Auf die Truppen scheißen

Hey, Hey, Hanoi Jane--How many troups have you slimed today?

Your point on the soldier's claim that American's are not sacraficing is not supported by the context of the quotes you provided.

First, every quote from the article used the term "sacrafice" yet you find it hard to believe a soldier would want American's to "suffer" more. Unless there is more to the story than you provided, no where did the soldiers use the term suffer. They used the term sacrafice. Big difference.

This is something I have been writing on for almost 1 year now. The biggest concern for most Americans this summer is "how much will it cost to fill my boat up with gas?" Unlike virtually any major war in the past, the American populace, especially in most towns which are not connected to military bases, are totally unaffected by this war. Makes great news, some cool video games are coming out, but other than that, it is a "who cares" war.

The point they are making is that this is very dangerous on two fronts. First, it is very dangerous for the soldiers because NO ONE has any incentive to stop this war. In fact, the incentive is to keep it going. Down the street from me, Oshkosh Truck is making Billions off this war and jobs are plentiful. No one has any negative effect (like sons having to die in the war) so the incentive is to keep it going.

Second, the military is now totally and utterly disconnected from the society at large. BRAC will make that worse. Meaning, I can go months without ever seeing or hearing a soldier. It is just something that goes on "somewhere else".

I have always said, if we are truly going to war, EVERYONE needs to participate, otherwise, bring it home. It is not worth it.

I think the point is the troops don't want Americans to sacrifice or suffer. I think they're proud to be fighting for the American way of life (if you want to know what that is - it's everything Lefties hate and despise)

The New York Times is lying by insisting that American soldiers support their political views, and couldn't even provide a single quote froma soldier that does so. Further, they are insulting American soldiers about 10 different ways in this story. Still, people like you (gullible) believe that if you see it in the Times, it's so.

Fortunately the majority of Americans don't accept everything they read in the NY Times as Gospel.

BTW Kevin - you claim that every quote from a soldier uses the term "sacrifice" when actually none of them do. How does it feel to have been so skillfully manipulated by the Times?

And on your semantics issue - can you give an example of where someone sacrificed something without suffering? You're right - they are two different things, and suffering is the result of sacrifice - unless you have some weird Lefty definition of sacrifice.

Back in my day we had a saying "question authority" - today you might want to try that.

As far as that "military disconnected from society at large" that's exactly what the Time's hopes to take advantage of when they publish horrendous lies like this one about military.

Another of the ten thousand reasons I'm thankful for Milblogs.

Well, old soldier, first, I did not READ the article in the times,I read the analysis here which I stated was flawed. If you read my post, instead of going on a typical right wing nut rant, you would have seen I made no comment about the article, merely about the posting. I do not subscribe to the times and read the on line portion sometimes.

Again, READ my post, I said that the quotes HE USED used the terms "sacrifice" not suffer. I did not say that every soldier in the article did. I even said, "Unless there is more to the story than you are posting..." indicating I am responding to his POST not the article.

Here is your example of sacrifice but not suffering. I have a 22' lake boat. Part of the reason the soldiers are over in Iraq is to defend the oil so I can tool around a lake on the weekends. What if the Government said, in a massive attempt to control our fuel consumption, that they would dye marina fuel and you would be rationed to 50 gallons per month? That would be a sacrifice but because I could not boat on my weekends, I certainly would not be suffering.

If what you say is true that the soldiers do not care then LEAVE US ALONE! Meaning, go fight your war, have fun, but don't ask for more money, more veterans benefits, more enlistment bonuses etc. etc. Just go do "That voodoo that you do so well" and leave us alone.

Let us know how it turns out...

I do not know who you are or why you immediately went on a name calling rant but here is what you should do:

1) God gave you TWO eyes... read closely before replying to things that are not said or even implied.

2) Try to see beyond "The NY Times sucks" and look at the substance of the article.

3) Try, just try, to reply without calling someone a name or implying they are gullible etc. Stick to the facts.

4) Question authority? HELL YES!! The NY Times has NO AUTHORITY .. question the Government. You know, the Government that has JAILED a NY Times reporter who never published a story... and allows a conservative "friendly" reporter (Novak) to get a by when he is the one who outed the CIA agent.. you know, that authority.

Finally, the military IS disconnected... plain and simple. I just posted at my BLOG about the issue with 2006 recruiting. They will miss 2005 and 2006 looks just as bad. That is a strong indicator that the populace just doesn't care.

BTW, that was not from the "evil" NY Times but from the military itself.

Problems in recruiting in 2006? Wow - can they give me good stock tips too? I'd also like to know whether it will rain on my July 4th picnic.

Kevin also says: "Well, old soldier, first, I did not READ the article in the times,I read the analysis here which I stated was flawed."

You don't even realize you're a blithering idiot. By the way, I haven't read your blog post, and I can tell I don't need to. You're incoherent.

"That would be a sacrifice but because I could not boat on my weekends, I certainly would not be suffering."

Demanding the government stops you from using too much gas, while thinking a "sacrifice" is something painless.

Go away.

I WANT TO BUY WAR BONDS!!!

It would also be nice if there were only 1 clearing house to send donations to the troops, would be easier to keep track of how much is being sent to the troops that way. But I suppose sending donations, letters, and such isn't a sacrifice. I suppose being personally wrapped up in soldiers blogs, so that you are hanging on their every word, and wondering if they are alright when they don't post isn't a sacrifice. I suppose defending their good name against those who would defame them, isn't really a sacrifice.

No, I think what the troops want is support from Americans, not sacrifice. I do everything I can to support the troops, because they are over there sacrificing themselves for us.

This opinion piece disguised as an article is trying to propel the meme that the Harvard prof was trying to push. That there is a disconnect between the military and the general population.

I think it's much more accurate to say there is a disconnect between the NY Times and Harvard elite w/ the military and the general population. They need to get out of their Ivory Towers and see what the majority think of things.

Steve:

Do you know anything about the military at all besides the movies? If so, you will know there is a thing called the DELAYED ENTRY program. Usually, by now, they have 14,000 or so candidates in the program waiting to go in. Instead, now, I think it is like 4,000. It is the friggin military that is saying they will have a problem in 2006... not me or the evil NY TImes. So, if this assertion is that of a "blithering idiot" then so be it. You have called the General in charge of recruiting a blithering idiot. If that is your position, ok.

You are a moron plain and simple. You read nothing, go on rants and are basically ignorant of the situation.

You reinforce why the right wing nut agenda needs to be stopped.

As I said, if all is OK in the military fine. THEN LEAVE US ALONE. Don't ask for more money or benefits. Go fight your wars and leave us alone.

To Steve:
Yeah, the military is doing so "great" at recruiting that now they're offering a term of 15 months active service and the rest in the Peace Corps! That's what I call desperate. I personally know a guy whose uncle has served seven years on a ballistic missile submarine in the Navy and his CO is trying to talk him into re-enlisting but going to Iraq as a truck driver! He's not the only one, plenty of guys driving trucks for the Army in Iraq are Navy or Air Force personnel. The Army can't even recruit enough guys to drive trucks for them in Iraq, let alone as what they try to call "infantrymen" who in the U.S. Army (and Marines) are glorified forward air controllers: as soon as they hear a car backfire they are screaming for air support. Do you really think the military can keep 138,000 "troops" in Iraq for even another year??
Notice how now they are talking about drastic withdrawls from Iraq by early 2006? The 100% unneccessary war in Iraq is breaking the so-called U.S. military.

It's very difficult to overcome the bias which our attitudes create in our PERCEPTION of "reality."

Your post seems (to me) to imply that you know this (or else that you believe "liberals" are liars) since you cite a number of instances in which those who oppose the Bush war/war-plan mis-state what you take to be fact, and do so in a way consistent with their beliefs.

But you do it too. I came to the discussion of the NYT editing a soldier's op-ed piece and read the quotation you provided from the NYT:

'This sort of give-and-take is standard practice on the Op-Ed pages. "We try to clarify and improve copy," said Mr. Shipley. "We do this for the benefit of our contributors, many of whom are not professional writers.'

And while I wondered how disingenuous a defense this might be for the Times' editorial policy in general, it did seem to me adequate explanation for the facts in the situation under discussion.

But then you add your perspective:

'It's curious, that not writers bit - considering that Phil has a great, well written blog, has been published in Slate (more than just that one link), and also at least once previously in the New York Times. So since "not a writer" doesn't apply they must have had some other reason for changing his words.'

And that's not a logical argument: If a practice is, as NYT claims, "standard practice," then the fact that the reason for the practice's having been established is not applicable in a specific situation does NOT mean that the "standard practice" is re-examined in that case and the decision made whether or not it should be applied (practiced.) That's why it's STANDARD practice.

Surely you as a military person know this. There are many regulations in the service which were written because adherence to them created a stronger unit. If a soldier were to tell his superior "I know that's standard practice, but the reason it's there doesn't apply in my case, so the regulation shouldn't apply to me" s/he'd be laughed out of the service.

I'm asking EVERYONE on both sides to state the observable facts objectively and then state the conclusions they draw from those facts. THAT behavior on all sides will allow us to see and so discuss the underlying assumptions each of us is making (since they are the bases for the conclusions.)

But creating invalid arguments can only hinder the process of mutual understanding.