 |  |
 
October 2012
August 2012 July 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003
     |
 Greetings! You are reading an article from The Mudville Gazette. To reach the front page, with all the latest news and views, click the logo above or "main" below. Thanks for stopping by! August 12, 2005 The War You Can't WinBy GreyhawkThe Washington Post: Organizers of next month's planned antiwar demonstrations yesterday criticized media organizations, including The Washington Post, for co-sponsoring with the Department of Defense an event to remember the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and to support the troops in Iraq.Kudos to the Post for a rather understated yet in your face response in paragraph two: The Defense Department-sponsored Freedom Walk will proceed from the Pentagon to the Mall near the Reflecting Pool on the morning of Sept. 11. Country music star Clint Black is donating his time to perform a concert after the walk that will be broadcast to troops overseas. The Post, WTOP radio, WJLA-TV and NewsChannel 8 are donating public service announcements in advance of the event. Non-media co-sponsors include Lockheed Martin, Subway and the Washington Convention and Tourism Corp., according to the Defense Department's Web site for the walk.Personally I'd like to thank the Left for adding to the publicity for the event. Please google "Christians protest Harry Potter" for a recent example of what your efforts might achieve. I'd be sensitive to their concerns, but every time 12 sign waving war protestors appear on any street corner in the USA it makes front page news - complete with the organization's estimate of "hundreds of demonstrators gathered..." In the same story, the Post publicizes another forthcoming event: On Sept. 24, nearly two weeks after the walk, critics of the war will gather in Washington for three days of demonstrations, including a concert, a march and other events.Could anyone be more oblivious to the irony? Un-hinged. Oh, by the way, welcome Washington Post readers. Obviously, the link to this site from the Post indicates their complete and total support for the troops in the war on terror, and endorsement of the many positions I have taken in opposition to stories I've found there. Seriously though, debate is good, our nation was founded on just that. Calls from "the opposition" for "the other side" to be silenced speak volumes for the quality of their arguments. Thanks to John Finer and the Washington Post for amplifying a lot of disparate voices in the War on Terror, and letting readers think for themselves. Posted by Greyhawk / August 12, 2005 6:59 PM | Permalink 11 Comments |
November 26, 2010America@war [Greyhawk]
I think anyone who's ever pondered the "comment" option - once only available on blogs and bulletin boards, now ubiquitous on almost any web site - will appreciate this:
The so-called faculty of writing is not so much a faculty of writing as it is a faculty of thinking. When a man says, "I have an idea but I can't express it"; that man hasn't an idea but merely a vague feeling. If a man has a feeling of that kind, and will sit down for a half an hour and persistently try to put into writing what he feels, the probabilities are at least 90 percent that he will either be able to record it, or else realize that he has no idea at all. In either case, he will do himself a benefit. That's wisdom from the past, captured for posterity at the US Naval Institute, shared via the web on the institute's 137th anniversary. From their about page:
"The Naval Institute has three core activities," among them, History and Preservation: The Naval Institute also has recently introduced Americans at War, a living history of Americans at war in their own words and from their own experiences. These 90-second vignettes convey powerful stories of inspiration, pride, and patriotism. Take a look at the collection, and you'll see it's not limited to accounts from those who served on ships at sea, members of the other branches are well-represented. I'm fortunate to have met USNI's Mary Ripley, she's responsible for the institute's oral history program (and she's the daughter of the late John Ripley, whose story is told here). She also deserves much credit for their blog. ("We're not the Navy nor any government agency. Blog and comment freely.") We met at a milblog conference - Mary knew (and I would come to realize) that milbloggers are the 21st-century version of exactly what the US Naval Institute is all about. Once that light bulb came on in my head, I mentioned a vague idea for a project to her - milblogs as the 21st century oral history that they are. "Put that in writing," she said (of course - see first paragraph above!) - and here's part of the result. Shortly after the first tent was pitched by the American military in Iraq a wire was connected to a computer therein, and the internet was available to a generation of Americans at war - many of whom had grown up online. From that point on, at any given moment, somewhere in Iraq a Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine was at a keyboard sharing the events of his or her day with the folks back home. While most would simply fire off an email, others took advantage of the (then) relatively new online blogging platforms to post their thoughts and experiences for the entire world to see. The milblog was born - and from that moment to this stories detailing everything from the most mundane aspects of camp life to intense combat action (often described within hours of the event) have been available on the web... And et cetera - but since you're reading this on a milblog, you probably knew that. And you know that milblogs aren't just blogs written by troops at war, that many friends, family members, and supporters likewise documented their story of America at war online in near-real time, as those stories developed. The diversity in membership of that group is broad, the one thing we all have in common is the impulse to make sense of the seemingly senseless, and communicate the tale - for each of us that impulse was strong enough to overcome whatever barriers prevent the vast majority of people from doing the same. Everyone at some point has some vague idea they believe should be shared - we were the people who, from some combination of internal and external urging, found and spent those many half hours persistently trying to write it down. But where will all that be in another 137 years? Or five or ten, for that matter. That's something I've asked myself since at least 2004 - when I wrote this:
Membership in the ghost battalion has grown in the years since, and an ever growing majority of those abandoned-but-still-standing sites are vanishing. Have you checked out Lt Smash's site lately? How about Sgt Hook's? If you're a long-time milblog reader you know the first widely-read milblog from Operation Iraq Freedom and the first widely-read milblog from Afghanistan are both gone from the web. If you're a relative newcomer to this world you may never even have heard of them - or the dozens upon dozens of others who carried forth the standard they set down. If you have a vague notion that something should be done about that, (a notion I've heard expressed more than once...) then you and I and the good folks at the US Naval Institute are in agreement. Preserving the history documented by the milbloggers is just one of the goals of the milblog project, the once-vague idea that we're now making real. And it's a big idea, if I say so myself - too big to explain in one simple blog post, so stand by for more. Likewise, it's too big a task to be accomplished by just one person. So if you're a milblogger (and exactly what is a milblogger? is a topic for much further discussion on its own) I'm asking for your help. All I'll really need is just a little bit (maybe just one or two of those half hours...) of your time, and your willingness to tell the tale. We've already made history, it's time to save it. (More to follow...) Posted 4:02 PM | Permalink |
Comments (0) |
|
The Mudville Gazette is the on-line voice of an American warrior and his wife who stands by him. They prefer to see peaceful change render force of arms unnecessary. Until that day they stand fast with those who struggle for freedom, strike for reason, and pray for a better tomorrow.
 
 
 Furthermore, I will occasionally use satire or parody herein. The bottom line: it's my house. I like having visitors to my house. I hope you are entertained. I fight for your right to free speech, and am thrilled when you exercise said rights here. Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1)the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2)the property of the Mudville Gazette, with free use granted thereto for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email. Original content copyright © 2003 - 2011 by Greyhawk. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed. Contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com  Tending Distant Far from hearth and home, watching What tales we'll tell When things grim Some distant sunset, vision fading Saluting fallen friends whose names - Greyhawk, Baghdad, December 2004 |
Well as a purported member of the left I'm trying to sort this out. All the protest I've ssen about this Freedom Walk is over the crassness of what seems to be a celebration to commemorate 9/11. You celebrate things like Independence day, V-Day. You don't have a party on the day Pearl Harbor was bombed.
And as far as anything marking 9/11 I would say the military has no lock over it -- anyone and everyone should feel free to do some kind of memorial on this day. It belongs to all of us.
And hey, if the Left organized a big party bash for 9/11, you know the Right would be all over that too.
As for "Calls from "the opposition" for "the other side" to be silenced speak volumes for the quality of their arguments." -- ehy, there are people who are saying Cindy Sheehan should be considered a traitor, should be silenced. Calls for silencing come from both left and right. You're just more attuned to it when it involves your issues.
A moment of digression:
Now, I've been to the Freedom Walk website and the other part I'm not understanding is how does it support the troops?
It's not raising money.
It's not holding a care packaging party.
It's not sending armored humvees over
It's not signing up new recruits
And speaking of funding, Congress has (unanimously) approved every bit of funding that the administration and military has requested. If you guys are short on stuff, I'd start looking back the pipeline to see what's going on. It ain't a lack of money, that's for sure, and that should make you guys angrier than it does me: if there's something fishy going on, or skimming, or just plain waste or incompetency going on there. For me, it's a waste of my taxpayer money -- but for you guys, you're paying for that with your lives...
OK returning from that digression...
In any case, support or opposition to the war has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's feelings about 9/11. And because of that, linking pro/anti Iraq war elements with this is nonsensical. The anti war groups could also put on something commemorating 9/11 (hopefully not a cheery 4th of July party; I'd object to that too). *That* is the point.
In any case, for the record, I opposed going into Iraq, I do believe the president has provoked this war for personal reasons unrelated to 9/11, and yet at this point I do not believe we can pull out because of the mess that's now over there. We have to clean up before we get out. So in that sense I do not support the withdrawl of the troops. I can only hope we achieve something concrete over there, I really do. And something other than a no-win situation in which we maintain a presence over there for 70 years.
The Pentagon is neither left nor right - it is out of the political mix. That's odd you see it otherwise. Do you also think they were on the left when Clinton was president?
And the gist of the story above is that the unhinged lefty is complaining in a Washington Post story that the Washington Post is publicizing something he doesn't support - meanwhile they're giving him tons of free publicity for his own little hate parade and stinkfest. He's oblivious to his own hypocrisy.
I'm not sure who these people are who demand Sheehan should shut up - most folks simply support her son's views on the War on Terror over hers.
The failure of the left to comprehend even the simplest issues of the world today never ceases to amaze me. But it's a big part of the reason the Democratic Party places second out of two in the past 3 major elections in this country. Go ahead, shift a little farther left...
Here's the fun part, I was linking to this site from here because I'm particularly interested about how current technology is completely undermining efforts by governments to control information and also bypassing traditional journalism (which has its own set of problems, whether you consider the media to have a left OR right bias). I went and checked this link out out of interest, only to find complaints the left is censoring the right.
You *gotta* love the irony.
I'm not sure the words "complaint" and "censoring" mean what you think they mean. The only complaint in this entire discussion is a from guy (admittedly left) demanding to censor the Washington Post - a paper acknowledged as neutral - but failing.
Where is censorship occuring? Who is complaining about it?
Greetings, and thanks to our host Greyhawk. I'm thrilled to find a place with direct information from the troops themselves, and a host who encourages free speech to the extent that he *does* put his life on the line to protect it.
With that respect in mind, on to the topic at hand. First, full disclosure, I see myself as much closer to BEG's position than that of Old Soldier above.
I agree with BEG, that the issue is not the specific hypocrisy or lack thereof in the given WaPo article. The issue is the implied linking of 9/11 to Iraq via this Freedom Walk.
Haven't we mostly agreed that there were no WMD's found in Iraq and more importantly that Saddam wasn't connected with the hijackers who flew the planes in? They were Saudi's,
So, while I can't speak for "The Left," my *perception* of the complaints about the Freedom Walk have nothing to do with remembering 9/11, nor with support for the troops who put their lives on the line for their country. I heartily endorse a government-sponsered rememberance, and support for the troops. But as a member of "The Left," I, and others dislike what appears to be a calculated move to link, for political gain, Iraq with the specific terrorists who attacked the US.
I'll admit I have never fought in a war, and I am sincerely thankful there are men of moral courage and conviction willing to do so on my behalf and in service of this country. But the strength of character of our soldiers doesn't confer infallibility to our President or his administration.
I believe such a linkage, done for what I perceive to be political gain, dishonors the service of all the men and women asked to die over there.
Thanks for letting me have my say.
"Now, I've been to the Freedom Walk website and the other part I'm not understanding is how does it support the troops?"
Morale for one. Also, support is not always greedy material goods and big screen TVs. Sometimes it's simply saying "Good luck, God Speed, Happy Hunting, and Victory!"
Kalroy
"And speaking of funding, Congress has (unanimously) approved every bit of funding that the administration and military has requested."
Not my shop. We had to borrow money to buy thoriated tungsten.
"It ain't a lack of money, that's for sure, and that should make you guys angrier than it does me: if there's something fishy going on, or skimming, or just plain waste or incompetency going on there. For me, it's a waste of my taxpayer money --"
There is a lack of money. Years of cutbacks, trimming, and RiFs have culled the military. As to the angry part, yup, you DO get that from GIs and civillians. There is a huge amount of waste and there is money that just disappears, is misplaced and generally bureaucracized out of existence. This pisses everyone off. Can it be fixed? Possibly, but considering how prevelant the problem is at all levels of government and even people's personal lives it seems that though improvements can be made it will never be eliminated.
"In any case, support or opposition to the war has absolutely nothing to do with any individual's feelings about 9/11. "
From what I've seen this is pretty false. The loudest voices blaming America for 9/11 also seem to be the loudest anti-war voices. The loudest voices blaming militant Islam seem to be the loudest pro-war on terrorism voices.
" And something other than a no-win situation in which we maintain a presence over there for 70 years."
Maintaining a presence there is not automatically a "no-win" situation. History has proven this. It could be a "no-win" situation, but it could also be a huge boon for the US, as historical examples have shown.
Kalroy
Just found your blog through the post. Have not had the time to fully read everything. Thanks for a look at what you faced, my son is scheduled to go to Afganiston in October, and my cousins 2 boys are in Iraq now. What ever ones position on the war supporting the soldiers is important .
GreyHawk, thanks for your efforts in getting this all put together. The Missus too.
I ran across this link in the Post as well, so I spent sometime linkfrogging off your site. Inspite of the politics of the war the troops belong to us all. I have been opposed to this war since it was justa twinkle in the CiC's eye. That is political, and politics stop when it comes to the troops themselves.
They fight and die for us all. I have a kid that is active duty Navy, and so I wish to tell you that when one goes down we all weep, when they are wounded we all pray. When the Congress cuts VA outlays we all raise hell.
The left is not your enemy, they are at worst your political adversary, and I believe you feel that way too. I cannot imagine that if you and I were anywhere in the world and unbeknownst to each other in the same small town that the natives would surely say there were two Americans in town. It is not our differences that define our people, it is our simularity and ability to agree to disagree.
I refuse to be divided by the politicians,pundits and the talking heads, I refuse to be swayed by the rhetoric. I will gather information and make my own assesments of its' worth, and come to a decision. I am thankful that you have provided another source of information in my endeavor.
For what it is worth I disagree with the Post and NY Times all the time too. Perhaps they are doing a better job than I have given them credit for. I hear Jon Stewart also mentioned your site on the tube, but I try to avoid that medium.
To those above who have a problem with this march, it is YOU who are ascribing motivations to the planners. It is very clear, if you visit the website, that the march is planned to commemorate 9/11 and to honor the troops past and present who have defended our freedoms. I hope that you do not consider that to be a political statement. There is no mention of the Iraq war in any of the info about the march AT ALL. You are ascribing that to the planners. Second, the march is a march, not a big party. Yes, they are calling it a "celebration of freedom" but that is a figurative description not a "wahoo, let's party" kind of celebration. I doubt we will be doing the fandango as we march through Arlington Cemetery. The only part of the event that is remotely a celebration is the AFTER march concert by Clint Black...which is being broadcast overseas to the troops that are being supported by this march. Finally, as to the question of how a march that is not designed to raise money could ever support the troops, it is very simple: Morale. Our deployed servicemembers have to hear and read the news about anti-war protests and anti-military attitudes day in and day out.(yes, anti-military attitudes, like harassing recruiters and saying that the "insurgents" in Iraq have a legitimate mission in killing our soldiers) The very article we are discussing talks about yet another anti-war gathering planned for two weeks after the Freedom march. Those who conduct these anti-war marches/gatherings may not believe that they have any effect on the troops, but the aggregate effect of all their negativism can be a downer to morale. This march is an opportunity for the great silent majority of us to bring a positive message of thanks to those troops and it is an opportunity for the troops stationed Around the World, not just in Iraq...in Afghanistan, the Phillipines, Malaysia, all across Africa, Columbia, etc,etc fighting the war on terror, to see that a great number of people here do care about them and want them to do well in their mission - Please explain to me what could possibly be wrong with that?????
Oh and by the way, you don't hear the Pentagon telling the anti-war protestors that they shouldn't have their protest and concert (celebration?) two weeks after, just the opposite. Who really supports free speech?
There is a war that cannot be won: it is the war of trying to free the mind of close-minded liberals. There is no amount of reason that can convince them of the value of victory in the current war we are fighting against fanatical Islamic jihadis (no it is not a war against all Islam).
So we must just keep shoving the liberals aside and keep on getting to business of securing freedom even for idiots who neither appreciate it nor know how to defend it.