|
Cute, but no.
There seems to be a bit of a trend in a number of liberal blogs of late: Accusations of Chickenhawking.
While I definitely understand the urge to call "bullshit" on the people who led the media and blog push into Iraq, this is not the way to do it. Yeah, the Democratic party has been the one to nominate veterans for the last two elections, but his lack of expirience didn't make Clinton any less the Commander in Chief. Similarly, bash Bush (and, while you're at it, Cheney) for avoiding service or for failing to have a coherent plan for Iraq; but the one doesn't have anything to do with the other.
This whole, "You like the war so much, why don't you marry it," thing doesn't really work. I generally like Michael Moore, but bringing the Marine recruiters to the Capitol in Fahrenheit 9/11 was dumb. Similarly, telling columnists (whether or not they're idiots and/or blowhards) that in order to support the war you need to fight it (or even more fucked up, have your kids fight it for you) is at best stupid, at worst offensive. It diminishes the sacrifices that soldiers, marines, etc. are making and it really doesn't make sense. There are some things that you just can't say, "put up or shut up" on. This is one of them. I'd love Michelle Malkin to shut the fuck up, but her going into my Army is not a viable second option. (Her stance on internment, however... maybe we can arrange something there.)
We have an all-volunteer military for a lot of reasons. One of those reasons is "freedom." Yes, that's right, one of my favorite parts about joining the Army was that I (and you) didn't have to. Military service is not a prerequisite for citizenship or political participation (outside a time of war [real war, not GWOT]); If that's not your pursuit of happiness, then go have a nice, non-military life. Another reason for an all volunteer military is that the Army, Navy, etc. don't want to have to deal with people who don't want to be here. I'm going to be a Platoon Leader, and if half of my guys are there because it was that or Canada, they are going to be less combat effective and more likely to get themselves, and me, killed. It doesn't matter how you do it, I don't want it, their Drill Instrutors don't want it, and the Joint Chiefs don't want it.
The First Ammendment (and, I'd say common sense) say that you can voice your opinions as you please with or without practical knowledge to back you up. I don't need to go to Iraq (yet) to be against our little war there. Hindrocket doesn't need to go there to be all for it. Stop saying he does. There are so many legitimate issues to beat these guys to shit with, don't use the retarded ones.
In summery (-rants): Calling "bullshit" is fun, but this is a stupid, defeatist (and often funny) way of doing it.
Thoughts on Iraq coverage
In response to Onlooker (briefly) on the NY Times on conditions in Iraq:
Yeah, it doesn't surprise me how much stuff soldiers will buy to make their places nice. At Airborne School we had guys bringing XBoxes and DVD players for a three week school. If you're going to be in country (in shitty, dusty, getting-shot-at country at that) for a year or more, you're going to want at TV and some decent escapist entertainment for your downtime.
But that's not really the point. This is: What someone (and at present it looks like only the NYT or the WaPost could actually pull it off) needs to do is show us data, not anecdotes. It's nice reading about the people in this or that FOB (forward operating base) have nice trailers and big DVD collections. It's also nice for the Times to point out that this is not the norm for many. These are nice anecdotes about Iraq. But it's not what I want. I want data. I want someone to say that x% of all troops live in these nice trailers, the y% live in captured Iraqi palaces (ala the folks from Gunner Palace, and not actually as nice as the trailers) and the remainder (z%) live in tents, or are constantly on the move from one patrol base or seized house to the next. Then give your examples, your personal narratives that involve the reader. Give me a full section (not just a couple of unconnected stories) that details how many units are actively seeing combat in Iraq, how many are staying in Kuwait, how long they've been there, how many times they've been there, etc. Give us articles breaking down who's got what kind of equipment (HMMWVs armored and not, APCs, M1A1s, M16A1s vs. M4s, Interceptor Armor, etc.) and why (Artillery units w/o artillery as in Gunner Palace, etc.) and in what regions.
Basically I want systematic intelligence, not scattered factoids. Obviously I don't want information that will comprimise anyone, but you can give me that kinda of data without endangering anyone. There's nothing really wrong with the scattered articles that are being put out by the major outlets (I will generally exclude TV from this because the time allotted per segment is significantly less than print). A lot of them are interesting and useful. But what would be infinitely more useful would be something that would give a concerted, overall picture of how US forces are living, working, and sadly, dying, in Iraq.
I don't want snapshots. I want a mosaic that shows an overview.
Heading back to DC soon. Nice to be done with LDAC, nice to be getting on with MSIV year.
Here's hope for a good year, hope for getting some changes in the Battalion.
Here's hope for some improvement in Iraq [and, hell, here]
|
