Winning hearts and minds: On America's underlying decency
In their singleminded search for villains, the media often miss out on the real stories
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in Featured Stories | Foreign Affairs — Comments (33) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The picture above is of Air Force Chief Master Sergeant John Gebhardt, superintendent of the 22nd Wing Medical Group (based out of McConnell Air Force Base, KS), holding an injured Iraqi girl.
The picture was taken in October 2006, while Sgt. Gebhardt was deployed to Balad Air Base in Iraq. According to the Air Force Print News, the infant girl Chief Gebhardt held in his arms "received extensive gunshot injuries to her head when insurgents attacked her family killing both of her parents and many of her siblings."
The caption reads:
Air Force Chief Master Sgt. John Gebhardt, of the 332nd Expeditionary Medical Group at Balad, Iraq, cradles a young girl as they both sleep in the hospital.
The girl's entire family was executed by insurgents; the killers shot her in the head as well. The girl recieved treatment at the US military hospital in Balad, but cries and moans often.According to the nurses at the facility, Gebhardt is the only one who can calm down the girl, so he has spent the last several nights holding her while they both sleep in a chair."
Chief Gebhardt is now back home in Wichita, KS with his wife and two children.
Read on . . .
According to the Air Force newslink:
Now, he is back at home in Wichita, Kan., with his wife, Mindy. They have a warm, hospitable home five minutes away from McConnell Air Force Base. His son Ryan, 25, and daughter Amber, 23, have long since outgrown being cradled and he said he thought about them constantly while he held the Iraqi child.
"I got as much enjoyment out of it as the baby did," he said. "I reflected on my own family and life and thought about how lucky I have been."His affection for children is no secret to his wife, Mindy. While dating John in high school, she watched how he bonded with the child of a coach of one of his athletic teams. That softer side of him is one of the reasons she married him.
"People see him as this tough guy," she said, "but I always see that other side of him that is full of compassion."
The chief, who grew up in Jordan, New York, is not at home in the spotlight. When asked to talk about himself, he always tries to switch the focus to the other military people who served with him at Balad.
While deployed to Iraq, the chief tried to help out any way he could. He figured holding a baby that needed comforting that would free up one more set of arms that could be providing care to more critical patients.
...
When Mindy describes the best qualities of her husband, the first word out of her mouth is integrity. She said the photo of her husband and the Iraqi child truly represents him. She believes he has been so successful because he is such a straight-shooter and puts others' welfare ahead of his own.
"He never leads anyone astray," she said. "He will never do something for himself that would have a negative effect on someone else. He always tells it like it is."
But, the chief attributes his success to his family.
"Without their support I don't know where I would be," he said. "I definitely wouldn't be in the position I am."
And it is the chief's hope that families in Iraq will receive the same kind of support in the future. They are just like American families, Chief Gebhardt said.
"I pray for the best for the Iraqi children," he said. "I can't tell the difference between their kids and our kids. The Iraqi parents have the same care and compassion for their children as any American."
Life is calmer for Chief Gebhardt now that he is back home, and even though his recent "fame" has highlighted an eventful 27-year career, he said he wouldn't change a thing.
"If I had to do it over again, I would sign up and give it another ride," he said.
This is just one of the many stories of American grace, goodness, and generosity that goes wholly unreported in the midst of the MSM's continual striving for bloodier, jucier, and more negative headlines and stories from the middle east.
With none of these stories being told, it is small wonder that many seem to think of us as bloodthirsty destroyers of life and land; however, with just a bit of responsible reporting about this and so many other events and efforts - which should not have to be dug out from the rocks under which they have been hidden by a negative-headline-craving media apparatus, the battle to win the hearts and minds of many in the world (those which are fundamentally winnable, at any rate) would doubtless tilt decidedly in our favor.
« Republican Moderates May Walk Away From Veto Threat — Comments (17) | Off-Message — Comments (8) »
Winning hearts and minds: On America's underlying decency 33 Comments (0 topical, 33 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You're supposed to be mad at BushCheneyRummy and our soldiers. It's hard to believe the MSM here hasn't done a story on this along the lines of:
"This poor baby's family was killed as a result of Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq. Not knowing any better, this grieving, confused child attempted to cling to one of the invaders, but he cruelly added to her suffering by abandoning her. No wonder they hate us."
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.
I'm not sure why you are attacking the Democrats because the American public no longer supports the war effort.
I mean, ya, they've taken advantage of war problems, in order to attack Bush/Republicans and win the elections, but that doesn't make the problems their fault.
I said nothing about supporting the war effort.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
And if I want to sleep sometime tonight, I'd better not think about what the Democrats want to do next.
My comment was also more generally directed at a common sentiment around here that we are losing in Iraq* because of the Democrats or the MSM (see bk's and Greiner's comments). As opposed to the - more truthful, in my opinion - sentiment that we are losing in Iraq because the President failed to properly plan/execute the war or, at the very least, failed to properly convey to the American public how difficult the war was going to be and why it was important that we fight it anyway.
* - Whether this is factually true is obviously debatable, though I think it is pretty clear that things are not going well. The fact that the public perceives it to be true is not debatable IMO.
You just read 'cut and run' into that sentence. I didn't put it there. Hmm...
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
this statement has the advantage of being true. Credit for any loss in Iraq is due solely to the left wing defeatists and and their handmaidens in the press.
John
--------
The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
American public seem to be turning against the war is for the lack of any reporting worth a d%#*. If the MSM were to focus at all on the battles we win and the good we are doing, even with the set backs the public would very much us staying until victory.
"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra
John
--------
The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015994.php
November 22, 2006
How Violent Is Iraq?
I've written previously on the level of violence in Iraq, comparing it to murder rates in other times and places and to death rates that have been experienced in actual civil wars. See here and here, for example. My impression has been that violence in Iraq has skyrocketed since July, when I found that the murder rate in Iraq was 140 per 100,000 (the usual way in which murder rates are expressed). I was surprised, therefore, to learn this morning that rate of violence has increased only slightly:
The United Nations said Wednesday that 3,709 Iraqi civilians were killed in October, the highest monthly toll since the March 2003 U.S. invasion and another sign of the severity of Iraq's sectarian bloodbath.
That compares to an estimated 3,500 killed in July. If 3,709 people were murdered in October, that translates to a rate of 171 per 100,000. That is a high rate of violent death. But, for purposes of comparison, the murder rate in Washington, D.C. in 1991 was 80 per 100,000. So the rate of violence in Iraq today is just over double the rate in the District during the first Bush administration. I don't recall anyone describing conditions in Washington in the early 90s as a "bloodbath."
I wrote in June that based on the data at that time, the murder rate in Iraq outside of Baghdad is about the same as American cities like Chicago, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. With the current numbers, it looks like that would still be true.
A consensus seems to have developed that Iraq is a disaster because of out-of-control sectarian violence. That consensus is driving proposals to change our policy in Iraq, perhaps in the direction of a pull-out that could lead to truly cataclysmic violence. So I think it makes sense to step back and get a more realistic picture of the level of what is happening in Iraq: violent? Yes. A disaster comparable to a civil war? No.
Posted by John at 11:31 AM | |
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
I have been lurking on this sight for a while now, and I think I need to weigh in on this topic. I am an independent voter who voted against the GOP this year mostly because of the war.
Characterizing opposition to the war as "radical left who call our volunteers the perpetrators of state-sponsors of terrorism" is naive and disingenuous and will not win back the marginal voters you guys need to recoup your losses. While I suppose there is an extremist fringe on the left (cough*MrBotchedJoke*cough) that is willing to take a "blame the soldiers" approach, most sensible people like me who oppose the war can separate the actions of the administration from the actions of the soldiers on the ground. Personally, I see this war as a abject failure of leadership on the part of the administration, but I maintain the utmost respect for each and every soldier on the ground in Iraq laying his or her life on the line and trying to honestly help the innocent Iraqi people in the best way they can. The soldiers were given an impossible assignment under very difficult circumstances and have performed up to the very high standard that we as citizens expect from our military (this is just one example).
I consider it a national travesty that we have sacrificed 3000+ of our most motivated and talented and patriotic citizens in a war of aggression whose justifications were, well, "factually challenged" from the start (to avoid a discussion of whether they were outright lies or not). That is why I oppose the war. If you want to win back the votes of the moderate people like myself, you need to get out of Iraq and stop the senseless killing. Recognize that ending this slaughter is not a military defeat, even if Iran claims victory. Ending this as quickly as possible is a victory for the whole world. Implementing and enforcing democracy at gunpoint is, in itself, hypocrisy.
I realize that my opinions on this topic are probably not going to be too popular on this site, but I'm trying to give you a perspective that I think you need to pay attention to and not blow off as "radical left blaming the soldiers" unless you want to be pigeonholed as an extremist minority in this country.
You, sir, are the one mischaracterizing my comments. I said nothing about opposition to the war effort.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge
I don't have the time or inclination to fisk this bit of Martian logic.
Quite honestly, if we have to depend on the votes of people who think the way you do to win, I'd just as soon be in a minority that has a grip on its sanity.
you are an asshat.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
We were in the minority before the election of 2006. We had been backing away from our majority ever since 2000. 2006 only made manifest what had already occurred.
We had a congress spending money like the worst of the new dealers. They were unwilling to stand for or promote conservative ideals.
Were we democrats we might have been able to live with these problems and dutifully turn out to vote ourselves a piece of somebody else's money. However, We have standards it puts us at a disadvantage. When one of our own is doing unconscionable things we can't ignore it. When the party is going in the wrong direction we have to correct it.
As I said it puts us at a disadvantage in the political game but I wouldn't have it any other way.
Neil wrote:
But I also get angry at the radical left here. The people who call our volunteers the perpetrators of 'state-sponsored terrorism,' the people who draw equivalences between us and these terrorists.
To which our “lurker” who has been a member for about an hour wrote:
If you want to win back the votes of the moderate people like myself, you need to get out of Iraq and stop the senseless killing.
This is pretty much the point that Neil made. Despite trying to cover up his remarks with the usual meaningless “I support the troops but not the mission,” our “lurker” has just slipped up and revealed his true feelings – that the “senseless killing” in Iraq is the fault of the United States and our troops and only by them leaving will the killing end.
Factually challenged? Abject failure?
How about Chimpy McHitlerburton?
Oh come on, these are not phrases an (I) would use, this is your standard DD/Dkos terminology.
__________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
anywhere else but the NYT you would know that the GOP's major reasons for loseing the election was not Iraq. (We do need to stop fancy-footin around there and win this thing).
The real negative that was about Iraq was the fact we have not won already. So sir it is you and your "Bush Lied" friends who are in the real minority.
Jeresy Tolls or Jeresy trolls. No difference
"It ain't over till it's over"
Yoggi Berra
Damn hard to read without a dry eye. This sets the stakes into human terms. How much more of this would happen if we pull out of Iraq like we pulled out of Vietnam?
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
could care less how many people die in Iraq after we leave they didn't care about the people of Vietnam, they care only for how their pathetic little lives are going. I see these ego driven self involved people every day, they talk about caring and that's all they do. I could not feel prouder of the American military every time I see this picture and by the way it has been on the web for months, however you have not seen it on the MSM because they are part of the problem described above. I love that someone would call themselves a NJ (I) that is so moronic, there is no such beast and I will gladly stay in the sane minority then to vote for the ego driven selfish Democrats.
Peace through superior fire power:)
I can imagine all the good news headlines about liberation of Iraq if a Democrat was in the white house today.
If you often find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you are probably are a legend in your own mind. -CommonCents
I think you have stumbled over the obvious solution: Bush simply issues a statement that he has changed his party affiliation to Democrat.
Immediate Results:
- War in Iraq must be won at all cost (Nancy Pelosi);
- Economy best since Jesus Christ (Harry Reid);
- NSA intercepts? What took so long, bring them on (Janet Reno);
- et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
John
--------
The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
I'm a liberal. Just getting that out of the way. Not that I think what I'm saying here is necessarily in opposition to what you're saying, but I like to tell y'all.
I think this sort of story absolutely should be reported. It gets across the human nature of the conflict and the sorts of pressures our troops, and the Iraqis, are under. And there's no question in the decency of America. While I know some who'd question the fundamental decency of America's leaders, I don't, even though I think they've made a lot of mistakes with awful repercussions.
But it's not a "good news" story (not that I'm claiming anyone said that)...it's another tragedy in a war full of tragedies. Mind you, war is full of tragedies by its very nature, but those tragedies are newsworthy. As are the triumphs.
Mostly, I'd like more coverage of Iraq, and in more detail, and what's actually going on on the ground. I think we need to cover these sorts of stories, as well of stories about other Iraqis who've been hurt by instability, as well as those who are doing better now than before. I think, however, that while reasonable opinions may vary about how salvagable the situation in Iraq is and how far along reconstruction is, for individual Iraqis at the moment, and for our troops, this is a dangerous time. I'm not sure that this sort of story is a partisan issue, or that it would convince anyone to change their stance on the war. But it deserves to be heard, and I think you for showing it to me.
My heart breaks when I think of all the senseless deaths that our withdrawal would cause. Especially when I realize how likely it is to happen.
And rightmom is right. If we pull out and the slaughter takes over, self-centered people like Jerseygirl will sit in their nice warm living rooms and think, "Oh my, look what GWB has done now."
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I don't care what you call yourself, but if you say we are loosing in Iraq you are simply an imbecile that gives credence to the Hitlerian saying that a lie repeated often enough becomes truth. It is so simple to prove you are a lying defeatist that a child could do it. Just ask yourself the following questions:
1. If we are loosing, then someone must be beating us. Who is it that is winning if it is not us?
2. What have these “winners” accomplished that equates to victory since the fall of the totalitarian Hussein regime?
3. The number of US soldiers killed is a daily exercise for our “patriotic” media. Where is the number of enemy killed, or have we only killed the dozen or so high value targets that have been reported? What if that number is 300,000 to our 3,000? Are we still loosing? What constitutes a victory in the random death category? Do you contend that whomever is “winning” is also winning in this category?
If you are going to say it’s a disaster, and that we are loosing you ought to be able to produce a single fact, and then support it with at least a single historic instance that supports you thesis. Unfortunately, the idea that it is a disaster is no more true than virtually every other single middle eastern country (with the exception of Israel) as it exists in totalitarian bliss.
The fact is that if you think we’re loosing now, in 1943 you would have been jumping up and screaming RETREAT at the top of your lungs, because at that time we really were getting our clocks cleaned.
No, if you think we are loosing now it is because that often repeated lie is simply becoming true because your attention span is that of a gnat, and your backbone the consistency of jello. Sorry, but there is not other rational explanation unless you can actually support it with a fact.
We’ve lost lots of good people, but we’ve lost way more in single battles. The real suffering has been endured by the Iraqi people, just as our people endured great suffering when we rebelled against the British, and fully half of us wanted to be English and not Americans. The numbers of Iraqis who want to be Syrians and Iranians is considerably smaller.
We are not loosing. We are winning in every measurable way, and especially due to the fact that the enemy has recently stepped up their murders of innocent civilians. Their own depravity is what will inspire the Iraqi people to defend themselves, because they will come to understand, like most idiotic leftists in this country never will, that these people cannot be reasoned with or negotiated with. Their sole intent is to murder infidels, and oppress Muslims. We will not loose unless we defeat ourselves, and the lie that we are loosing is the strongest weapon this weak enemy possesses.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem." - President Ronald Reagan
Even when people ask me who is winning a ballgame, I always answer by saying who is ahead. The below powerline link shows that the death rate in Iraq is only twice the murder rate in DC.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015994.php
this blog takes Graham and his ilk to task for buying into the msm losing meme
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/83175423-353a-414e-bc98-32065f205ae1
Only the Historically Ignorant Say the Iraq War is not a Success
http://gamecock.townhall.com/g/77b60c77-7438-44ce-8ae7-481f35be478a
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://gamecock.townhall.com
feeling richer than before. Thanks, Jeff.
"I'm just beginning...The pen's in my hand...Ending unplanned"
One of our family members returned from Iraq this past week, after a year and 3 months service. He will have 60 days of time guaranteed at home and will be eligible to return for a 3rd time (went to Afghanistan Oct 01). I won't make a comment except to let this be a tribute to he and his young family's service and personal sacrifice, whatever those in our nation think of the war.
I know it wasn't your intent, but this makes me angry. I think of what this man has done, what happened to that girl's family, what that girl has coming ahead, and of the people who perpetrated it all, and I get angry.
I get angry at the terrorists insurgents. But I also get angry at the radical left here. The people who call our volunteers the perpetrators of 'state-sponsored terrorism,' the people who draw equivalences between us and these terrorists.
I get angry. And if I want to sleep sometime tonight, I'd better not think about what the Democrats want to do next.
--
It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones. -- Calvin Coolidge