The document suggests that the MoD should "reduce the profile of the repatriation ceremonies" as they reduce support for war
- Report says images of flag-draped coffins reduces support for military action
- It adds special forces and mercenary deaths don't hit public as hard
- MOD says document is to foster 'debate' and is not policy
It examines how to sway 'casualty averse' public opinion, a situation commonly known as 'body bag syndrome', and was published by the MoD's strategy formulation unit.
The document suggests that the MoD should 'reduce the profile of the repatriation ceremonies' where coffins carrying deceased soldiers are brought back to UK bases such as RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire.
It discusses ways to 'reduce public sensitivity' and methods of explaining that 'risks are knowingly and willingly undertaken' by armed forces personnel.
Suggestions included making greater use of the SAS and other special forces, as well as mercenaries, because it claims losses sustained by the elite soldiers and hired guns do not have the same impact on the public and press.
'Neither the media nor the public in the west appear to identify with contractors in the way that they do with their military personnel. Thus casualties from within the contractorised force are more acceptable in pursuit of military ends than those from among our own forces.'
It added: 'The public appear to have a more robust attitude to SF [special forces] losses.'
Reassurances are made in the paper that the British public may not be as 'risk-averse' as they appear, and suggests this is 'based on recent, post-2000 experience'.
'Historically, once the public are convinced that they have a stake in the conflict they are prepared to endorse military risks and will accept casualties as the necessary consequence of the use of military force,' it says.
The report adds: 'The public have become better informed and our opponents more sophisticated in the exploitation of the sources of information with the net result that convincing the nation of the need to run military risks has become more difficult but no less essential.'
The report, written in 2012 and released under the Freedom of Information Act, has been met with criticism by relatives of soldiers killed while serving their country.
Deborah Allbutt, whose husband Stephen was killed in a friendly fire incident in Iraq in 2003, described the proposals for repatriation ceremonies as 'brushing the deaths under the carpet'.
She told The Guardian: 'They are fighting and giving their lives. Why should they be hidden away? It would be absolutely disgraceful.'
Allbutt, with others, gained a landmark ruling this year that relatives of killed or injured soldiers can seek damages under human rights legislation.
An MoD spokesman said: 'It is entirely right that we publicly honour those who have made the ultimate sacrifice and there are no plans to change the way in which repatriation ceremonies are conducted.
'A key purpose of the development, concepts and doctrine centre is to produce research which tests and challenges established doctrine and its papers are designed to stimulate internal debate, not outline government policy or positions. To represent this paper as policy or a potential shift of policy is misleading.'
What took them so long? Wasn't this the lesson of Nixon's Watergate tapes? The lesson of Vietnam - don't allow any media coverage you don't control, ie, embedded. So when the game reset in the Middle East, these lessons learned were set in action by the Pentagon, intel, PR depts, ie politicians here in the States. One would assume, that anyone studying basic military history would've learned this by simple reading, but nay, it seems our 'special relationship' has broken down and only direct experience suffices for lesson absorption.
Oh well, let's hope the MOD gets a chance to practice this soon, maybe close to home? Maybe Scotland will volunteer? Perhaps so, if not for Mother Nature's arrival this winter. Guess that falls into the 'snooze you loose' category.