US Soldiers have their own deck of cards of most wanted

God knows -- they don't seem to! I've been listening to this stuff for months: 1) mainstream AM talk radio out of San Antone where two of the conservative hosts are firmly anti-Bush and have been so since Patriot 1, and 2) FM and shortwave right wing conservatives who can hardly utter Bush's name. I was referring to the #2 group in the post above. Those are more eccentric and increasingly interesting. More and more of their guests are liberals and progressives like Janeane Garofalo and Peter Coyote WITH WHOM THEY AGREE. Ann Coulter got roasted by them the other day. You think I'm kidding? Keep an ear out for the (truly weird) "Genesis Communications Network." They're picking up more and more serious advertisers, so they must be doing something right. But brace yourself -- they're odd...!

Do we make anything of the fact that a number - albeit a small number - of US soldiers were prepared to gripe in public, and have their gripes attributed to them?

I was struck, prior to the embarkation of one of the Australian ships bound for Iraq, with the fact that a number of military personnel about to leave expressed doubts about the war, and its justification, on television.

In both cases, I am unsure if the troops concerned were naive about the possible consequences of their comments - or if they spoke because their feelings were strong, and they decided to risk the consequences.

If the second, it makes the story a little stronger - but I suspect the naivety is more likely.

I don't know if i'd go along with the naivete idea--one thing basic training hammers into your head is to keep your mouth shut, you have no opinions which are not provided you, and no one is interested in what you have to say. When the common soldier speaks out, green or veteran, it is significant, because they have all had it drilled into them that questioning authority is not acceptable.

Hmmmmmm - ok - I did wonder about that - but, it seemed some of those who spoke out are shocked by the response!

Well, you could be right, i shouldn't categorically deny it. My experience, both having served in the armed forces, and read extensively, is that the private soldier does not generally express such opinions publicly, and is discouraged from doing so. I also recognize that military times have changed a good deal in the latter 20th century.

perhaps they just did not expect it to be noticed so MUCH!

Set, Here's a quote I made on page 3 of this forum that agrees with your assessment of military men and women.
"Posted: July 18th 2003, 15:27 Post subject:

As for the "some," that's quite significant if one understands that soldiers are not supposed to voice their opinion on these matters.

c.i.

Didn't seem to matter back then, I'm not sure people will consider it now. c.i.

Sozobe, I have a few questions of my own, but to answer your well phrased question I believe there is, indeed validity in that statement. My turn, was there validity in Bush's statements about the fact that British intelligence existed that suggested that Saddam procured means to develop weapons of mass destruction from Africa? I think not, because despite the statement being truthful it has implications beyond a simple statement of fact.

As does this story. I do not believe it's a simple statement of there being a handful of grumpy soldiers wanting to go home any more than the starry eyed "letters from the Iraq" are indicative of how well the situation is over there.

In the post war Iraq the war's opposition has a tendency to focus on the negative while the war's supporters tend to focus on the positive. When one of the pro-war camp posts about how great the war was and how it has wrought all manner of good ranging from bringing the DPRK to the table to movement on the roadmap I think we are right to question their desire to see things optimistically. Upon such allegations I note that the Roadmap was ready and waiting and the only change was the willingness of the US to move on it, something not contingient on the war it's being married to. When the DPRK does it's dance I also question the validity of it's submission as evidence toward the "ripple" effect of generalized goodwill that the war was cast as.

When someone posts a letter purporting to be from the battlefront in which alledged soldiers paint Iraq with a rosy hue persons in this thread (including myself) sought to place it in better perspective. Such attempts ranged from questioning the veracity of the emails to the "he can't see the forrest for the trees" argument.

When the imagery of Saddam's statues being pulled down is used for political purposes do those to whom said purpose conflicts with one's own opinion seek to add perspective toward the other side? Actually there's no need for a question here, I can show you.

Case in point: My brother, in his usual gung ho style, makes political hay here using the imagery of the Saddam statues being torn down. It's an undisguised attempt to use said imagery to validate the notion of the war being a moral one and the trepidation being unfounded. Subsequently, several people ask to put it in better perspective. The relevance of those participants to the majority is questioned.





This is an issue in this political controversy that is Iraq that swings both ways. Those who favored the war take it as vindication. Those who didn't questioned it's validity as a justification.

In this case I too have questions about how well this story represents the general reality.

How many of those soldiers went on the record sozobe? Did any of them express anything other than their personal discomfort? Is this story not being seized by persons for reasons not related to the soldier's gripes? That there is some validity I concede, but would you care to explain what it is and how it is pertinent to the nation on the whole? If you do in fact choose to do so please preface the statement with the number of soldiers you are speaking of.

For example: "5 (or whatever)soldiers said... and this is of national relevance because.."

It's not that hard to put it into perspective, if it were, say, five, and they speak so strongly on the record then it may well be indicative of a larger quantity who did not express themselves this way just as it is possible that the overwhelming majority do not feel that way.

What conclusions one seeks to draw from this is a whole different story. And this is where people make their political hay. Some will use this story to reflect negatively on the administration's decision to go to war while others will say it means we need to enlarge the armed forces.

How can it be fair say the imagery of the Saddam statues being brought down were not representative of the larger picture and at the same time so forcefully resist any attempt to put a better perspective on this story? Time and time again people here have dennounced the use of the micro to attempt to portray the macro.

If a single soldier raving about how much good the war in Iraq has wrought is not relevant to anything other than a gauge of that soldier's opinion then how is this any different?

What I am hoping for is a little balance. It's just my opinion but I think that at some point politician bashing loses sight of the original why and is replace with a "because". And IMO at that point much of the real meaning behind current events is lost when it's shaped into what works for which agenda.

I was surprised that the soldiers were so vocal in their criticism. I do indeed take note of protest done by military personel, who are trained to surpress such "insubordination".

In some of the cases in which this happens I saw relevance to the pertinent issues. For example take the situation in which Israeli reservists (numbering 100 and change if I remember correctly) refused to serve in the occupied territories. They cited a moral obligation to the deployment and were imprisoned by Israel. What struck me as being relevant in that scnario was that none of them gave interviews. They did not wish to use their objection as a political platform and were simply protesting the incursion into Palestinian territory. Their protest was central to the issue at hand, they felt the incursion was wrong.

In this particular case I feel that it is being given inordinate relevance due to partisan opinion. The sampling is far smaller, the gripe is an expected one about wanting to go home and having hopes dashed.

I do not think it has political validity in the way some seek to apply it. I think it is not indicative of a widespread probelm with morale. I think that it is being touted here simply because it's a negative. Much in the same way that those who support the war will often tout anything they can construe as a positive.

When maxadadeo went all happy with the postings that a judge (I believe in NY) had ruled that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 I sought to put it in perspective. I noted that the judge was one man, and one man does not a groundswell of opinion amke. He was afforded limited information and if I'm not mistaken the case was civil and as such it fell under a lesser criteria for validity. Also of note is the ruling in absentia that seemed more symbolic and an attempt to make a statement than anything else.

I often catch myself seeking facets of a situation that support my opinion, I think we all fall prey to this on occasion. This is easily illustrated by a cursory glance at the tendency of those who oppose the war to post negative articles in the aftermath while those who support it post glowing reports and call the media inordinately negative. Of relevance is that those who oppose the war cite the American media as servile to the admin.



The same can be said for everyone. Above I have made an effort to elucidate.

It's not an attempt to make others out as wrong. This is a subjective issue and ultimately what one decides to make hay with is entirely their prerogative. My decision to opine on the issue shouldn't force the topic into terms of "wrong" versus "right" and I decry that rigid criteria.

I think the story is overhyped, I believe the majority of the armed forces to be in favor of the war in Iraq. I think they are wrong, but I do not think it necessary to seize on every little story that can possibly be used to reflect badly on the administration.

How they read their email is supposed to be indicative of their desire to ignore the american public etc etc etc. I believe that at a crtain point we reach the ad nauseum factor and IMO it hurts the more pertinent issues.

The predictability of those whose political affiliation is evident is, to my mind, indicative of a bias we all indulge for a season. Whenever a news story is published anyone here can guess who will crowd around it and who will pooh-pooh it.

I simply think that this can cause certain stories to take on undeserved relevance. To use a favorite saying of yours, I have no dog in this fight. I think the decision to go to war in Iraq was the worst decision America has made in my lifetime. This does not mean I do not see the good that can come from it. I am hoping that things go well. Regardless of that I note that many nations have cause to belive that unprovoked military aggression on their part will bring about some good and right varied greivances and that sovereignty is a line between what you think is good for others and what you can do about it.

I think the decision to go to war was a horrible one. Even if nothing but good were the result (which is not the case) many peoples might become enamored of the idea that to invade another nation would be a general boon to mankind. Civility means that those who get the notion that attacking someone else is the right thing to do are faced with stringent questioning of motives advisability and such.

All this is good and well and as to the matter of the war in Iraq most of the participants with whom I am disagreeing with here share the general opinion.

My qualm is when distaste for the Bush administration goes to far and when it becomes the converse of a rosy colored lens.

Edit: removed "enthralled" from my post. I used it horribly since Israel imprisoned the dissenters and did not enslave them. Added "often" to one sentence to make it less absolute.

The Army is considering whether to punish soldiers in Iraq who griped about conditions there to a television reporter, a Pentagon (search) spokeswoman said Friday.

Some soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division (search) complained on television this week after their units were told they would be leaving Iraq soon, then had their homecoming postponed. One called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (search).

Criticism of superior officers is a breach of military rules. The Army will determine whether any soldier will be charged with breaking those rules, said Pentagon spokeswoman Chief Petty Officer Diane Perry.

On Wednesday, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said the soldiers' comments show the frustration of troops who are ready to go home.

"Every now and then we've got to look at our young people and understand why they said what they said, and then do something about it," said Gen. John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command.

He said it was up to the soldiers' direct commanders to decide if they should be punished.

"None of us that wear this uniform are free to say anything disparaging about the secretary of defense, or the president of the United States," he added
source: Foxnews

just a thought but with the advent of using "embedded" reporting where the media/press are far more likely to develop consistent relationships with in-country troops, we may simply be seeing conversations/statements in an historically unusual circumstance leading to a more open expression "among friends."

Hmmmm - yes - poor bastids!

I'd only just heard the news about the complainin' soldiers before reading the posts above, but though I'm all in favor of respecting rules and regulations about soldiers' respect for policy makers, the fact that the Pentagon+administration uses soldiers relentlessly to promote the glamor and nobility of war virtually erases the hierarchy's moral justification for crying foul if a soldier is publically critical of policy.

If you don't want to fight for the USA, then don't wear the uniform and for God's sake, don't belly ache about it!

I like stories like this getting circulated because it suddenly shows the uncritical that the hitherto unthinkable can now be thought about. In other words, helps get the blinders off.

Bingo, Edgar. What JJ may not recognize (and welcome, JJ, by the way!!) is that the soldiers are fighting for the USA and against an administrative hierarchy which makes no sense and is exploiting both the military and the people they're defending. I say that takes courage.

JJ, WELCOME to A2K. Under "normal" circumstances, you would be correct in your assessment of military service. However, there are ethical and leadership considerations that supersedes "don't bitch" rule. We are all humans with a brain, and should know the difference between right and wrong. In this day and age, it is emcumbant upon us to question what our leaders are won't to do in the name of our country. It is being determined through political discussions and the media that this president and his administration used false intelligence to commit this country to war with Iraq. Our military is now engaged in a guerilla warfare with casualties increasing almost every day. Do they have a right to question why they are in Iraq? Ofcoarse. Not only for the reason stated above, but because the military leadership told them they would be headed home four times, and broke all those promises. How many of us would not be demoralized under those same conditions in a country that is unforgivingly hot, and without the comforts of home? What say you? c.i.

Gripe, is this a new phenomenon or an age old practice of soldiers. I would rather think it has been going on from the moment armies were formed. The problem is not the griping soldier but the reaction of some of those in charge.
The reason we the civilian population are now so aware of it is the communication between the man in the field and home is such a short cycle with Email and Cell phones being made so available. In addition all the reporters always looking for a story to sell.
As far as the reasons for the gripes themselves are concerned IMO there are many and they are justified.

When I was a sailor we took a poll once. Every person boarding the ship was quizzed: What do you think of the Navy? Almost 100% answered: It sucks. That does not imply disloyalty, just a recognition that there is room to improve.

By way of clarification of short cycle. Being a volunteer army a much larger percentage of today's military are married with families. They are able to and do communicate with wives and family and in doing so hear wives and children crying as well as hearing the hardships their families are having in many instances making ends meet. That I would suppose is very much the condition of families of reservists. On the other hand the people would greet them with open arms are doing just the opposite. I also am sure that the reasons are no more clear to them than it is to the rest of us for our being there. Add to it the fact that promises of rotation are not being met can anyone be surprised that morale as one soldier put it nonexistent.

My belief in this story was expressed many pages back. It isn't what the private thinks - in any poll you're going to get some agreeing, some disagreeing and some don't know. If you want a quote, just go find them - the headline is:

The Number One General Responds Negatively to Privates Concerns by Hinting at Court Martials

People, Generals don't address privates - especially about wanting to go home. (Everyone wants to go home.) This is an obfuscation as to the real problem - they have illegitimate reasons for being over there and will talk about anything to stay away from the real argument!