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) in the public domain, with free use granted 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 © 2006 by the respective authors. 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.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
Well, it may involve some sort of "skivvy waver", but no, it's not that kind of party, but one where the key player "... should be preferably bad tempered, and certainly dictatorial by nature."
As examined here.
UPDATE: Fixed the "skivvy waver" link. Oops.
That is a paraphrase from one of the enlightened staff guys at, ahem, The Columbia Journalism Review. Paul McLeary advertises how much he researches his subjects. Speaking of the Milblog reaction to the "Scott Thomas" affair;
How dare a college grad and engaged citizen volunteer to join the Army to fight for his country! (Which is something that most of the brave souls who inhabit the milblog community prefers to leave to others.)Should we send our C.V. to his @cjr.org email address or sump'n?... Naw, you know the phrase. If you wrestle with pigs.....
As for the other comments McLeary makes in his bit, perhaps he should have tried to exchange a few emails with 1SG Hatley.
UPDATE below the fold
I was careless in my choice of wording when I wrote the piece. What I meant was the whole community of blogs that have sprung up in the same universe as milblogs -- Hugh Hewitt, etc., who act tough about the war, but have never served, and have never left the comforts of their air-conditioned offices to see what might be going on in Iraq or Afghanistan.I respect his desire to revise and extend his remarks - heck we all have woke up and "ungh" something we typed that didn't quite come out the other end the way we wanted - so there is his correction.
I think though that he is making a critical mistake, one that Greyhawk warned us about. I think he is too focused on the messenger and not the message. STB may or may not have been what he said at the beginning of the whole bucket of FOD, but the core problem was the disconnect with his story and reality. Likewise, Mr. McLeary is too focused on discrediting the messenger (the old 'Chickenhawk' tactic) than the message. If one served or not makes little difference on the validity of one's argument or story - it is the substance of the product. Former British Prime Minister Lady Thatcher never served a day in the military, but does anyone think that STB's opinions hold more weight than her thoughts on national security issues - just because he wears the uniform?
Being in uniform does not make you immune from examination and a critical review of what you say. Just the opposite - you should be held to a higher standard.
Additionally, Mr. McLeary still has a profound, foundational misunderstanding what the MilBlog community is all about if he thinks that H2 grew up in the same primordial digital goo that MilBlogs did. Not sure what his comment there really means. Maybe that could be a 2008 MilBlog Conference side-bar discussion - "MilBlogs and the Left side of the argument: why a different universe?"
I think he has extended a hand, has worked in the past with MilBloggers - and was in Iraq in '06 for a spell, so maybe the dialog can continue.All done!