Christian Science?

A reader writes:

Dear Greyhawk,

As a loyal reader, may I submit a special request? I'd be interested to know your thoughts (as someone "on the ground") about this article in the Christian Science Monitor. I have to admit, it has me a little worried.

Stop worrying.

So, The Christian Science Monitor has departed from its usual mission of monitoring Christian Scientists to present us with a front page piece on the shambles that is the American Military today. Since it's a recitation of so many of the themes popular with the anti-military crowd in the media these days it's worth the effort to address them all in one place. Having read that story I do have a few minor issues with it.

Issue 1 - It's a page 1 story. Actually that's only a problem if it's an opinion vice news piece. Is it? That's to be determined.

Issue 2 - the author, Brad Knickerbocker. We'll not refute any of Brad's claims based on who he is, nor will we question his objectivity, but the reader deserves to know his background before making any judgments, don't you think?

Brad has covered the war extensively for Christian Science Monitor. Here, for example is a recent piece attempting to calculate the possible number of civilian casualties in Iraq. The link is actually to a reprint of the work found at CounterCurrents.org, a site with sections on Iraq, Palestine, climate change, globalisation, US imperialism, etc., etc., etc. Along with Knickerbocker reprints they also feature Fidel Castro diatribes for your enlightenment.

In fact, reprints of Brad's stories are a favorite at "anti-war" sites; here's a list of those you can find via the Why War? web site, which prominently features this (non-Knickerbocker) quote on their front page:

Al-Qa’ida is neither irrational nor unable to intelligently articulate their objectives. The American government is able to disseminate propaganda globally while suppressing al-Qa’ida’s response. Thus, the English speaking world is forced to trust the analysis of al-Qa’ida provided by those who have shown themselves willing to lie in their pursuit of an unjust war. If the American public had been able to read al-Qa'ida documents they would have known that al-Qa’ida was explicit about their joy in America’s overthrow of Saddam Husayn.

They also offer a line of anti-war bumperstickers that would look perfect on any color Toyota Prius.

Certainly the fact that he's a favorite author of these sorts doesn't imply that he endorses their opinions; the inverse, however, is apparently true.

He's not just an anti-war guy though, he also did a few scare pieces. Here's a round-up his articles on the imminent chemical, biological and nuclear threat faced by the US in 2002. (Those halcyon days when 'anti-war' didn't "sell") As with the other sites we'll assume Brad has no idea his work is reproduced there - but we'll all certainly appreciate that as a result of the courageous reporting of the Brad Knockerbockers of America the threat has yet to materialize.

Enough of the past! Brad's latest piece breaks new ground, combining his "anti-war" attitude with his "scare" tactic to create a powerful hole. The first couple of paragraphs are not an issue (in fact, since I'm wearing combat boots and can't count beyond ten, I'll dispense with numbering the issues), they are just an introduction, establishing his command of the topic and presenting unsupported claims we assume the remainder of the story is designed to prove.

Without further ado, here's Brad:

Griping among the troops is as old as armed conflict, illustrated most memorably by cartoonist Bill Mauldin's "Willie and Joe" characters during World War II. But something more than that is happening now in Iraq with what appears to be growing resistance from the troops.

Evidence includes numbers of deserters (reportedly in the thousands), resignations of reserve officers, lawsuits by those whose duty period has been involuntarily extended, and a refusal to go on dangerous missions without proper equipment. There's also been a willingness at grunt level to publicly challenge the Pentagon - as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found out recently in a trip to the war zone, where he got an earful about unarmored humvees.

For the record, I'm not personally aware of any war-related desertions. (I do know of a couple - Jeremy Hinzman and Pablo Paredes - due to the extensive press coverage they've received, and I'm sure there are others.) My personal experience is limited though, I'm only personally involved with just under a thousand GI's. Hmmm... I guess my experience does exceed that of Brad Knickerbocker, but that says nothing as to his right to offer his opinion. Let's move on.

While some don't see much defiance - and, in fact, have been surprised by the depth of solidarity - others see an unusual amount of tension surfacing for an all-volunteer military force.

"Some" and "others" - irrefutable, ironclad! In an effort to render my personal bias transparent, I admit freely I'm amongst "some", though I don't deny the existence of "others". I've seen this phenomenon with my own eyes - some soldiers enjoy food in the DFAC, others prefer MRE's. Likewise, while some people trust reporters, others do not. I'll spare you the endless litany of constructions regarding "some and others". Some of you will appreciate that, others will not. It would be nice if journalists were trained at schools that discouraged use of such statements, as everyone will agree.

Enough of that. If you're like me, the burning question you're asking right now is "What is driving the resistance?"

"What is driving the resistance is the same thing that drove it during Vietnam - a lack of trust in the civilian leadership and a sense that the uniformed leaders are not standing up for the forces," says retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a military analyst with the Friends Committee on National Legislation in Washington. Colonel Smith doesn't expect the kind of "fragging" incidents that occurred in Vietnam where soldiers attacked their own officers. "This force is too professional," he says. "But the lack of trust and the inequity of the tours will very likely be reflected in the numbers of Guard and reservists who vote no-confidence with their feet."

Were I the suspicious sort, I'd highlight that Vietnam quote above. James Taranto isn't suspicious either, he identifies Brad as a "Vietnam nostalgist". That sounds right to me.

I am suspicious when I see organizations named and not explained. Just what is "The Friends Committee on National Legislation"? We'll assume that Brad answered that question but the explanation was edited out for space in the final edition.

I have no problem with space. "The Friends Committee on National Legislation" a Quaker group - which is fine by me - the Quakers are a religious group dedicated to peace and justice for all mankind and they were anti-war when anti-war wasn't cool (1862, for instance). Dan Smith is listed on their site as a Senior Fellow, Military and Peaceful Prevention Policy.

Their cause is indeed noble, but failing to mention the agenda of the quoted expert would cause some to question the agenda of the author and publishers of the story. I wouldn't, of course, since this is a page one article it's obviously not an opinion piece.

But defining the speaker doesn't address the claims - but as those claims are as yet unsupported we can't refute them. "Soldiers are discontented" you say. I reply "No" - and there you have it.

But here comes the support:

That already appears to be happening. The Army National Guard is short 5,000 new citizen-soldiers.

"Although generally successful in overall mission numbers, we continue to experience difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified individuals in certain critical wartime specialties," Army Reserve chief Lt. Gen. James Helmly told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year.

The Guard is short, and here's some reasons why: Many traditional Guard/Reserve accessions are people leaving Active Duty who want to continue their service. As the vast majority of military folks are personally committed to the war on terror, fewer are leaving Active Duty. Also, given that the Guard/Reserve are now being used for the purpose for which they were intended over the past several years (extended active duty in time of war) many people are opting to join the Active Duty force instead of the Reserves. In short - many Americans are only now discovering that the Guard and Reserves are a key component of the military. That said, please note that retention (keeping those folks in who are in) is high in the Guard/Reserve forces, an exception being those folks who are returning to Active Duty from their ranks, a number of whom are officers (more on that in a minute.)

And yes, others who would have joined "for educational benefits" are staying away because of the war. This can hardly be considered a reason to excuse the Guard and Reserve from their role in national defense; keeping those wrongly-motivated folks out is not completely undesirable, I assure you.

Not mentioned is the inconvenient fact that all Active Duty components met or exceeded their recruiting and retention goals this past year.

But declining enlistments is to desertions what apples are to oranges. To bicycles even.

The number of officers wanting to resign from the Army Reserve has jumped as well. And according to a recent report on CBS's "60 Minutes," the Defense Department acknowledges that more than 5,500 service personnel have deserted since the Iraq war began.

The 'officers' bit is unsupported, so I simply say it's not so. So there! Better yet, let's re-state that a good number of officers do want to leave the reserve component and return to Active Duty. Given that I'm currently stationed with a significant number of such, I believe it to be true. No way of knowing exactly what Brad is referring to here, and if they are the officers to which he refers. He simply tosses the statement out there, then without breaking paragraph turns to the deserters.

On that topic, 60 Minutes says there have been over 5,500 desertions since the Iraq war began. As most bloggers will readily tell you: if 60 Minutes says it, it must be so. (/sarc) Many bloggers often note the extensive number of minutes it takes to research and refute a 60 Minutes claim (ironically usually less than 60). Seriously, having been called on the carpet for an egregious number of fabricated and misleading stories this year they certainly must have initiated some sort of fact checking process by now. Sadly, Bradley doesn't present their evidence, just their claim.

If he was a real investigative reporter, he'd cite experts to support his claims.

While the complaints and the resistance to following some military policies may pattern earlier conflicts, the fighting in Iraq has a unique context, experts say.

Well, that shuts me up - there's no way I can refute any unnamed unique-context-of-fighting-in-Iraq experts. So I will agree with them: it is indeed unique.

A laundry list follows; it essentially describes your American military in time of war - and notes that we haven't been at war for some time.

It's the first large-scale 21st-century conflict against an aggressive insurgency, causing thousands of US casualties; the first war in more than a generation in which homeland security and the threat of domestic terror attack seem so real; the first "semi-draft," with the Guard/reserve component approaching 50 percent of combat and combat support troops (and already taking more casualties than they did in Vietnam); and it's the first time in many years that soldiers have been ordered to serve beyond their commitments.

One by one:

It's the first large-scale 21st-century conflict against an aggressive insurgency causing thousands of US casualties;... check. Even with google I can't find a previous conflict in this century against an aggressive insurgency causing thousands of US casualties - in this millennia even!

the first war in more than a generation in which homeland security and the threat of domestic terror attack seem so real; okay. Fair enough. I don't even think that "in more than a generation" qualifier is required.

the first "semi-draft," with the Guard/reserve component approaching 50 percent of combat and combat support troops - Here's the technique: Obvious fact, obvious fact, lie! If the first two were true then certainly it follows that the third is also? No, it's not a "semi-draft", it's using the post-Vietnam all-volunteer military as it was designed to be used.

(and already taking more casualties than they did in Vietnam); yes, true because post-Vietnam restructuring occurred after Vietnam. A lie sandwiched by truth and half truth.

and it's the first time in many years that soldiers have been ordered to serve beyond their commitments - true, as long as we note that stop loss was initiated immediately after 911, and was not invented for the Iraq war - a distinction Brad fails to make. It has been on again/off again since then, as military needs dictated.

Legal challenges to military authority appear to be increasing as well, with more use of civilian attorneys than was seen in Vietnam. "It's very much in evidence," says Eugene Fidell, a former military lawyer who heads the National Institute of Military Justice. Mr. Fidell just finished teaching the first course on military issues at Harvard Law School since 1970.

Of course they are increasing from peace time rates - because there are increased (though invalid) reasons for some to defy the military, and because there are organizations designed to find and encourage such actions, and a guarantee of media sympathy right up to the moment the cell doors slam. (See the Abu Ghraib gang, for example.) "...more use of civilian attorneys than was seen in Vietnam" seems a rather pale excuse to mention Vietnam once again. Ambulance chasers are a fact of life, and one could as well decry the increase in personal injury law suits from 1972 to now.

All this is happening in an age when CNN brings live war coverage to the trenches and barracks, when troops are more aware of the successes and debacles on the battlefield than ever before. At the same time, reporters embedded with combat units, as well as e-mail and Internet access, make it easier for families and others back home to be heard by the soldiers - and for the soldiers to complain to them. This is especially true, perhaps, of citizen-soldiers, who are not only older than the average GI but more used to speaking out.

Then why aren't they? Note there's no claim here that they are, just a statement that it's easier for them to do so. Why aren't they? Fear of reprisal? Can't be - their lawyers are eagerly waiting. Instead what you get with the internet are GI's eager to point out the fallacies in 'news' stories like this one.

The next bit is a rehash of the Guard/Reserve issue addressed before, followed by a bit of shoehorning:

Since the fighting began in Iraq, the number of Guard and reserve troops on active duty has more than doubled. Critics say this is an indication that US forces are stretched too thin. One such critic is Senator John McCain (R) of Arizona, a supporter of the war who declared this week that he had "no confidence" in Secretary Rumsfeld.

That quote must have come late in the writing of this piece, and Brad crammed it in where he could. Has no point in this piece.

AS we approach the end of the effort our intrepid reporter begins qualifying his inflammatory comments, but makes them none the less:

At this point, much of the data is scattered and anecdotal, like the doubling of desertions at the Army's Fort Bragg in North Carolina last year to about 200. It may be too early to draw exact comparisons with earlier wars, experts agree.

But they also note a growing trend for GIs to speak out and to find leverage points to protect their interests - including personal safety. "I am amazed that it is not greater," says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner. "The war continues to go badly. Their equipment is in bad shape. Supply problems continue. Tours are extended. Many are on a second or third deployment to a combat zone. I would expect a louder voice."

Seems the quote refutes the point of the whole piece, though it does get a named source saying bad bad bad one wonders if the Colonel wasn't being enigmatic, and pointing out the opposite is the truth. Given that it's a quote out of context the point can't be determined with any certainty. But if things were so awful, there would indeed be a louder voice. I'd present this as strong evidence against the entire story.

A key issue for war planners is whether any of this adversely effects individual morale and unit performance. That remains an open question, particularly as the war goes on and its original rationale (weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda) fades.

Since the hints and allegations presented thus far are unsupported and in fact untrue, it would be hard indeed to determine their impacts on operations. It remains an 'open question' only if the question were based on reality.

"Soldiers always gripe, and often with good reason," says Loren Thompson, head of security studies at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va. "But I don't see much evidence that the enemy in Iraq is eroding the will of US forces to fight. As long as US forces are well led, the gripes aren't likely to lead to more serious problems."

A statement of balance; no surprise finding it so close to the bottom of the piece. I'd expect the next paragraph to refute it. It does.

Others aren't so sure.

"When you are risking your life on the battlefield, the importance of knowing why you are doing so cannot be underestimated," says Ivan Eland, national security analyst at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. "If soldiers don't know why they are fighting there or believe they've been hoodwinked, we may see the same phenomenon happen in Iraq as occurred in Vietnam."

My mistake, it doesn't refute at all, in spite of the "others aren't so sure" introduction. In fact, this reinforces the statement of the previous paragraph. If soldiers weren't sure of their purpose, they would indeed take steps to right the wrongs done them - in a very forthright and professional manner. Few would behave like the unprofessional cowards Bradley Knickerbocker implies. That some few have is as unsurprising as his closing with his fourth evocation of Vietnam.