From Charles Sheehan Miles Good sttuff
Charles
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Times Under Fire for Vets article
Posted By Charles at 9:59 AM
On Sunday, the New York Times ran a lengthy article chronicling a series of homicides committed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans over the last several years—more than 120 killings here in the United States. Now, the Times is under fire, according to some articles and bloggers, for perpetuating “The Killer Vet lie” and “Vet-Bashing.”
Not surprisingly, the culture warriors who are still intent on perpetuating the Vietnam era hawk vs. dove debate have jumped in feet first, specially after the Weekly Standard ran an analysis by John J. Dilulio which attempts to debunk the conclusions of the times by pointing out that the murder rate among same-age Americans is much higher than among returning veterans. The terms of the debate are the usual:
· The article is “presumably an attempt at making another case for ending the war, if we know anything about the Times's editors.”
· Mike Burleson writes: Just throw out a few unverified facts and let the "blame America first" crowd, as well as the radicals overseas gather their talking points.
· At “The Two Malcontents”, they write, “The Times has committed a gross slander.” This, of course, is on the same blog which has categories titled “Americans who Hate America,” “Commie Pinkos” and “Blame America”
Unfortunately, all of these articles miss the real point raised by the Times article. Are we doing enough to help war veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan? And the answer to that question is a resounding no.
It makes me angry that a legitimate issue that should be of concern to all of us has to be tied up in the pro-war/anti-war political debate. Let’s get that out front. To those on the left who would use this article as an argument for leaving Iraq, I say: stop using the troops as your political football. To the folks on the right who would use this as an opportunity to bash the left: screw off. Both sides make me sick. Because the people getting left behind in this debate are the people who actually need our help.
I’ve written in the past about the profound impact killing has on the psyche. Killing sucks. Sometimes its necessary, and war is one of those times. But that doesn’t make it any easier to deal with. Frankly, I struggled for years with the remorse, rage, and sometimes-waking nightmares that were a result of killing another human being.
My first novel, written in the three years following my own experience with killing in the Gulf War, goes directly to this issue: the experience of killing in combat, the impact on the soldier, and most importantly in this discussion—the possibility of a violent response to the experience.
The question of whether or not returning veterans are less or more likely to kill than the general population is an important one and needs to be looked at more systematically than has been done in the past. But using the question as yet another manifestation of the left-right culture war is the real disservice to veterans.
Tags: PTSD Iraq military war NY Times wingnuts culture warriors
Posted By Charles at 9:59 AM
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
About 2 below and the repost from Anonymous Infantryman
"I read 2 Below. My first instinct was to state what every jacked up combat vet thinks, but am afraid of how bad it will be attacked by others.
Killing is like virginity and sex. The first time is awkward. You've heard your buddies talk about it, you've seen it on tv. and it can be addicting.
But every situation is different. The mother ****er who ran a road block with a family inside actually bothers me. The mother ****er who set off an IED. well, I feel good about what we did, and bad that we missed one. It made me feel REALLY good sometimes. It fixed any problem. It really really bothered me sometimes. But by the end of the tour, we looked for every opportunity we could. The emotion was gone. It just was. Like a drug addict rock star. First the music, then drugs and music, then just the drugs.
The truth is that the primitive mind remembers serious threats,
......got bit by a dog, don't f*** with it. Whatever solution it used in the past, (assuming it worked) the brain will reuse. If lethal force with a weapon resolved a threat. Hey, it worked last time, and the time before that. Why not?? It ain't broke. why change or fix it.
That's for a threat. Someone is gonna harm me, or someone near me.
few more things. 1: WW II, Korean, and vietnam vets toughed it out, they didn't get anything and nobody cared. It just seems like everyone else in the world telling us (Soldiers) what we're feeling. and how normal things are to an abnormal situation. -Well, isn't fighting and 'waring' human nature? so WTF?
It's also f***ed up to bring up a problem without a solution, so I thought, what do I think, or how would I change it. That's when I realized, I called battle buddies to check. I asked 4 of my most f***ed up battle buddies. no one ever asked us.
Like I said. I've been spoon fed what I'm suppose to be going through by some "expert" wearing birkenstocks and in desperate need of a haircut... ya. But people don't seem to realize that there is no privacy in the Army. If you want to know anything about anyone. ASK 'EM. I don't have any interest in maintaining my privacy AS LONG as whatever it is used for is done respectfully and not used, well, how can I say this. To benifit any hippy claims. I.E. war =bad, war is for business. ETC.
But if you or someone else wants to know what's going on upstairs in our gorrilla minds. Ask. I would feel confronted by the first question out of their mouths, "didja keel anyone."
But would answer PTSD questions.
So what! A few joes killed some people. Hey did America know that people in the Service use drugs too? Yeah, alot!
The truth is, is that like any community, someone is bound to any number of illegal activities. Yes the percentage might be higher, right now then in the past, but seriously. How many people were killed in Detriot, LA, NY.. Shit happens.
I don't understand what you meant at the end of your writing, the last two paragraphs were hard to follow. You had me going, then the last 2 make it sound like you have some kind of hidden agenda or cheap shot at I don't even know what. But it always seems to leave a sour taste, rather than that of a genuine care. Maybe it's just well beyond my level of either education, social class, or care. I just don't get it.
(I've never heard the blue cord refered to a pretty blue braid most people don't know that means infantry). Thanks
Killing is like virginity and sex. The first time is awkward. You've heard your buddies talk about it, you've seen it on tv. and it can be addicting.
But every situation is different. The mother ****er who ran a road block with a family inside actually bothers me. The mother ****er who set off an IED. well, I feel good about what we did, and bad that we missed one. It made me feel REALLY good sometimes. It fixed any problem. It really really bothered me sometimes. But by the end of the tour, we looked for every opportunity we could. The emotion was gone. It just was. Like a drug addict rock star. First the music, then drugs and music, then just the drugs.
The truth is that the primitive mind remembers serious threats,
......got bit by a dog, don't f*** with it. Whatever solution it used in the past, (assuming it worked) the brain will reuse. If lethal force with a weapon resolved a threat. Hey, it worked last time, and the time before that. Why not?? It ain't broke. why change or fix it.
That's for a threat. Someone is gonna harm me, or someone near me.
few more things. 1: WW II, Korean, and vietnam vets toughed it out, they didn't get anything and nobody cared. It just seems like everyone else in the world telling us (Soldiers) what we're feeling. and how normal things are to an abnormal situation. -Well, isn't fighting and 'waring' human nature? so WTF?
It's also f***ed up to bring up a problem without a solution, so I thought, what do I think, or how would I change it. That's when I realized, I called battle buddies to check. I asked 4 of my most f***ed up battle buddies. no one ever asked us.
Like I said. I've been spoon fed what I'm suppose to be going through by some "expert" wearing birkenstocks and in desperate need of a haircut... ya. But people don't seem to realize that there is no privacy in the Army. If you want to know anything about anyone. ASK 'EM. I don't have any interest in maintaining my privacy AS LONG as whatever it is used for is done respectfully and not used, well, how can I say this. To benifit any hippy claims. I.E. war =bad, war is for business. ETC.
But if you or someone else wants to know what's going on upstairs in our gorrilla minds. Ask. I would feel confronted by the first question out of their mouths, "didja keel anyone."
But would answer PTSD questions.
So what! A few joes killed some people. Hey did America know that people in the Service use drugs too? Yeah, alot!
The truth is, is that like any community, someone is bound to any number of illegal activities. Yes the percentage might be higher, right now then in the past, but seriously. How many people were killed in Detriot, LA, NY.. Shit happens.
I don't understand what you meant at the end of your writing, the last two paragraphs were hard to follow. You had me going, then the last 2 make it sound like you have some kind of hidden agenda or cheap shot at I don't even know what. But it always seems to leave a sour taste, rather than that of a genuine care. Maybe it's just well beyond my level of either education, social class, or care. I just don't get it.
(I've never heard the blue cord refered to a pretty blue braid most people don't know that means infantry). Thanks
Grunts and a repost
A friend who has served both as a Marine, then again as Army Infantry and now back as a marine posted this, with permission to repost. These are not my words at all, nor are they meant to persuade anyone to anything, just one voice among many...
" Jan 17, 2008 12:01 AM
Subject: Aaaaahhhh!!!!
Body: GRUNTS- Body: Underwear is entirely optional at all times -You go on missions with your fly undone so you can piss while pulling security. -You have issues with female authority. -You have issues with females. -You have no problem running 5 miles drunk. -You have no problem maxing a PT Test drunk. -You have no problems doing a 12 mile forced march drunk. -You have no problems but drinking problems, and you don't think its a problem at all. -You would fight for a guy you barely know, as long as he's a grunt. -You'd fight your best friend, even though he's a grunt. -Monday morning formation should be taped and sent in to the Howard Stern Show. -You know someone who has done the following: 1. pissed themselves, shit themselves, puked on themselves, and in turn did all of the above on other people, and loved it 2. killed a Hadji, and loved it 3. killed a case in between COB and last light, and loved it. 4. ran a few miles on a broken something, and loved it. -You know that work is work and play is play. -You pride yourself on getting dirtier than any POG, but looking prettier at the same time. -You know heroes. -You know heroes that dont care if they are heroes. -Your buddies know all of your business, tell all of your business, but when the shit gets hot, its always time to handle some goddamn business. -You wince when a POG handles his weapon like a POG. -You know POG dudes hate you because POG chicks love you. -You realize you are one of the hardest motherfuckers in the country, and that's just before anyone else gets out of bed. -You got stopped in the airport by some fat security guard on the way home from OIF or OEF because your uniform had bomb residue, blood, or powder burns on it, and they treated you like a terrorist because of it. -You say Roger when Roger could mean a really bad day. -You say Roger because you welcome a bad day. -You would bleed on the flag so the stripes stay red. -You can fall asleep absolutely anywhere. -You hear Kuwait, you automatically get the shits. -You hear Iraq/Afghanistan, you say, fuck it dude, Round Two, Three, Four, whatever. -You are the sore-footed, camo-faced, sunburnt, dirty, tired hungry sons-of-a-bitches that have fought so long to keep the wolf at the gate. You know this and you don't care if anyone else knows this. -You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world, and damn proud of it. -I'll drink to that. -Repost this if you're a grunt or know a grunt. If you're a chick, do your best to go f**k a grunt, ask anyone, its the best lay you'll ever have...."
POG is a person in the armed services with a desk job. They usually have blogs with fierce pictures, but they sit in air conditioned rooms away from any danger. The above post was written by a a young man who has been to the sandbox more than once, and upon his last return, tried to get into law enforcement, etc, but decided to re-up and return to Iraq.
Ok, the point of posting this is to demonstrate that real people from all walks of life serve in the armed forces, they aren't all pilots killing at a distance, or supply sergeants loading something, some are in the streets doing the dirty work. I think Infantrymen think like this friend. He is adrenaline filled and full of living in the moment, just filled to the brim with the excitement of the next door, yet upon return home, he has to schedule appointments, make appointments, pay bills, do the drudgery of school, and make his own way, which is really not fly compared to the zipper-down, piss anywhere, shoot anyone time he just had.
" Jan 17, 2008 12:01 AM
Subject: Aaaaahhhh!!!!
Body: GRUNTS- Body: Underwear is entirely optional at all times -You go on missions with your fly undone so you can piss while pulling security. -You have issues with female authority. -You have issues with females. -You have no problem running 5 miles drunk. -You have no problem maxing a PT Test drunk. -You have no problems doing a 12 mile forced march drunk. -You have no problems but drinking problems, and you don't think its a problem at all. -You would fight for a guy you barely know, as long as he's a grunt. -You'd fight your best friend, even though he's a grunt. -Monday morning formation should be taped and sent in to the Howard Stern Show. -You know someone who has done the following: 1. pissed themselves, shit themselves, puked on themselves, and in turn did all of the above on other people, and loved it 2. killed a Hadji, and loved it 3. killed a case in between COB and last light, and loved it. 4. ran a few miles on a broken something, and loved it. -You know that work is work and play is play. -You pride yourself on getting dirtier than any POG, but looking prettier at the same time. -You know heroes. -You know heroes that dont care if they are heroes. -Your buddies know all of your business, tell all of your business, but when the shit gets hot, its always time to handle some goddamn business. -You wince when a POG handles his weapon like a POG. -You know POG dudes hate you because POG chicks love you. -You realize you are one of the hardest motherfuckers in the country, and that's just before anyone else gets out of bed. -You got stopped in the airport by some fat security guard on the way home from OIF or OEF because your uniform had bomb residue, blood, or powder burns on it, and they treated you like a terrorist because of it. -You say Roger when Roger could mean a really bad day. -You say Roger because you welcome a bad day. -You would bleed on the flag so the stripes stay red. -You can fall asleep absolutely anywhere. -You hear Kuwait, you automatically get the shits. -You hear Iraq/Afghanistan, you say, fuck it dude, Round Two, Three, Four, whatever. -You are the sore-footed, camo-faced, sunburnt, dirty, tired hungry sons-of-a-bitches that have fought so long to keep the wolf at the gate. You know this and you don't care if anyone else knows this. -You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world, and damn proud of it. -I'll drink to that. -Repost this if you're a grunt or know a grunt. If you're a chick, do your best to go f**k a grunt, ask anyone, its the best lay you'll ever have...."
POG is a person in the armed services with a desk job. They usually have blogs with fierce pictures, but they sit in air conditioned rooms away from any danger. The above post was written by a a young man who has been to the sandbox more than once, and upon his last return, tried to get into law enforcement, etc, but decided to re-up and return to Iraq.
Ok, the point of posting this is to demonstrate that real people from all walks of life serve in the armed forces, they aren't all pilots killing at a distance, or supply sergeants loading something, some are in the streets doing the dirty work. I think Infantrymen think like this friend. He is adrenaline filled and full of living in the moment, just filled to the brim with the excitement of the next door, yet upon return home, he has to schedule appointments, make appointments, pay bills, do the drudgery of school, and make his own way, which is really not fly compared to the zipper-down, piss anywhere, shoot anyone time he just had.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
A Veteran’s Descent, and a Prosecutor’s Choice
From the link above... click link for entire story....
TOOELE, Utah — Not long after Lance Cpl. Walter Rollo Smith returned from Iraq, the Marines dispatched him to Quantico, Va., for a marksmanship instructor course.
Mr. Smith, then a 21-year-old Marine Corps reservist from Utah, had been shaken to the core by the intensity of his experience during the invasion of Iraq. Once a squeaky-clean Mormon boy who aspired to serve a mission abroad, he had come home a smoker and drinker, unsure if he believed in God.
In Quantico, he reported to the firing range with a friend from Fox Company, the combined Salt Lake City-Las Vegas battalion nicknamed the Saints and Sinners. Raising his rifle, he stared through the scope and started shaking. What he saw were not the inanimate targets before him but vivid, hallucinatory images of Iraq: “the cars coming at us, the chaos, the dust, the women and children, the bodies we left behind,” he said.
Each time he squeezed the trigger, Mr. Smith cried, harder and harder until he was, in his own words, “bawling on the rifle range, which marines just do not do.” Mortified, he allowed himself to be pulled away. And not long afterward, the Marines began processing his medical discharge for post-traumatic stress disorder, severing his link to the Reserve unit that anchored him and sending him off to seek help from veterans hospitals.
The incident on the firing range was the first “red flag,” as the prosecutor in Tooele County, Utah, termed it, that Mr. Smith sent up as he gradually disintegrated psychologically. At his lowest point, in March 2006, he killed Nicole Marie Speirs, the 22-year-old mother of his twin children, drowning her in a bathtub without any evident provocation or reason.
“There was no intent,” said Gary K. Searle, the deputy Tooele County attorney. “It was almost like things kept ratcheting up, without any real intervention that I can see, until one day he snapped.”
TOOELE, Utah — Not long after Lance Cpl. Walter Rollo Smith returned from Iraq, the Marines dispatched him to Quantico, Va., for a marksmanship instructor course.
Mr. Smith, then a 21-year-old Marine Corps reservist from Utah, had been shaken to the core by the intensity of his experience during the invasion of Iraq. Once a squeaky-clean Mormon boy who aspired to serve a mission abroad, he had come home a smoker and drinker, unsure if he believed in God.
In Quantico, he reported to the firing range with a friend from Fox Company, the combined Salt Lake City-Las Vegas battalion nicknamed the Saints and Sinners. Raising his rifle, he stared through the scope and started shaking. What he saw were not the inanimate targets before him but vivid, hallucinatory images of Iraq: “the cars coming at us, the chaos, the dust, the women and children, the bodies we left behind,” he said.
Each time he squeezed the trigger, Mr. Smith cried, harder and harder until he was, in his own words, “bawling on the rifle range, which marines just do not do.” Mortified, he allowed himself to be pulled away. And not long afterward, the Marines began processing his medical discharge for post-traumatic stress disorder, severing his link to the Reserve unit that anchored him and sending him off to seek help from veterans hospitals.
The incident on the firing range was the first “red flag,” as the prosecutor in Tooele County, Utah, termed it, that Mr. Smith sent up as he gradually disintegrated psychologically. At his lowest point, in March 2006, he killed Nicole Marie Speirs, the 22-year-old mother of his twin children, drowning her in a bathtub without any evident provocation or reason.
“There was no intent,” said Gary K. Searle, the deputy Tooele County attorney. “It was almost like things kept ratcheting up, without any real intervention that I can see, until one day he snapped.”
Friday, January 18, 2008
2 Below-
There are two articles below this one. One is about the violence perpetrated by rogue veterans after serving in Iraq and Afganistan. One is a strong reaction agains that kind of reporting. Both are valid arguments.
Is it responsible journalism to sensationalize the few killers who have returned from battle in foreign lands, only to unleash that fury on Americans?
Is it responsible journalism to highlight the plight of PTSD affected veterans who have returned from war only to find that they can't fit back into society, and find it easier to revert to their skill, stealth killing, as a solution to the new stress?
Is it responsible to rant about how that makes these people lepers and it just isn't fair to defame these valiant heroes?
I am on the fence. I am on the fence after living, breathing and co-existing with a veteran. I am on the fence about telling people honestly what anger can do. I am on the fence of personal privacy, which keeps me from saying yes, they sure are armed, wouldn't you be if you if your gun meant your life...
Not everyone comes back and shifts right in. On the contrary, going to Iraq fresh out of high school, a young adult has little coping strategies for making it in society. Also, upon return the young person sees friends that are more established and it is frustrating. Especially if he or she is still taking a knee at the boom of the fourth of July show, or when a car backfires. You start to feel like a freak, a freak who has lost time. A freak that has valuable skill on a battle field and no commensurate skill or task in society.
It seems easier to just go back.
Not only might these folks lack everyday coping strategies and decision making skills, but they have all new burdens. A combat vet can have exposure to spent uranium, traumatic brain injury, digestion problems, and PTSD. A combat vet can have fewer limbs, constant pain, and the possibility of never returning to what was known before deployment. How many deaths, howmany friends lost, how many images are stuck in that man or woman's head? It just isn't easy or pretty for many returning home.
"Two years of shells and bombs, a man's not
likely to peel that off like a sock" from All Quiet on the Western Front
Not all veterans are the same. My friends in blue seem to have limitless support to help them with any and all prolbems. My friends in green, the ones with the pretty blue braid or the ones with the medic patch, they aren't the same.
If they aren't the same, we can't generalize. What we can do as a society is provide real loving support, real medical support, real lifetime support. It means more than waving a flag on that one day, or visiting that one memorial that one time. It means work, and when it really comes down to it, most folks would rather pop open a drink and zone out to the boob tube.
We really shouldn't fear the unknown veteran, we should fear the unknown consequences of knowingly turning our back on our own creations.
When you get past all the blue state red state, gun ownership, self-righteousness, what we lack is a logical connection between our actions, our politics and the outcomes in society. We seem to get far enough to question authority, but we don't question who benefits from the lobbyists and the business behind the authority.
Who really benefits from this war, would they benefit from recognizing a problem with the combat veterans, their quality of life or what we really owe them in society? Would they?
Is it responsible journalism to sensationalize the few killers who have returned from battle in foreign lands, only to unleash that fury on Americans?
Is it responsible journalism to highlight the plight of PTSD affected veterans who have returned from war only to find that they can't fit back into society, and find it easier to revert to their skill, stealth killing, as a solution to the new stress?
Is it responsible to rant about how that makes these people lepers and it just isn't fair to defame these valiant heroes?
I am on the fence. I am on the fence after living, breathing and co-existing with a veteran. I am on the fence about telling people honestly what anger can do. I am on the fence of personal privacy, which keeps me from saying yes, they sure are armed, wouldn't you be if you if your gun meant your life...
Not everyone comes back and shifts right in. On the contrary, going to Iraq fresh out of high school, a young adult has little coping strategies for making it in society. Also, upon return the young person sees friends that are more established and it is frustrating. Especially if he or she is still taking a knee at the boom of the fourth of July show, or when a car backfires. You start to feel like a freak, a freak who has lost time. A freak that has valuable skill on a battle field and no commensurate skill or task in society.
It seems easier to just go back.
Not only might these folks lack everyday coping strategies and decision making skills, but they have all new burdens. A combat vet can have exposure to spent uranium, traumatic brain injury, digestion problems, and PTSD. A combat vet can have fewer limbs, constant pain, and the possibility of never returning to what was known before deployment. How many deaths, howmany friends lost, how many images are stuck in that man or woman's head? It just isn't easy or pretty for many returning home.
"Two years of shells and bombs, a man's not
likely to peel that off like a sock" from All Quiet on the Western Front
Not all veterans are the same. My friends in blue seem to have limitless support to help them with any and all prolbems. My friends in green, the ones with the pretty blue braid or the ones with the medic patch, they aren't the same.
If they aren't the same, we can't generalize. What we can do as a society is provide real loving support, real medical support, real lifetime support. It means more than waving a flag on that one day, or visiting that one memorial that one time. It means work, and when it really comes down to it, most folks would rather pop open a drink and zone out to the boob tube.
We really shouldn't fear the unknown veteran, we should fear the unknown consequences of knowingly turning our back on our own creations.
When you get past all the blue state red state, gun ownership, self-righteousness, what we lack is a logical connection between our actions, our politics and the outcomes in society. We seem to get far enough to question authority, but we don't question who benefits from the lobbyists and the business behind the authority.
Who really benefits from this war, would they benefit from recognizing a problem with the combat veterans, their quality of life or what we really owe them in society? Would they?
The New Lepers (New York Post) click title for link
THE NEW 'LEPERS'
THE TIMES' TROUBLE WITH VETS
Defending America: That's why the Times insists he's a freak.
January 18, 2008 -- I'VE had a huge response to Tuesday's column about The New York Times' obscene bid to smear veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan as mad killers. Countless readers seem to be wondering: Why did the paper do it?
Well, in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.
The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.
In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).
But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder . . . ).
Well, a quick statistics check let the air out of the Times' bid to make us dread the veteran down the block - who the Times implies has a machine gun under his bathrobe when he steps out front to fetch the morning paper. In fact, the capital-crimes rate ballyhooed by the Gray Lady demonstrates that our returning troops are far less likely to commit such an offense.
Again, the Times' smear certainly wasn't an accident. The paper's staff is highly paid and highly experienced. Its editors know that a serious news story has to put numbers into context. But their sole attempt at context was to note that offenses by former soldiers have ticked up since we went to war.
The Times is trying to make you fear our veterans (Good Lord, if your daughter marries one, she's bound to be beaten to death!). And to convince you that our military would be a dreadful place for your sons and daughters, a death-machine that would turn them into incurable psychopaths.
To a darkly humorous degree, all this reflects the Freudian terrors leftists feel when confronted with men who don't have concave chests. But it goes far beyond that.
Pretending to pity tormented veterans (vets don't want our pity - they want our respect), the Times' feature was an artful example of hate-speech disguised as a public service.
The image we all were supposed to take away from that story was of hopelessly damaged, victimized, infected human beings who've become outcasts from civilized society. The Times cast our vets as freaks from a slasher flick.
The hard left's hatred of our military has deteriorated from a political stance into a pathology: The only good soldier is a dead soldier who can be wielded as a statistic (out of context again). Or a deserter who complains bitterly that he didn't join the Army to fight . . .
At the risk of turning to anecdotal evidence - a technique much-abused by the left - I have to declare that I personally know hundreds of veterans. (Can anyone at the Times head office make that claim?) Not a single one of them has committed a crime worse than exceeding the speed limit on the Interstate.
Not one vet I know is in prison for a crime he or she committed after taking off the uniform. And in nearly 22 years of active service, I encountered only two soldiers who committed violent crimes (no murders).
Contrary to the Times, veterans are consistently among the most upstanding members of their communities. They volunteer. They vote. They take pride in being good neighbors. And those I know have raised their children more successfully than the average liberal household.
But what's the image that the left, whether the Times or the silly people in Hollywood, presents to us? Vets are nuts. Violently nuts. They kill their neighbors. They kill their own kind. And they're just waiting for the right moment of madness to kill you.
A longstanding goal of the left, recently invigorated, has been to drive a wedge between our military and our society. The real vet is the neighbor who fixes your kid's bike (or your computer). But the left's archetypal vet is the Marine colonel in "American Beauty" who, frustrated in his suppressed gay passions, murders poor Kevin Spacey.
Yes, war is a terrible crucible. Some vets, past and present, do need help. And they deserve the best help our country can give them. But the left-wing fantasy of hordes of psychotics driven mad by drill sergeants and Army chow is just that: a fantasy.
Of course, if the Times responds at all to the storm of protests their insult to our veterans aroused, the editors will try to fudge the numbers in their favor. You just can't argue with ideologues. They lie and they cheat. And they justify it as being for the greater good of ignorant fools like us.
So let me suggest the best-possible revenge on the veteran-trashing jerks at The New York Times: Instead of fleeing in terror the next time you see a veteran you know, just thank him or her for their service.
And let's save the leper's bells for dishonest journalists.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer who has yet to kill any of his neighbors (although they'd better keep their grass cut).
THE TIMES' TROUBLE WITH VETS
Defending America: That's why the Times insists he's a freak.
January 18, 2008 -- I'VE had a huge response to Tuesday's column about The New York Times' obscene bid to smear veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan as mad killers. Countless readers seem to be wondering: Why did the paper do it?
Well, in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.
The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.
In the more than six years since 9/11, the Times has never run a feature story half as long on any of the hundreds of heroes who've served our country - those who've won medals of honor, distinguished service crosses, Navy crosses, silver stars or bronze stars with a V device (for valor).
But the Times put a major investigative effort into the "sensational" story that 121 returning vets had committed capital offenses (of course, 20 percent of the cases cited involved manslaughter charges stemming from drunken driving, not first- or second-degree murder . . . ).
Well, a quick statistics check let the air out of the Times' bid to make us dread the veteran down the block - who the Times implies has a machine gun under his bathrobe when he steps out front to fetch the morning paper. In fact, the capital-crimes rate ballyhooed by the Gray Lady demonstrates that our returning troops are far less likely to commit such an offense.
Again, the Times' smear certainly wasn't an accident. The paper's staff is highly paid and highly experienced. Its editors know that a serious news story has to put numbers into context. But their sole attempt at context was to note that offenses by former soldiers have ticked up since we went to war.
The Times is trying to make you fear our veterans (Good Lord, if your daughter marries one, she's bound to be beaten to death!). And to convince you that our military would be a dreadful place for your sons and daughters, a death-machine that would turn them into incurable psychopaths.
To a darkly humorous degree, all this reflects the Freudian terrors leftists feel when confronted with men who don't have concave chests. But it goes far beyond that.
Pretending to pity tormented veterans (vets don't want our pity - they want our respect), the Times' feature was an artful example of hate-speech disguised as a public service.
The image we all were supposed to take away from that story was of hopelessly damaged, victimized, infected human beings who've become outcasts from civilized society. The Times cast our vets as freaks from a slasher flick.
The hard left's hatred of our military has deteriorated from a political stance into a pathology: The only good soldier is a dead soldier who can be wielded as a statistic (out of context again). Or a deserter who complains bitterly that he didn't join the Army to fight . . .
At the risk of turning to anecdotal evidence - a technique much-abused by the left - I have to declare that I personally know hundreds of veterans. (Can anyone at the Times head office make that claim?) Not a single one of them has committed a crime worse than exceeding the speed limit on the Interstate.
Not one vet I know is in prison for a crime he or she committed after taking off the uniform. And in nearly 22 years of active service, I encountered only two soldiers who committed violent crimes (no murders).
Contrary to the Times, veterans are consistently among the most upstanding members of their communities. They volunteer. They vote. They take pride in being good neighbors. And those I know have raised their children more successfully than the average liberal household.
But what's the image that the left, whether the Times or the silly people in Hollywood, presents to us? Vets are nuts. Violently nuts. They kill their neighbors. They kill their own kind. And they're just waiting for the right moment of madness to kill you.
A longstanding goal of the left, recently invigorated, has been to drive a wedge between our military and our society. The real vet is the neighbor who fixes your kid's bike (or your computer). But the left's archetypal vet is the Marine colonel in "American Beauty" who, frustrated in his suppressed gay passions, murders poor Kevin Spacey.
Yes, war is a terrible crucible. Some vets, past and present, do need help. And they deserve the best help our country can give them. But the left-wing fantasy of hordes of psychotics driven mad by drill sergeants and Army chow is just that: a fantasy.
Of course, if the Times responds at all to the storm of protests their insult to our veterans aroused, the editors will try to fudge the numbers in their favor. You just can't argue with ideologues. They lie and they cheat. And they justify it as being for the greater good of ignorant fools like us.
So let me suggest the best-possible revenge on the veteran-trashing jerks at The New York Times: Instead of fleeing in terror the next time you see a veteran you know, just thank him or her for their service.
And let's save the leper's bells for dishonest journalists.
Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer who has yet to kill any of his neighbors (although they'd better keep their grass cut).
Monday, January 14, 2008
Report: 121 vets charged in deaths after tours
The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Jan 14, 2008 12:56:22 EST
NEW YORK — At least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have committed a killing or been charged in one in the U.S. after returning from combat, The New York Times reported Sunday.
The newspaper said it also logged 349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. That represents an 89 percent increase over the previous six-year period, the newspaper said.
About three-quarters of those homicides involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, the newspaper said. The report did not illuminate the exact relationship between those cases and the 121 killings also mentioned in the report.
The newspaper said its research involved searching local news reports, examining police, court and military records and interviewing defendants, their lawyers and families, victims’ families and military and law enforcement officials.
Defense Department representatives did not immediately respond to a telephone message early Sunday. The Times said the military agency declined to comment, saying it could not reproduce the paper’s research.
A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, questioned the report’s premise and research methods, the newspaper said. He said it aggregated crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to murder, and he suggested the apparent increase in homicides involving military personnel and veterans in the wartime period might reflect only “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.”
Neither the Pentagon nor the federal Justice Department track such killings, generally prosecuted in state civilian courts, according to the Times.
The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.
About a third of the victims were girlfriends or relatives, including a 2-year-old girl slain by her 20-year-old father while he was recovering from wounds sustained in Iraq.
A quarter of the victims were military personnel. One was stabbed and set afire by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.
Posted : Monday Jan 14, 2008 12:56:22 EST
NEW YORK — At least 121 Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans have committed a killing or been charged in one in the U.S. after returning from combat, The New York Times reported Sunday.
The newspaper said it also logged 349 homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans in the six years since military action began in Afghanistan, and later Iraq. That represents an 89 percent increase over the previous six-year period, the newspaper said.
About three-quarters of those homicides involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, the newspaper said. The report did not illuminate the exact relationship between those cases and the 121 killings also mentioned in the report.
The newspaper said its research involved searching local news reports, examining police, court and military records and interviewing defendants, their lawyers and families, victims’ families and military and law enforcement officials.
Defense Department representatives did not immediately respond to a telephone message early Sunday. The Times said the military agency declined to comment, saying it could not reproduce the paper’s research.
A military spokesman, Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, questioned the report’s premise and research methods, the newspaper said. He said it aggregated crimes ranging from involuntary manslaughter to murder, and he suggested the apparent increase in homicides involving military personnel and veterans in the wartime period might reflect only “an increase in awareness of military service by reporters since 9/11.”
Neither the Pentagon nor the federal Justice Department track such killings, generally prosecuted in state civilian courts, according to the Times.
The 121 killings ranged from shootings and stabbings to bathtub drownings and fatal car crashes resulting from drunken driving, the newspaper said. All but one of those implicated was male.
About a third of the victims were girlfriends or relatives, including a 2-year-old girl slain by her 20-year-old father while he was recovering from wounds sustained in Iraq.
A quarter of the victims were military personnel. One was stabbed and set afire by fellow soldiers a day after they all returned from Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)