Woman War Correspondent: Alex Crawford

As a child we think about what we want to become when we become adults. As a young girl I thought I wanted to be a doctor. I am sure as young girls you all had a different career in mind. Then we grow up and realize we do not have the same interests as we did when we were younger. War correspondent, Alex Crawford, did not think her dream would come true due to the fact that she had four children, but she did not let that stop her and today she is recognized for the great work she has done while risking her life to get certain footage.
 
Alex Crawford was born in Africa, where she grew up in Nigeria, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Even though Crawford, now 49 years of age, is married with four children, one boy and three girls, she does not let that get in the way of her showing people the brutal truth in countries we do not here about every day. In an online interview, Alex did not get her first real story until she was 43. According to Sky News Press Office, "Alex Crawford became a household name when she was the first reporter to broadcast live from Green Square as rebel forces took over Tripoli." Sky News Press Office states, "Alex and her team were the only journalists to get inside the besieged town of Zawiyah when it was being attacked by pro-Gaddafi forces. It was this report that was credited with largely being responsible for the UN agreement to a no-fly zone over Libya." Crawford has reported in other countries like Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya just to name a few.

(Video on Rebel forces taking over Tripoli: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwT40TE-pHY)

As a woman doing a man's job, Crawford has been criticized for her mothering skills. In the online article she is very open about her home life. In one paragraph Crawford talks about how her oldest daughter feels about her job, her daughter is not to fond of her being a journalist. This makes Crawford feel like she is a bad mother, wife, and reporter, which takes a lot of effort to get right. Even though she feels that way, she loves her job and would not change it for anything. When she is with her family, she does her best to show her love and affection and when she is working her job gets all of her attention. She states that "I'm a deeply selfish person. I enjoy my job and I feel like I am living a dream.

Crawford is a four time winner of the Royal Television Society Journalist of the Year Award. She has been recognized by the Foreign Press Association in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. In October 2011 Alex was awarded the James Cameron Memorial Award in recognition of her outstanding contribution to journalism. Even though she is a woman she does not focus on the mushy stuff. Crawford feels like we should know the brutal things that go on in other countries like the slaughtering of children. She states in The Telegraph, "You cannot sanitize war," which I fully agree with. I respect Crawford for risking her life to get the stories that we are not able to see on T.V. I respect all war correspondents and Crawford is not the only woman who is doing this job. Marie Colvin, who was killed in Syria, and Janine Di Giovanni are some who have risked or lost their lives for others.

Do you think that women should be out in the field risking their lives?

Real Life vs. Film Life

        This semester in our English class, our theme is based on war. So far we have watched three films on war. The last film we watched was Restrepo, which is a documentary about the lives of soldiers in the Korengal Valley who built and named an outpost in remembrance of one of their fallen soldiers. The two films before that were box office movies directed by famous directors with Hollywood actors. They were based on true events but they could not present the realness and the emotions that come from a documentary. According to the online dictionary, a documentary “is a work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.” During Restrepo, it showed the political and social side of the Korengal War. The soldiers in this film endured more every day then we would in a lifetime. Restrepo was raw with emotion . The film made you feel what the soldiers felt and allowed you to see into the everyday lives of the soldiers. I would choose a documentary film about war over a directed film about war any day.

         In a directed film they portray the emotion of sadness or sorrow because they are actors with scripts being directed to be that way, but it is very different when we can see what a real band of brothers are. We were able to watch The Hurt Locker, which gave us an insight on a thrill seeking soldier who did not follow protocol, putting his team in danger during missions. When I was watching The Hurt Locker, I did not feel the emotion or the sorrow that the actors are supposed to give off because I knew they were acting. In one scene of the movie, a soldier was crying over a young boy who he had befriended that was turned into a human bomb. I felt sorrow during the scene but the emotion did not last long due to the fact that I knew it was acting. In Restrepo, during a mission the soldiers endured the loss of one of their brothers, and during that time our class felt the emotion and sadness the soldiers were giving off because we knew it was not acting.

        During Restrepo, we are also able to see what soldiers do on their off time when they are not on missions, building outposts, or protecting themselves from the Taliban. I used to think that soldiers never had down time, that they were in war all day and night. Directed films portray that but it does not compare to a real life bonding moment between one soldier and another when they are just hanging out, talking, and reminiscing. In one scene of Restrepo, the soldiers are joking around and remembering the brother that they lost during their time in the Korengal Valley. They had true genuine emotions and bonds with one another and we are able to see that. In The Hurt Locker, the thrill seeking soldier was an outcast, but as time went on the soldier was able to bond with the other soldiers because he showed a softer side to his demeanor. However, it is all acting and we know that so it does not move us in any way.

        I am not bashing directed films on war because they are still entertaining and meaningful. I would just prefer a documentary on war than a directed film on war, due to the realness of it all. Directed films gives us an outlook of what war is like, but when we are able to see war for what it really is, it changes your whole mind set.  

Would you prefer a directed film or a documentary on war or any other life changing event that has happened in life?

The Rush of War

During class last week we got the opportunity to watch The Hurt Locker. I normally don’t watch movies on war but this film was intense and caught my attention the minute it began. Sgt. James is one of the main characters who keeps you wondering what dumb thing will he do next or what harm is he going to cause his team while completing a mission. According to “The Hurt Locker and The Contemporary War Film” this movie depicts a certain characteristic that we don’t often see in war films, which is thrill seekers. I have seen maybe three war films, and Sgt. James' character showed a great example of thrill seeking.

Sgt. James was a member of a bomb squad in Baghdad, where he had to defuse bombs. His team consisted of Sgt. Sanborn and Sgt. Eldridge, who both felt like James was a reckless man and lived for the thrill, which they weren’t wrong at all. On the first mission they received together James came up with a stall tactic that couldn’t give Sanborn a clear view on his position. Right then Sanborn began to dislike Sgt. James because he felt like he didn’t follow protocol and he didn’t care about the safety of his squad. As the movie went on, Sanborn began to realize that the deception he had for James was wrong and that he did care about his team and others. In one scene James asks Eldridge for some juice and ended up giving the juice to Sanborn. In another scene James thought a boy that he befriended was being used as a human bomb and he cried over the body before taking out the bombs and taking the body away.  

His compassion for others still didn’t overshadow the fact that he loved the rush of defusing bombs. From a movie review an editor talks about the quote in the beginning of the movie, "war is a drug," and I agree with the quote. In one scene after a bomb went off killing and injuring many people, Sgt. James felt like the bombers were still around watching the scene unfold. So James ordered Sanborn and Eldridge to follow him and look for the attackers, which got Eldridge shot in the leg and sent home. James wasn’t able to diffuse a bomb so he went looking for a thrill somewhere else, which got one of his team members injured. In another scene James is ordered to diffuse a bomb that was in the trunk of a car that was set on fire. The car could have blown up but James didn’t care because he needed the rush to feel complete.  

Sgt. James kept triggers of the all the bombs he’s ever defused because he felt like it was amazing to hold something that could have killed him. At the end of the film it shows Sgt. James in a grocery store trying to decide what cereal to buy, something so simple like choosing a box of cereal was hard for James to do because he is so used to doing something much more difficult like defusing bombs. Back at home he talks to his wife about defusing bombs and he feels as if another bomb squad needs him. James wasn’t used to the everyday life of being a normal person, so he went back on a tour where he could receive his drug, that rush of war. 

Every soldier goes through something different. Sanborn for example, was ready to go home to find his significant other to settle down with. Eldridge was scared to die so he had to go to therapy everyday to try to overcome that fear. James loved the rush of almost dying. 

Do you feel as if war is a drug, based on the film The Hurt Locker?

Mohamed Farrah Aidid

In "Black Hawk Down," The Rangers were after a man named Mohamed Farah Aidid. We didn't really know his background except that he was a Somalian warlord and that U.N. and U.S. troops were trying to capture him. In the movie a lot was left out about the Somalian like where he was from, what he did, how he was the leader of a powerful Somali clan, and how he became such a big name to everyone in Africa.
Aidid was born in a country called Beledweyne in 1934. According to Wikipedia he was educated in Moscow and Rome and later joined Somali National Army. In the year of 1969 he was the Army chief of Staff during the time the second President was assassinated. Aidid was detained for six years and released to fight in the war against Ethiopia in 1977. Aidid later served in the new President's Cabinet as Somalia's Ambassador.
In the 1980's, the leader of Habr Gidir, Aidid competed for the power against Ali Mahdi Mohamed after the outbreak of civil war. During this time the U.N peacekeeping coalition started the two-year United Nations Operation in Somalia. This invasion of the U.N. and U.S. troop felt like a threat towards Aidid and many others competing for power during the time. Aidid's fighters caused the Battle of Mogadishu. An attempt to capture Aidid in 1993 which ended with 1'500 Somalians and 18 Americans killed. After Clinton called his troops back, Aidid declared hisself as President of Somalia, but his declaration was unrecognized due to the fact that his rival Ali Mahdi Muhammad was elected as President at a conference in Djibouti.
According to Wikipedia, on July 24, 1996, Aidid and his men clashed with the forces of former allies Ali Mahdi Muhammad and Osman Ali Atto. Aidid suffered a gunshot wound in the ensuing battle. He later died from a heart attack on August 1, either during or after surgery to treat his injuries.

The actions that Aidid made to obtain power, would you consider him as another Hitler?

Finding the Missing.

During this week of our English class, we came together in small groups to do a project on selected
articles or stories. My story was called "Lost over Laos" where a soldier went missing after his plane went down during a night mission. It would be 40 years until his wife would get some closure over the loss of her husband. Why did it take so long?
Capt. Michael J. Masterson was doing a night mission over Laos when he realized that his sky-raider stopped functioning. He radioed his wing-man Maj. Peter W. Brown who tried to maneuver out of Masterson's way. As he was in the middle of sharp turn he noticed a orange ball in the trees. At 6:55 p.m. on October 13, 1968 Capt. Masterson was officially missing. Many wondered if he had made it to safety or if Pathet Lao troops had captured him. These questions would go unanswered for 40 years. The war didnt end until April 1075 making hard for Americans to look for Capt. Masterson. The enemy was more focused on putting their life back together then to help Americans look for lost soldiers.
As time went on and the Americans became allies with Vietnam and technology progressed, anthropologists went back to Laos to search for Masterson and many others that missing over the years. Martinson Goodman was one of many investigators looking for Masterson who found his crash site in the autumn of 2005. According to the article Lost Over Laos, "it was hard to find the crash site." During autumn of 2005 and over several more months they would find dog-tags and remaining bones left over belonging to Masterson. All of his remains were placed neatly into a briefcase and shipped back to his wife who never remarried in hopes that her husband was still alive. In February of 2006 the case was closed due to circumstantial evidence.
        It took the anthropologsts so long to find Masterson's remains because of delayed technology. Without the proper technology that evolved over time, I feel that the would have not been able to find the evidence that they did. Do you think without technology would the anthropologists been able to find the remains of Masterson?

With a Y not an I..

Everyone has their own unique style, their own personality. 
People with the same name as others want to feel different,
They don't want to be compared to the next person. 
My mother spelled my name with a Y not an I.
I'm different. I'm my own person 
With my own name.

With a Y not an I..