremist here would either.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Firemen and police do generally get the same public respect as the military

I think that has only really been the case since 9/11.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm sorry that this bothers you, but I wouldn't change it and I don't think any but the most hard-left extremist here would either.

I don't see anywhere in my post where I indicated that it 'bothered me', but well done for the knee-jerk anyway

p.s. The Brit soldiers I was talking about seemed more disturbed about it than me!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
I think that has only really been the case since 9/11.

You think that based on what, exactly?

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You think that based on what, exactly?

well, i believe that was when they got their own ribbon. troops had one for years, innit.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
well, i believe that was when they got their own ribbon. troops had one for years, innit.

Police forces and fire and rescue forces have their own medals and ribbons. They always have had -- at least in this country. That didn't change after 9/11, let alone begin.

I'm pretty sure that the police and fire brigade in the UK do too.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:


Police forces and fire and rescue forces have their own medals. They always have had -- at least in this country. That didn't change after 9/11, let alone begin.

I'm pretty sure that the police and fire brigade in the UK do too.

RIBBONS

(not medals)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
RIBBONS

(not medals)

You confused me. Ribbons generally refers to an award worn on a uniform. They are either representative of a medal, or a lower form of decoration than a medal. For example, the Army Service Ribbon has no medal, but the Bronze Star can either be worn as a medal, or as a ribbon. Police forces have the same kind of things.

The Yellow Ribbon is different. It goes back at least as far as Vietnam, probably a lot earlier. It signifies support for someone deployed far from home. The idea is you display the ribbon until the loved one comes home (hopefully safely).

Don't you remember the stupid song from the early 70s? Tie a yellow ribbon round the old oak tree . . . .

None of this has anything to do with public respect for fallen police and firemen. The public memorials, and naming of public buildings, etc. that I mentioned go back long before 9/11.

There are some special traditions. Generally, when a police officer is killed in the line of duty, the tradition is also for a black band to be placed on police shields. Because police and firemen are generally state or local officials, it is also not uncommon to lower flags in those states or municipalities. Some of these signs of public respect are obviously modelled on the things we do for soldiers -- reflecting the fact that their sacrifice is seen as equivalent.

Maybe you should restrict your comments to your own country -- you know, something you have a basis to comment on?

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Maybe you should restrict your comments to your own country -- you know, something you have a basis to comment on?

Maybe you should learn some manners. Or take your own advice. After all, you have made several disastrous forays into British politics and history yourself, on these very pages.

Putting your general oafishness aside, it's pretty clear from what you say that there is a far bigger tradition of honouring the fallen in all services in the US than in the UK. It certainly seems to lean a lot more towards the military from this side of the pond, but I suppose that could easily be a result of the times in which we live.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Maybe you should learn some manners. Or take your own advice. After all, you have made several disastrous forays into British politics and history yourself, on these very pages.

Putting your general oafishness aside, it's pretty clear from what you say that there is a far bigger tradition of honouring the fallen in all services in the US than in the UK. It certainly seems to lean a lot more towards the military from this side of the pond, but I suppose that could easily be a result of the times in which we live.

My my, we are touchy when we are wrong, aren't we?

Your comment was specifically about American school teachers and police.

Originally posted by nath:
It would be nice to see a post in here *just once* paying tribute to the work done by America's school teachers, or police officers. It is a little strange that in the US service in the military is so highly valued compared to that given by other public servants.

I asked you what your basis was for this comment. You have none that I can see, because of course, you have no first hand knowledge of this country. If you had any sense, you would realize that you can't make a cultural comment like that without knowing something about the country you are commenting about. Ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance of your ignorance makes you look like an idiot.

My "disasterous" comments about British policts mainly seem to come from disagreeing with you. I freely admit that the basis of my comments about Britain is from living there for 19 years, but that my residency in your country is dated. I last lived in the UK in the late 1980s. I wouldn't pretend to be an expert on the country's politics since then since, as I have said many times, I don't follow it closely enough.

However, that does still give me a much greater basis to make comparative comments than you have. I have lived in both countries, you have not. The difference seems to be that I recognize the limits of my knowledge, whereas it seems with you the less you know, the more certain you are, and the more stubborn you get that your prejudices are omnipotent knowledge.

You remind me of a bartender I argued with in Suffolk. He told me with enormous confidence that all German beer was light colored Lager. He refused to relent in this completely wrong assertion even when I rattled off the names of some very dark German beers. He stubbornly insisted that he was right even when I told him I lived in Germany (which he had never visited) and had bought a crate of Altbier the week before.

Like you, he got upset and rude when his ignorance was challenged. But it didn't make him any less ludicrous.

Now, your most recent point about honoring the military being a stronger tradition in the US than the UK is correct, in my opinion. The UK has a different tradition than the US has:

For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country," when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!

Rudyard Kipling

I like our tradition better.

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Your comment was specifically about American school teachers and police.

I asked you what your basis was for this comment. You have none that I can see, because of course, you have no first hand knowledge of this country. If you had any sense, you would realize that you can't make a cultural comment like that without knowing something about the country you are commenting about. Ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance of your ignorance makes you look like an idiot.

One small part of my post used teachers and police officers as an (admittedly poor) comparison. However, the post was clearly and obviously a reply to someone else's post, with questions addressed specifically to them, not to you. I should have ignored your predictable knee-jerk, but sadly I didn't and now it all spurts forth. Such is life.

poem