The Victimization of the Military
MoveOn's Sad Undertaking
By Bluey Posted in Featured Stories | War — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The left has gone from demonizing the military during the Vietnam War to victimizing our troops today. MoveOn's new VideoVets Project is a sad undertaking and political stunt to demoralize our soldiers in Iraq.
Not only is this another example of the left's short-sighted view of the War on Terror, but it's also an inaccurate portrayal of our troops, all of whom volunteered and proudly serve their country. There will always be dissent in war, but MoveOn has crossed the line.
I asked my Heritage colleague James Carafano, a 25-year Army veteran, what he thought about MoveOn's project. He explained that the left learned the hard way after Vietnam that it couldn't get away with demonizing the military because the military is made up of Americans like you and me. So instead, they're now trying to a new tactic: victimization.
In reality, it's a thinly veiled political campaign. By teaming with VoteVets.org, a group that actively supports Democrats, MoveOn is using our brave soldiers as pawns in its political game. Tell them to stop at videoproject@moveon.org.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | An Inconvenient Memory — Comments (37) »
The Victimization of the Military 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
...to find a depth to which they'll disdain to sink.
Incurable optimists, we are.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Well, keep at it. I don't really think that interviewing veterans and their families is an extraordinary depth to sink to, but we all have our differences. I guess.
I find it exceptionally frustrating that the Democratic Party that did what it could to save the Kurds during the 1990s is now doing what they can to damn them ten years later.
But you're right: we all have our differences. Thank God.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
Gosh, that's a new one. Since when is the war about the Kurds? Kurdistan was autonomous before the war. They were fine, all things considered. And it's not even clear that the Bush administration is particularly sympathetic to them now. The Democrats are the least of their worries.
It's the goal that grates
Well, then, just say that you're opposed to anti-war speech and stop pretending like it's the tactics that are simply oh-so-much to take.
...to liberating Iraq has been invoked since the very beginning.
And your 'all things considered' was borne on the backs of an American military presence that the Democratic Party is currently scheming to remove.
And the only reason why the Democrats have even a hope of being the least of the Kurds' worries is because the former hasn't managed to get us out of Iraq yet.
Moe
PS: Read this and burn it into your brain, Sparky: I don't particularly care what comforting little lies you tell yourself to let you sleep at night, but keep 'em to yourself - even if you do need me to be an anti-free speech fanatic to make them work. Which is another way of saying, learn the difference between 'goal' and 'tactic'. As I said forthrightly, it's the overall goal of the antiwar movement that grates. Mostly because the overall gual is so gobsmackingly vile.
I believe that this conversation is done, don't you?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
They were fine? Until 1988, when the Iraqi government used VX against the town of Halabja. At least 5,000 Kurds weren't fine after that. BTW Halabja is in what you call Kurdistan. And, if the U.S. cuts and runs, or "redeploys", Iran, Turkey and anyone else who feels the need, will carve Kurdistan up like a turkey.
...“How to lose the disagreement with disgruntled Islamic insurgents and win the war against Wal-Mart”
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
In the December 26, 2005 edition of The Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes wrote about Iraq being a war without heroes. "Instead of heroes, there are victims," he wrote. To have heroes presupposes there is something worth fighting and dying for. The liberals and MSM have done their best to dismiss such a thing. And, when people die for a cause that is not worth fighting and dying for, you have "victims."
The MSM has done a remarkable job furthering the victimization mantra, and the Pentagon and the Bush Administration has done very little to counter it.
"My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought, careening through a cosmic vapor of invention." -- Hedley Lamar
From:
A War Without Heroes?
Only if you're reading the mainstream media.
by Fred Barnes
12/26/2005, Volume 011, Issue 15
excerpts:
DO YOU KNOW WHO PAUL Ray Smith is? If not, don't feel bad. Most Americans aren't familiar with Paul Ray Smith. He is the first and only soldier awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary courage in the war in Iraq. Five days before Baghdad fell in April 2003, Sergeant Smith and his men were building a makeshift jail for captured Iraqi troops. Surprised by 100 of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards, Smith and his men, some of them wounded, were pinned down and in danger of being overrun. Smith manned a 50-caliber machine gun atop a damaged armored vehicle. Exposed to enemy fire, he singlehandedly repelled the attack, allowing his men to scramble to safety. He killed as many as 50 of Saddam's elite soldiers and saved more than 100 American troops. Paul Ray Smith, 33, was killed by a shot to the head. The war in Iraq is a war without heroes. There are no men--or women, for that matter--known to most Americans for their bravery in combat. There are no household names like Audie Murphy or Sgt. York or Arthur MacArthur or even Don Holleder, the West Point football star killed in Vietnam. When President Bush held a White House ceremony to award the Medal of Honor to Smith, posthumously, the TV networks and big newspapers reported the story. The coverage lasted one day. The story didn't have legs. Instead of heroes, there are victims. The two most famous soldiers in the war are Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman (in Afghanistan). Lynch was captured by Saddam's troops after her truck crashed.
[...]
It gets worse. In a study of over 1,300 reports broadcast on network news programs from January to September of this year, Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center found only eight stories of heroism or valor by American troops and nine of soldiers helping the Iraqi people. But there were 79 stories, Noyes said, "focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel." Who is responsible for the lack of heroes? The Pentagon bears some of the blame. "We could do a better job," says Larry Di Rita, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. But the fault lies mostly with the media. With the striking exception of CBS News, the media aren't interested in stories of heroism by Americans in Iraq.
You do an excellent job at filling in my thoughts in a more powerful manner. Fred Barnes's article about the prevalence of victims rather than heroes struck such a chord in me that every time I read about an ancient Greek or Roman military engagement, or ones of the last century for that matter, I find myself wondering if their culture had any so-called "victims" as a consequence. I even more frequently find myself answering, "no."
==
"My mind is aglow with whirling transient nodes of thought, careening through a cosmic vapor of invention." -- Hedley Lamar
They've done NOTHING.
I am filled with pride when I think of the job my son's Marines have done in Ramadi and when I look at the work done in Iraq by our military.
I am filled with unspeakable shame and anger when I think of the way Bush has let the Left get away with ignoring and marginalizing their achievements.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
The made up nonsense about Jessica Lynch when the war started, and the shameful lies told about the death of Pat Tilman come to mind. But I do agree with your overall point that the administration has done a terrible job of creating a more positive image of the war with the American public. Gee, what a shock, considering the comptetence they have shown in so many other areas.....
I agree completely that troops shouldn't be used as political footballs. Unfortunately, that ship sailed when the Administration (and others) trotted out troops to support the war.
Trotted out. As in the dog and pony show.
I don't have a problem with military folks having and voicing their opinions. At all.
But if one side is going to round up folks to score political points, it's rings a tad hollow when they wail and moan when the other side does the same.
...the links lead directly to the BDS voices inside his head.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bnFeB4fGj4
http://home.ripway.com/2004-1/54222/warpresBIG.jpg
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/jun2004/a061404e.html
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/news_theswamp/2007/03/general_to_bus...
the war should be debated on grounds beyond who supports the troops more. including how they are supported. do not demonize the media and the other side for their opinions, good arguments have been made on many sides of the issue. we need to focus on what the benefits of the war are if there are any... does it have any purpose for the future of any country? if and when we are able to leave Iraq, why wouldn't Kurdistan get attacked then? is the goal simply to end terrorism? isnt that giving our government a blank check to attack whomever they please? when this country goes to war, it should not be decided by a small group of people who do not listen to the rest of us (a Democratic senator refusing to listen to the vote of his constituients when they call for impeachment) or who are simply telling us what to do to earn more money they can waste (i believe on average, a congresspersons wealth increases by 25% while they are in office. ill try to find a reference...) maybe they do work really hard and deserve that much money, but our last congress worked less hours than any previous in this countrys history. the point is not to fear the other side but to make our leaders listen and stop trying to conform us to thier opinions.
1. "...make our leaders listen and stop trying to conform us to thier opinions." Uh, that would make them *followers* now wouldn't it? I prefer that our leaders *lead* based on principles, not *follow* based on the poll du jour.
2. The rest of your erratic ramblings, accentuated by non-existent punctuation, are completely incomprehensible. What, pray tell, is your point?
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
for rambling. yet you ignored the links as requested. my point was simply
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
... will be more young men like young Duncan Hunter (the son) running for office in response to the shoddy treatment the troops are getting from the current congress.
They must have steam coming out of their ears at this point. I suspect out of the million or so who have gone there and back, there'll be more than a handful who will act on that anger. Not many as Democrats, I suspect. And they won't be somewhat ambivalent about the war they were fighting, unlike many Vietnam vets.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
How exactly does interviewing veterans and their families constitute victimizing the military?
It is not exactly picking random veterans and families to interview. They are screening out any pro-victory soldiers and families. I bet none of the advertising going to promote this projects says anything about selecting exclusive anti-victory people. With the selectivity they will make it seem that all or a majority oppose the war.
everybody in the country is completely retarded and has no idea that there are many who support the war.
Moveon is a political organization, not a news outlet. Why would they be under any obligation, morally, ethically, or otherwise, to provide balance in their campaigns? They are providing ANOTHER viewpoint: that there are some vets that don't support the current effort in Iraq; that veterans are not some monolithic fount of support for this war. Talk to me about "balance" when the administration buffers every one of it's statements about the war with, "to be fair, I'd like to note that many Americans, including veterans, do not in fact support this war." Talk to me about balance when you can refer to people with a different view of our effort in Iraq as something other than "Anti-Victory."
and find some that agrees with their preconceived message of defeat and surrender. There's nothing wrong with interviewing Vets, just be honest enough to show views that might not agree.
It's indeed sad when Harry Reid has more in common with the intent of Islamic terrorists than our military forces fighting them.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
...So they're vetting who they're interviewing. Fine. But how is that VICTIMIZING the military? I'd even accept the argument - as much as I disagree with it - that it's not in favor of the military, but where is the victimization here?
is that well meaning folks get 'duped' into serving or get manipulated once they volunteer - and are thereby victims.
The media has tried this over the years, I saw it quite frequently when I was a recruiter. The storyline they are missing is that these folks enlisting, for the most part, know exactly what they are getting into and supporting and are proud to serve. In many cases these folks are more astute than the liberal elites in the media who are closed minded snobs.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
There will always be dissent in war, MoveOn has crossed the line.
I think I've read this (or something like it) somewhere on RedState about every critic of the war since before it even began. Lots of line-crossers out there.
Book idea for the RedState contributors: "The Right-Wing Guide to Patriotic Dissent Without Demoralizing the Troops". I'd buy a copy. Probably be a short book, but I guess you could make up for it by publishing a new version when the White House changes hands.