Is DND hiding casualty reports?

It would seem so if the report from CBC's David Common is accurate. (Emphasis mine)

My camera operator and I were embedded with an American medevac helicopter crew. They’re a good, friendly, capable bunch of guys who welcomed us instantly.

By far, the majority of the injured who are loaded into the back of their heaving Blackhawks are Canadians.

That tells a tale now rarely talked about: a great many Canadian soldiers are being injured in Afghanistan. And we’re not hearing about it.

The question now is, why? Two years ago, at the outset of this more dangerous mission in southern Afghanistan, any and every injury was made public to journalists embedded with Canadian soldiers in Kandahar, and with Canadians at large.

I have a problem with the word "injury" when "wounded" is probably more appropriate, however the meat of Common's report suggests that casualty reporting by the Department of National Defence is intentionally being withheld from the Canadian public.

Names of the injured weren’t always released, citing a very justifiable desire for privacy. But their general injuries always were. If someone was injured in a road accident, it was made public. Ditto for someone being shot, hit by a suicide bomber or a roadside bomb — even if it was a minor wound.

Names shouldn't be released to anyone except those in the Canadian Forces authorized to receive such information and the Next-Of-Kin identified on the member's Personal Emergency Notification document. Where a member is wounded or injured it is up to the member to allow his/her name to be released any further.

However, numbers and extent of injuries and wounds along with a general overview of the occurrence should be made public as soon as practicable. If that means a wait of a few days I doubt whether most people would find any difficulty with the time lag.

A new policy has clearly emerged. Deaths are still reported but injuries are not, unless one of two scenarios exists. The first is if the injury is so severe, it may very well result in death. The second is if journalists already know about it. If a journalist happens to be in a convoy that is hit and sees the injury, they’ll obviously know about it.

Injuries are increasingly frequent these days. As many as four roadside bomb strikes happen each week. Soldiers are being injured in the process, some of them seriously. Some of them will lose limbs. Others will have their lives irreparably damaged. We won’t know. Whether we should know is another question.

The initial take on this is that DND doesn't feel a need to keep the public, via the media, informed. That Common doesn't pursue the absolute need for information and doesn't use stronger language is curious. Let me clear it up.

Yes. The Canadian public, in whose name the Canadian Armed Forces operate, wherever they are in the world, has every right to know the complete extent of casualties, including numbers of killed, wounded (seriously injured and very seriously injured), wounded (returned to duty), missing and known to have been taken prisoner. All of them constitute the complete casualty count and, with the exception of wounded (returned to duty), impact the unit.

Common discusses the arguments that are put forward for not disclosing a complete casualty picture. I'll take them one at a time and then add one he didn't bring up.

There is the argument that politicians — fearing a further loss of public support for this mission — don’t want to reveal the true number of injuries.

That is, perhaps, the most likely reason for the sudden covering-up of actual casualty numbers. In fact, given the Harper government's begging with, pleading with and insulting of Canadians in an effort to get them to support the mission, they have already proved their willingness to attempt to hide bad news from Canadians in general and their political opposition explicitly.

Another school of thought is that the injuries have become so routine, the military doesn’t view them as a “new development” and thus not newsworthy (or publicly releasable).

It doesn't matter. The CF is required to report all casualties in accordance with the Casualty Admin Manual. It is not up to the CF to determine what is or is not newsworthy. If DND has suddenly come to the conclusion that Canadians are jaded to the number of casualties being incurred because they're just routine, they might want to check out the historical record. During both World Wars and Korea, casualty reports were released after an operation and had all forms of casualties included in the count.

A final argument is that there is now so much violence, the deployed soldiers’ would prefer to reduce the publication of bad news that will further worry their families back in Canada.

That may sound like a worthy argument but, in truth, holds no validity whatsoever. That is simply shielding people from the truth. Given that the next-of-kin are informed when the deployed member is wounded or injured, the numbers of casualties would not be a secret from the families back in Canada. For the most part, military families live in close proximity to each other, many within regimental communities and married-quarters. They already know how many casualties are being taken. The argument further weakens when one considers that Military Family Resource Centres encourage spouses and families of deployed troops to remain in contact with each other, often through organized social gatherings. What do you think they talk about when they get together?

Here's the argument Common didn't present:

The Department of National Defence believes full disclosure of casualties, including wounded, injured and missing, is a vital information which could assist the enemy. In short, it gets covered by a "National Security" blanket.

I would put money on that fourth argument as being the one either Defence Minister Peter MacKay or General Rick Hillier will use to defend a policy of not releasing numbers of casualties. We would like to tell you but we can't. The Taliban (blanket term now) can use it to further harm the troops.

If they use that argument, I have a message for both of them, but Hillier in particular. The essential elements of friendly information (EEFI) do not extend past the tactical situation. Once that has been resolved, either through successful conclusion of the tactical mission or withdrawal from the tactical engagement, casualty information no longer constitutes information of a tactical security nature. In terms of enemy forces being able to determine the effect of their actions, they already know. In most cases attacks are improvised explosive devices (booby-traps/roadway landmines), rocket-propelled grenades, mortars or small arms. With the exception of IEDs, enemy forces are engaging at a range close enough to see the results of their action. In the case of IEDs, roads have usually been proven by engineers and the bomb has been planted within a few minutes of it going off. Again, the people responsible for planting the bomb are already aware of its effect.

The point is this: soldiers have died in this place, but many more have been injured. The United States, which is engaged in its own largely unpopular war in Iraq, still releases injury statistics. Canada does not.

And with that we have every right to assume that the Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff believe they have something to hide.

Either or both of them appear to have some explaining to do.