Special Forces: handle with care

(To Paolo Palumbo)
30/03/16

For the experts, the war in Afghanistan fought by our Special Forces remains in many ways a mystery, since the General Staff has carefully measured the intervention of the media to avoid misunderstandings or the dissemination of false news. In some cases, media silence can be a wise decision, but one must not then complain if, for the sake of the news, some enterprising journalist is tempted to conceive or misrepresent some event. Clarity - not too much in the case of special operations - is an excellent remedy against frauds. Another subject concerns literature tout court where an event serves as a background to more or less exciting stories involving readers on different levels: in this case there are no books that worthily treat the 45 Task Force, nor even fictionalized stories - fortunately - that talk about our boys' businesses . In fact, when dealing with certain topics, the danger of collusion is always lurking and nobody among the "specialists" wants to run the risk of running into errors. On several occasions, our Armed Forces have fallen victims more or less aware of the mass media, not to mention the Special Forces.

Departments like the 9 ° Regiment With Moschin or the Navy raiders have always found themselves caught between the need to make their value known and the obligation to maintain a dutiful reserve about what they do. It is not a comfortable position, nor even an unsolvable puzzle, and for this I take as an example the excellent work done by the With Moschin that in recent years has emerged, with due precautions, from a series of media misunderstandings that tore up its identity, turning it into a jumble of "Rambo" mercilessly or into over-paid and under-used professionals. In this sense, the efforts made by the commanders have been many and not always gratified: in spite of the regiment's openings, some of them have continued to invent stories about the work of the Special Forces, but our boys are unfortunately accustomed to this.

The image of the Italian soldier on a mission has always been the object of criticism or clichés that have very deep roots, difficult to eradicate especially when they come from abroad. Trivia and rumors promptly denied by the impeccable conduct of the military - and not only by the operators of the Special Forces - who, as always, carried out their work with skill, without being second to anyone.

The raiders of the With Moschin and those of the GOI know their stuff, they have absolute abilities in every field and their competence and training is taken as an example also by more noble (or better publicized) departments like the SEAL or the Beretti Verdi. Yet someone still insists on providing an image of the Italian soldier, riddled with clichés that hurt those who - devoid of any desire to investigate further - prefer to passively enjoy what press and television offer daily. This evening on 5 Channel will start one TV series entitled Task Force 45: friendly fire, played by such a Megan Montaner (notified as "famous" by fans of soap opera) and Raul Bova, the inevitable “belloccio” of the situation. I am not a film critic, although the amount of war films digested over the years has been abundant, and I leave to others the discussion of details - perhaps less important - about uniforms and equipment. What upsets is the narrative track anticipated on different blogs or websites: the love between the captain of the Special Forces and the Afghan, the feared betrayal of the team, the pursuit of our secret services and an unlikely heroic final of the paladin in love.

With a plot like this we go back at least sixty years, giving back to the public the usual image, trite and hackneyed, of the Hollywood Captain Corelli's Mandolin: the Italian soldier must necessarily fall in love with a native, otherwise what Italian is he? An article says that the character of Raul Bova is the Liaison with Afghan they remind everyone that there is also a man behind every soldier; yet I am reminded of a thousand other aspects of a soldier who identify him as such, without making a massacre of hearts in a foreign land.

The 45 Task Force was a damned serious unit and if there is one thing to insist on is the total absence of any conspiracy "soul" that regulates special operations. The danger for those who were there was of a different nature, and the "brothers" who fought together had other things on their minds than to fall in love with Afghans or defend themselves from secret services (which demonstrate very different qualities). A raider who betrays his companion is worthy of the plot of a science fiction film - or rather of horror - and denotes a total lack of information both on the military environment and on that of the Special Forces. I say this for the benefit of those who want to keep telling the truth about our operators who, by nature, do not like the spotlight, but are willing to open up to anyone who wants to bring the truth back without the need to necessarily build sensationalism or scoop. For anyone who comes close to that world, even if backed by film productions that fear nothing, it is good that he does it with respect and love for the truth; also because to tell something extraordinary about the 9 ° raiders, believe me, there is no need to invent anything.

La TV series of Mediaset is a triumph of the commonplace anything but harmless, also because these productions roam the European broadcasters (given the low costs) corroborating an image of our military that many "unaware" take for granted. The plot of the story of Friendly fire is therefore harmful (even in the title) and shows a worrying lack of interest in what the end result may be, not just in terms of audience. When dealing with certain topics one should understand the final message one wants to give.

For years he kept quiet about what our Special Forces were and whether a romance like that Friendly fire it means a new media opening, so maybe it is better to go back into the shadows.