Specialist Jason Palmer prepares for takeoff. (Tikrit, Iraq, April 30, 2006) / Photograph by Teddy Wade, U.S. Army
We condition the poor and the working class to go to war. We promise them honor, status, glory, and adventure. We promise boys they will become men. We hold these promises up against the dead-end jobs of small-town life, the financial dislocations, credit card debt, bad marriages, lack of health insurance, and dread of unemployment. The military is the call of the Sirens, the enticement that has for generations seduced young Americans working in fast food restaurants or behind the counters of Walmarts to fight and die for war profiteers and elites.
The poor embrace the military because every other cul-de-sac in their lives breaks their spirit and their dignity. Pick up Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front or James Jones’s From Here to Eternity. Read Henry IV. Turn to the Iliad. The allure of combat is a trap, a ploy, an old, dirty game of deception in which the powerful, who do not go to war, promise a mirage to those who do.
I saw this in my own family. At the age of ten I was given a scholarship to a top New England boarding school. I spent my adolescence in the schizophrenic embrace of the wealthy, on the playing fields and in the dorms and classrooms that condition boys and girls for privilege, and came back to my working-class relations in the depressed former mill towns in Maine. I traveled between two universes: one where everyone got chance after chance after chance, where connections and money and influence almost guaranteed that you would not fail; the other where no one ever got a second try. I learned at an early age that when the poor fall no one picks them up, while the rich stumble and trip their way to the top.
Those I knew in prep school did not seek out the military and were not sought by it. But in the impoverished enclaves of central Maine, where I had relatives living in trailers, nearly everyone was a veteran. My grandfather. My uncles. My cousins. My second cousins. They were all in the military. Some of them—including my Uncle Morris, who fought in the infantry in the South Pacific during World War II—were destroyed by the war. Uncle Morris drank himself to death in his trailer. He sold the hunting rifle my grandfather had given to me to buy booze.
He was not alone. After World War II, thousands of families struggled with broken men who, because they could never read the approved lines from the patriotic script, had been discarded. They were not trotted out for red-white-and-blue love fests on the Fourth of July or Veterans Day.
The myth of war held fast, despite the deep bitterness of my grandmother—who acidly denounced what war had done to her only son—and of others like her. The myth held because it was all the soldiers and their families had. Even those who knew it to be a lie—and I think most did—were loath to give up the fleeting moments of recognition, the only times in their lives they were told they were worth something.
“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ ‘Chuck him out, the brute!’” Rudyard Kipling wrote. “But it’s ‘Saviour of ’is country’ when the guns begin to shoot.”
Any story of war is a story of elites preying on the weak, the gullible, the marginal, the poor. I do not know of a single member of my graduating prep school class who went into the military. You could not say this about the high school class that graduated the same year in Mechanic Falls, Maine.
Geoff Millard was born in Buffalo, New York and lived in a predominately black neighborhood until he was eleven. His family then moved to Lockport, a nearby white suburb. He wrestled and played football in high school. He listened to punk rock.
“I didn’t really do well in classes,” he says. “But that didn’t seem to matter much to my teachers.”
At fifteen he was approached in school by a military recruiter.
“He sat down next to me at a lunch table,” Millard says. “He was a Marine. I remember the uniform was crisp. All the medals were shiny. It was what I thought I wanted to be at the time.
“He knew my name,” Millard adds. “He knew what classes I was taking. He knew more about me than I did. It was freaky, actually.”
Two years later, as a senior, Millard faced graduation after having been rejected from the only college where he had applied.
“I looked at what jobs I could get,” he says. “I wasn’t really prepared to do any job. I wasn’t prepared for college. I wasn’t prepared for the workforce. So I started looking at the military. I wanted to go active duty Marine Corps, I thought. You know, they were the best. And that’s what I was going to do.
“There were a lot of other reasons behind it, too,” he says. “I mean, growing up in this culture you envy that, the soldier.”
Any story of war is a story of elites preying on the weak, the gullible, the marginal, the poor.
His grandfather, in the Army Air Corps in World War II, had died when he was five. The military honor guard at the funeral had impressed him. As a teenager, he had watched the burial of his other grandfather, also with military honors. Millard carried the folded flag to his grandmother after receiving it from the honor guard.
The pageantry has always been alluring. “We marched a long time,” Louis-Ferdinand Céline, who fought in World War I, writes in Journey to the End of the Night:
There were streets and more streets, and they were all crowded with civilians and their wives, cheering us on, bombarding us with flowers from café terraces, railroad stations, crowded churches. You never saw so many patriots in all your life! And then there were fewer patriots . . . . It started to rain, and then there were still fewer and fewer, and not a single cheer, not one.
And nearly a century later it is the same.
When Millard told his mother he wanted to be a Marine, she pleaded with him to consider the National Guard. He agreed to meet with the Guard recruiter, whose pitch was effective and simple: “If you come here, you get to blow shit up.”
“I’m seventeen,” Millard says. “I thought being in the military was the pinnacle of what coolness was. I was just like, oh, I get to blow up stuff! I signed up right then and there on the spot. But the interesting thing he didn’t tell me was that the ‘shit’ that he referred to would be kids.
“They don’t teach you when you’re in land mine school that the overwhelming percentage of victims of land mines are little kids. Because, like, in the States, a little kid will chase a soccer ball in the streets. And overseas, a little kid will chase a soccer ball into a minefield. Whether, you know, it happens in Korea or Bosnia or Iraq, kids get killed all the time by land mines. They get maimed by them. And that’s just a reality of our military industrial complex. We put out these mines. We have no concern for what they do.”
Not that this reality intruded on his visions of life in the military when he began.
“I just thought of it like this stuff you see on TV where cars blow up and stuff like that,” he says.
For Anthony Swofford—author of Jarhead, a memoir about being a Marine in the first Gulf War—the tipping point came when the recruiter, who assured him he would be “a fine killer,” told him he could book a threesome for $40 in Olongapo in the Philippines. “I’d had sex three times and been the recipient of five blow jobs and fourteen hand jobs,” he writes. “I was sold.”
But sometimes there’s no need for a recruiting pitch. The culture does enough to make war, combat, and soldiering appealing.
Ali Aoun was born in Rochester, New York. His father is Lebanese. His mother is from the Caribbean. He says he wanted to be a soldier from the age of nine. He was raised watching war films. But even antiwar films such as Platoon and Full Metal Jacket celebrate the power and seductiveness of violence. He wanted this experience as his own. He says no one pushed him into it.
“I enlisted,” he explains. “It was something I always wanted to do, although I got more than I bargained for. You never really know a woman until you jump in bed with her. It’s just like the Army: you never really know about it until you enlist. It’s not about defending the country or serving our people. It’s about working for some rich guy who has his interests.”
At first Millard liked the National Guard. He was able to enroll in Niagara County Community College as a business major, where he signed up for an African American studies class thinking it would be an easy A. He read The Autobiography of Malcolm X. He read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. He read Frederick Douglass.
“It was the first time I’d really started to read,” he says.
He was in the African American studies class when the attacks of 9/11 occurred. His wrestling coach came into the room to tell him he had been activated. He went home. He packed his bags. He thought about combat.
“I was pissed,” he says. “I was like, they attacked us. I was ready to go to war.”
But he was confused from the start.
“I really wanted to go to war with somebody, because we were attacked,” he says. “But the one question I couldn’t answer was, who were we going to go to war with?”
At first he did military funerals. Then he was called up for Iraq. He was by then a sergeant and was assigned to work in the office of a general with the 42nd Infantry Division, Rear Operation Center. He became, in military slang, a REMF—a rear echelon motherfucker. He was based in Tikrit, where he watched the cynical and cold manipulation of human life.
Its not about defending the country or serving our people. Its about working for some rich guy who has his interests.
He relates the story of a traffic-control mission gone awry when an eighteen-year-old soldier made a bad decision. He was sitting atop an armored Humvee monitoring a checkpoint. An Iraqi car approached, and the soldier, fearing it might be carrying a suicide bomber, pressed the butterfly trigger on his .50 caliber machine gun. He put two hundred rounds into the car in less than a minute, killing a mother, a father, a four-year-old boy, and a three-year-old girl.
“They briefed this to the general,” Millard says. “They briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says: ‘If these fucking Hadjis learned to drive, this shit wouldn’t happen.’
“If you lift your rifle and you look through the sights and you see a person, you can’t pull the trigger,” Millard says. “But if you lift your rifle and you look through the sights and you see a fucking Hadji, then what’s the difference.
“That’s a lot of what I saw in Iraq,” he says. “These officers, high-ranking officers, generals, colonels, you know, the complete disregard. They knew all the stuff that happened. They got all the briefings. They knew what happened. And they either didn’t speak up, they didn’t say anything about it or they openly condoned it. When Iraqis got killed, to them, it was one less fucking Hadji around.”
Millard’s thirteen months in Iraq turned him into a passionate antiwar activist. He is the cofounder of the Washington, D.C., chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War and served as its president for three years. He has taken part in numerous antiwar demonstrations around the country, was one of the organizers of the Winter Soldier hearings, returned to Iraq on a humanitarian aid mission in 2011, and now directs a homeless veterans initiative.
The briefing that Millard and his superiors received after the checkpoint killing was one of many. Sergeant Perry Jeffries, who served in the Fourth Infantry Division in Iraq after being called out of retirement, said the killing of Iraqi civilians at checkpoints was routine.
“Alpha troop and Balad Ruz shot somebody at least once,” he says, referring to a troop detachment and to the soldiers manning a checkpoint in a small Diyala Province village. “Somebody else on what we called the Burning Oil Checkpoint, they shot somebody with a .50 cal, shot a guy once, and then several times.”
Killing becomes a job. You do it. Sometimes it unnerves you. But the demons usually don’t hit until you come home, when you are lying alone in bed and you don’t dare to tell your wife or your girlfriend what you have become, what you saw, what you did, why you are drinking yourself into a stupor, why you so desperately want to forget your dreams.
The disillusionment comes swiftly. It is not the war of the movies. It is not the glory promised by the recruiters. The mythology fed to you by the church, the press, the school, the state, and the entertainment industry is exposed as a lie. We are not a virtuous nation. God has not blessed America. Victory is not assured. And we can be as evil, even more evil, than those we oppose. War is venal, noisy, frightening, and dirty. The military is a vast bureaucratic machine fueled by hyper-masculine fantasies and arcane and mind-numbing rules. War is always about betrayal—betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics, and of soldiers and Marines by politicians.
“The biggest misconception about the war is that the soldiers care about politics,” Jeffries says. “The right thinks the soldiers want support. They want to feel good. They want everybody to fly their flag and have a bumper sticker and go, ‘Rah! Rah! Rah! I support the troops. Yay, thank you! Thank you! Thank you!’ The left thinks the soldiers all want to run off and get out of there, that they’re dying in a living hell. I think that most of the soldiers are young people that are having a decent adventure.”
But, he goes on, “They may be having a very hard time. They’re frustrated about the amount of resources they have been provided—how many hours of sleep they get, how nice their day is, whether they get to play their PlayStation or read their book at night or whatever. Like any human, you’d like to have some more of that.”
Yet, while soldiers don’t want to be forgotten, the support-the-troops brigade only maintains the mythology of war on the home front by pretending that we’re actually all in it together, when in fact it’s overwhelmingly the poor, powerless, and adrift who suffer.
Jeffries has little time for lawn chair warriors: “I remember hearing that somebody said, ‘Oh, we’re going to have a barbecue to support the troops.’ I heard about this when I was in Iraq. I said, how the hell is that going to support me? It’s not doing anything. Don’t drink beer. Send me the beer. It’s not doing me any good to have you drink it. I still don’t like the yellow ribbons.”
It is no surprise that soldiers sometimes come to despise civilians who chant patriotic mantras. Those soldiers may not be fans of the remote and rarely seen senior officers who build their careers on the corpses of others, including comrades, either. But to oppose the machine and risk being cast out of the magic circle of comradeship can be fatal. Fellow soldiers are the only people who understand the psychological torment of killing and being shot at, of learning to not think at all and instead be led as a herd of animals. Those ostracized in war have a hard time surviving, mentally and physically, so most service members say and do nothing to impede the madness and the killing.
If veterans speak of terrible wounds, of lies told to make them kill, of evil committed in our name, we fill our ears with wax.
Jessica Goodell came to understand that torment only too well, as she relates in her 2011 memoir Shade it Black: Death and After in Iraq. Goodell wasn’t poor. She grew up in a middle-class home near Chautauqua Lake in upstate New York. Her father was a lawyer, and her mother worked at home. But her “universe fractured” when she was sixteen and her parents divorced. She could barely continue “the motions of everyday existence.” She was accepted at Ithaca College her senior year, but just before graduation a uniformed Marine came to her high school. He told her he had come to find “tough men.”
“What about tough women?” she asked.
By that afternoon she was in the Marine recruiting office. She told the recruiter she wanted to be part of a tank crew but was informed that women were prohibited from operating tanks. She saw a picture of a Marine standing next to a vehicle with a huge hydraulic arm and two smaller forklift arms. She signed up to be a heavy equipment mechanic, although she knew nothing about it.
Three years later, while stationed at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center in the desert town of Twentynine Palms, California, she volunteered to serve in the Marine Corps’ first official Mortuary Affairs unit, at Al Taqaddum Airbase in Iraq. Her job, for eight months, was to “process” dead Marines—collect and catalog their bodies and personal effects. She put the remains in body bags and placed the bags in metal boxes. Before being shipped to Dover Air Force Base, the boxes were stored, often for days, in a refrigerated unit known as a “reefer.”
Her unit processed six suicides. The suicide notes, she told me in an interview, almost always cited hazing. Marines who were overweight or unable to do the physical training were subjected to withering verbal and physical abuse. They were called “fat nasties” and “shit bags.” They were assigned to other Marines as slaves. Many were forced to run until they vomited or to bear-crawl—walk on all fours—the length of a football field and back. This would be followed by sets of monkey fuckers—bending down, grabbing the ankles, crouching like a baseball catcher, and then standing up again—and other exercises that went on until the Marines collapsed.
Goodell’s unit was sent to collect the bodies of the Marines who killed themselves. They usually blew their faces off with assault rifles in port-a-johns or in the corners of abandoned bunkers or buildings. She and the other members of the Mortuary Affairs unit would have to scrape the flesh and brain tissue from the walls.
Goodell fell into depression when she returned home. She abused drugs and alcohol. And she watched the slow descent of her comrades as they too tried to blunt the pain with narcotics and self-destructive behavior. She details many of her experiences in Shade It Black, a term that refers to the missing body parts of dead Marines, which she colored black on diagrams of the corpses.
In a poignant passage, she talks about what it was like for her and a fellow Marine named Miguel to come home and see all those yellow ribbons:
We’d frequently pass vehicles displaying the yellow ribbon ‘support-our-troops decal,’ but we never once mentioned it. We probably passed a hundred or more decals—two hundred if you count the multiple decals decorating the cars of the more patriotic motorists—and yet neither of us even once said, ‘Look, more support from the citizenry. Let’s give the ‘thumbs up’ as we pass.’ . . . I knew that these people on their way to work or home or dinner had no idea what it was they were supporting. They did not have a clue as to what war was like, what it made people see, and what it made them do to each other. I felt as though I didn’t deserve their support, or anyone’s, for what I had done. . . . No one should ever support the people who do such things.
Stateside “support” not only reflects the myths of war, but it also forces Goodell and her comrades to suppress their own experiences:
Here we were, leaving the ribbons behind us as we sped up on our way to Hell, probably, where we would pay for the sins these magnetic decals endorsed. There was an irony of sorts shaping the dynamic between our ribbon decal supporters and us. They were uninformed but good people, the kind whose respect we would welcome—if it were based upon something true. It was when we were around them that we had to hide the actual truth most consciously.
Those who return to speak this truth, like Goodell or Millard, are our contemporary prophets. They struggle, in a culture awash in lies, to tell what few have the fortitude to digest. The words these prophets speak are painful.
As a nation we prefer to listen to those who speak from the patriotic script. We prefer to hear ourselves exalted. If veterans speak of terrible wounds visible and invisible, of lies told to make them kill, of evil committed in our name, we fill our ears with wax. Not our boys and girls, we say, not them, bred in our homes, endowed with goodness and decency. For if it is easy for them to murder, what about us? It is simpler and more comfortable not to hear, to wish only that they would calm down, be reasonable, get some help, and go away. We brand our prophets as madmen. We cast them into the desert. This is why so many veterans are estranged and enraged. This is why so many succumb to suicide or addictions. Not long ago Goodell received a text message from a Marine she had worked with in Mortuary Affairs after he tried to commit suicide. “I’ve got $2,000 in the bank,” the message read. “Let’s meet in NYC and go out with a bang.”
War comes wrapped in patriotic slogans; calls for sacrifice, honor, and heroism; and promises of glory. It comes wrapped in the claims of divine providence. It is what a grateful nation asks of its children. It is what is right and just. It is waged to make the nation and the world a better place, to cleanse evil. War is touted as the ultimate test of manhood, where the young can find out what they are made of. From a distance it seems noble. It gives us comrades and power and a chance to play a bit part in the great drama of history. It promises to give us identities as warriors, patriots, as long as we go along with the myth, the one the war-makers need to wage wars and the defense contractors need to increase their profits.
But up close war is a soulless void. War is about barbarity, perversion, and pain. Human decency and tenderness are crushed, and people become objects to use or kill. The noise, the stench, the fear, the scenes of eviscerated bodies and bloated corpses, the cries of the wounded all combine to spin those in combat into another universe. In this moral void, naïvely blessed by secular and religious institutions at home, the hypocrisy of our social conventions, our strict adherence to moral precepts, becomes stark. War, for all its horror, has the power to strip away the trivial and the banal, the empty chatter and foolish obsessions that fill our days. It might let us see, although the cost is tremendous.
Tweet
Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist who has worked for The New York Times and The Christian Science Monitor, is author of The Death of the Liberal Class.
Tara McKelvey,
God, the Army, and PTSD
Matt Gallagher,
Straight Shooter
Nir Rosen,
Something from Nothing

It seems to me that the US needs wars to provide markets for the military industrial complex that Roosevelt warned against your nation allowing to gain control of government. Young men dying keep the folk back home in jobs.
The constant need for enemies is borne out by the hysteria that is generated against the sovereign states around the world, in the name of democracy and regional stability.
My own country supports the US waging war in Afghanistan, and our soldiers are predominately Maori, whose culture is built on a long warrior tradition. While many people admire these seemingly fearless, often tribally aligned martial experts, many more question the morality of fighting against an adversary who is more similar to themselves than their American and European allies.
It is unclear to most why New Zealand troops need to risk their lives and spend our taxes in Afghanistan, if is conceivable than they generously spreading democracy, but I fear we too are drawn into perpetuating another imaginary threat, for the purpose of consuming expensive resources while someone else clips the ticket.
I hope your essay finds the wide distribution it deserves. And before it does, you might want to change "(gun)sites" with "sights", it's not quite Pulitzer!
Fact: the average recruit comes from families making more than the national average. Perhaps even more of the "rich" would join, but ROTC isn't allowed or is pushed out of sight on campuses where they tend go college in greater numbers.
It doesn't diminish the fact that war is awful - I can certainly agree. But there is no need to add additional and distracting "glossy" drama that somehow there is a great injustice being done beyond the nature of war and the ill-guided decisions of those who we vote for to exercise our nation's power.
If one wants to read articles about the folly of national policy by combat veterans Andrew Bacievich and Fred Reed would be a good start. No third hand stories from REMFs(who,relative to an infantryman, are pseudo- civilians that dress funny)or hyperbole such as "They were assigned to other Marines as slaves". The author gets the big picture right, but the devil is in the details. The truth is ugly enough with no need to embelish for 'metro-sophisticate' titillation.
As for the horrors of war, I don't think this essay says anything most people don't already know. I don't really think war is glamorized in American society that much anymore. Most Americans know that war is legalized murder, war corrupts, and PTSD is common, but certainly it's good to be reminded.
But seems like both sides of the argument here rely on anecdotal evidence.
That's why a piece of writing like this can be a painful thing- particularly when it's presented as polemically as this.
It's actually not that different to what Dave Grossman has written about in In Killing and in On Combat about the psychology of fighting and killing.
And of course as a Brit I am bound to say, as we all do, that we were very fortunate that Hitler chose to declare war on the USA. If he had not, things might have been very much worse for us. Selling us arms was useful, but after two years of war we were getting short of men, and even those first lightly trained men were better than none.
The point that really matters is about a sense of purpose. Having talked with many who were in extreme positions for years at a time, not just shortish tours of duty, I have always wondered why they DIDN\'T break.
They certainly remained very quiet, often long into old age, about some terrible things, and had pains and regrets and losses which were very hard for them. But they had had a commonality, a unity. And maybe the Brit factor was important in this sense - they did come home, if they ever got a brief period of leave, to find that their own home towns had been badly bombed; their own families were working hard, eating small rations. Many of them certainly did feel as if nobody at home could truly understand what they had experienced, as if civilian life really was sheltered and cushy, and there certainly were no yellow ribbons, but they all recalled with gratitude so many small simple kindnesses - being Brit, this usually involved a free pint of warm beer, or a mug of hot sweet tea, from strangers who did not gush their patriotism, or ask stupid questions.
I have the impression - from talking with lifelong American friends - that the class divide was much sharper in the US forces. Which may seem odd, since we are supposed to be the ones with such an awareness of social class. What seemed to happen here was that war broke down the divides far more. Of course there were snobberies - a fighter or bomber pilot who happened to be a sergeant, not an officer, would have to drink in the sergeants\' mess. But there was no assumption that only officers could be pilots, or that all pilots were automatically officers. It was a job, not a rank, and you took the best at the job.
And that sums it up - in a shared war, in which everybody is committed, because it is an emergency, ranks and bureaucracy and social status will unavoidably be there, but they won\'t matter a fraction as much.
What has happened in the less committed,less shared, wars, wars in which there was no possible genuine major threat to the folks back home (which does include post 9/11)is that the social divides stick. In the UK, this means that very few middle-class comfortably-educated people would even consider for a second a career in the armed forces, but the traditional recruitment of the less lucky, in the poorer cities and regions goes on as it always did. But because they do not have the heartfelt support of people who are not poor, don\'t live in those places, and they are themselves too often the ones who are already less personally stable, not going to make it in other jobs, they tend to crack.
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/
That is a very well written article but you have no idea what you are talking about. You do know your target audience and you play them like a violin.
I am currently on a deployment and nothing in the above article pertains to me or my soldiers.
You do not speak for any of us and we are all agree on that point here.
I was teaching at CAL when this war started and an earnest grad student from the Peace and Conflict Studies Department asked me for help in his research comparing service member demographics from Vietnam to present time. He had no statistics from the Vietnam conflict only recycled canards about poor, mostly minority draftees being sent off to die. When he saw the stats, including the fact that most draftees never went further than Germany, he was crestfallen to say the least. A cherished belief had once again fallen prey to cold, hard facts.
http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/
"Take the “Quintile 4″ bar. If a town of 20,000 people has a median income level within this quintile, and sends a handful of enlistees into the service, how many actually have a household income over $50k? It could be NONE. It could be the poor kids from a mixed town who are going into the army because they see their classmates going to college and want something approaching comparable. This explains the ROTC effect only too well."
by MikeM
http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/
As for your speculation that it is only the poor and/or people with no options that join the military I'd like to point out that all you have is speculation. I am fortunate enough to live in an affluent community, my son grew up playing sports, rowing, travelling for tournaments, had good grades and of course we had the money to send him to just about any university he got accepted into. Instead he chose to join the Army and become a medic... There are also 13 other young men and women from my son's graduating class, with the same opportunities my son, had that chose to enter military service.
Does all a favor... next time you write an article about something you have no firsthand knowledge about how about you talk to people that don't already share your opinion. Yes, war is always terrible and bad things happen but I didn't read anything in your article about basic infrastructure like power grids or septic systems or even hospitals and medical.care that our military is building and providing over there. On top of everything else I'm also married to a soldier who has served his country for 16 years. Why don't you talk to people like them and find out what good has been done as well...
Fact is poor people fight wars. Fact is Americans are the worst arbiters of their own wealth and class. Remember the recent study of government beneficiaries who don't know they're beneficiaries?
http://www.disinfo.com/2011/08/most-beneficiaries-of-government-programs-dont-know-they-use-government-programs/
I apologize for the partisan source, but the data is data. Most Americans don't know when they’re government beneficiaries and MOST Americans who are FUCKING POOR don't know it either. Top 40% percent? Lol, yeah I suppose if you're a couple thousand above the federal poverty line you are solidly middle class, give me a break.
Most of your posts are reactionary, and evasive. Concentrating on the authors premise, no, the Fucking FACT, that most people who fight these wars are poor that allows you guys to sidestep the point that he’s trying to make: war sucks and people are getting hurt for idiotic reasons.
It's real easy to focus and argue (not to mention self serving) about who is middle class, whine about the liberals taking ROTC out of the Ivy Leagues, (yeah I’m sure they’d be signing up in DROVES to fight these wars when they’ve abandoned every other profession except for FINANCE in order to get rich.) why not try talking about the point- poor kids are dying for stupid fucking wars dreamed up people who weren't qualified to run a burger king.
Also, no one is saying these kids had no choice. What's being said is that the military is presented as, and in some cases IS their BEST CHOICE. That's what needs to change. If everyone had an opportunity to advance they wouldn't choose the military which can be awful.
That's rich.
Get this: everyone always talks about these things. They are the very gospel Hedges and the soldiers he interviewed want to dispel. Of course he doesn't give a damn about how honorable you think you are for pointlessly killing arabs. Worse than pointlessly: the United States is worse off for your "service."
Also, with no experience in the topic he writes about.
Throw in a dose of emotionalism, and all the canards about the poor fighting the wars,etc.(conversely, try reading the book Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War, for starters)
The author's thesis has been around for a long time - so what else is new?
He obviously believes that no one but he and the select other few have determined the truth. Pass the Kool-Aid, please.
Just a small (entirely anecdoctal) observation: I showed the Hedges article to my father, now 88, who fought in six major campaigns in WWII (including D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge). He LOVED the article. To be very clear: he was not responding to the issues about bottom quintile/top quintile, but about the success of the article in describing the utter horrors of combat and in puncturing efforts to describe it as something glorious, as anything but total hell. (Half the guys on his D-Day landing craft drowned before they got to the beach.)
And just for the record: I posted the Freakonomics article. I am not sure that it is right but I think the discussion of the class issue should be put on a footing of fact.
Josh Cohen
Let them kill themselves. How dare you do it in my name and then claim I am ungrateful.
Since it's not really backing up these claims, the conclusions drawn are more or less pointless. All the information presented is thin and the evidence anecdotal -- there's no statistics, no attempt to verify claims made by these clearly soured individuals.
You could write the exact same article with sources that had *good* experiences in the military and it would completely shift its aim. Completely allowing your sources to focus your article isn't journalism. It's commentary.
Hedges should be ashamed of himself.
here's a perspective from a full-time active duty infantry officer from 79-05 with multiple combat deployments over that span of time. Hedges writes about a tiny fraction of soldiers -- those who have intimate personal experience with death while in service. the huge majority of soldiers --even of those who deployed in the last 10 years -- never kill anybody. they don't get close to killing. nobody they know well gets killed.
Of that tiny fraction that does experience killing, many are not affected by it until later. my own theory is that young people can remain largely indifferent to death and to killing until they experience it's effects personnally, e.g., when someone they love dies. only then can they really comprehend the weight of the phenomenon. a young person who kills may literally not know what he or she has done -- the pain and suffering inflicted -- until he loses a loved one. then it hits him.
Because of that, there are lots of serving soldiers and veterans whose experience differs from what Hedges is writing about.
The horror Hedges writes about happens and it destroys people. Not a large proportion of veterans. Not always right away. I think war is a necessary evil, but we can and should do a better job of selecting and preparing people for the psychological trauma.
The economic or social status of the young people we are doing that to doesn't matter a whole lot to me.
The author is right, war is a horrible thing. There is a dark side of war that needs to be understood. The real stories he tells are true and they need to be acknowledged. However he is only giving a very narrow view of what war is all about.
Much like the eleventh blind man who had his head stuck up the elephants ass, this author can only see, smell, taste, hear, and feel the ugly part of war. There is much more to it than that. There are countries, groups and individuals out there who threaten our way of life. It is not only the interests and prosperity of the rich that are at stake. All freedom loving people are in danger from the bin Ladens, Hitlers, and Saddam Hussiens of the world. If they are not confronted with force, they will remake the world in their image.
These threats are real. They are not just conjured up by a heartless military industrial complex to make a profit. There are problems to be sure in America, but we also have many blessings that we take for granted. Try taking a step back an looking at things from several points of view. War is violent and forces many changes and dislocations. However, think of the alternative to war, it would not be some peaceful utopia that many anti-war activists dream of. It would be a hellish nightmare of slavery and poverty for all, but a very few elites. Look at modern day North Korea for an example.
Like John Stuart Mill said, "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight; Nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
http://lanterloon.com/persistent-war-myths-perpetuated-by-a-reporter/
The First Casuality in War is TRUTH.
Did you not take an oath to defend the consitution from enemies foreign and domestic?
Does being indoctrinated really provide you with the ability to have sense and reason through things? My guess not.
Well done Isaac Cubillos. Well Done!!!!!
http://lanterloon.com/persistent-war-myths-perpetuated-by-a-reporter/#comment-2791
Well done Isaac Cubillos. Well Done!!!!!
http://lanterloon.com/persistent-war-myths-perpetuated-by-a-reporter/#comment-2791
To make of this issue a rebuttal to Hedges' article itself, however, is specious at best and is perhaps revealing. The article presents a broad critique of 1) a culture that--primarily through its corporate media--glamorizes violence, warfare, blind loyalty to authority and militarism; and 2) a society that consumes corporate-made and corporate-sponsored war propaganda with enthusiasm, and countenances with docility the venal,corporate-serving and corporate-manufactured wars the US prosecutes.
Regarding the experience of combat soldiers: Unsurprisingly, this experience varies. There can be no doubt that some human beings who take human lives are less traumatized by the experience than others, no doubt that such trauma manifests itself differently among individuals, no doubt that some soldiers remain persuaded throughout their service that the policy they have served was a just and patriotic one that constitutes a defense of our country. The attitudes of soldiers toward killing, however, is irrelevant to the reality of the killing. The political opinions of soldiers are irrelevant to an understanding of the political realities of a war. Soldiers--and it doesn't matter how soldiers feel about this fact--exist solely to be used and manipulated by governments (just as our government exists to be used and manipulated by its corporate owners).
This is one of the most stereotypical and extremely unrealistic view of the military that I have ever read.
Having served over 26 years in the military as both an enlisted Soldier and Officer, I know what the real military is, and the picture that this "reporter" paints reeks of false stereotypes and assumptions.
I do not doubt that there are certain cases that reflect the examples of troops in the military, but they are the exceptions.
If you know a Soldier, ASK THEM what is like. Don't just take my word for it, and you most certainly do not want to take the word of some agenda driven hack of a reporter.
Your quagmire of Iraq and now Afgan wars, were unjustly started due to "false motives" ie, twin tower dismantling. The "hollywoodization " of conflict such as "shock & awe" and " misssion accomplished" aboard an aircraft carrier only reinforces the cartoon characters that spinmaster warmongers have become. As Hedges has said he is not here to give a balanced view of war, as most journalist trying to be objective do. He will provoke all who subscribe to warmaking. Bravo Chris!
the U.S. military is an employment program.
From weapons manufacturers, to universities, to air force bases to naval shipyards, everywhere we have moved to has had a sizable number of people cashing government checks issued by the military.
Of course all the back slapping is there to help people feel good about being a government workforce. And despite all the endless flattery from politicians, the simple fact is that most of them see military personnel as little more than workers.
Of course the real point of the military propaganda and various wars that we are fighting, is to keep the money flowing to these guys:
http://www.govexec.com/magazine/2007/08/top-100-defense-contractors/25084/
Its like nobody heard Ike when he said this exact same thing:
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
.... and its only gotten worse.
Case in point: Iraq. What was once a counterpoint to the Islamic fanatics in Iran has been “liberated” into becoming Iran’s ally. When you bring democracy to a country full of Islamic fundamentalists, you end up with a government… run by Islamic fundamentalists.
Yet those same Neocon forces are now ginning up war with Iran – with the total complicity of our “leaders”. No matter who is elected, we will soon be at war with Iran. Obama has promised as much, in a disgusting speech before AIPAC this spring. Romney’s only disagreement with this is that we should be at war with Iran *already*.
All because Iran may engineer a primative nuclear weapon some day.
Meanwhile, our “ally”, Pakistan, has over 100 loose nukes. You know, the same country that sheltered Bin Laden in plain sight. The same country which has supported and nursed the Taliban back to power in Afghanistan.
If a nuke ever ignited in an American city, the odds are it will be of Pakistani origin.
But all that will be ignored, as our servicemen and women are thrown into another unnecessary war of aggression. And that’s more important than an argument over which socioeconomic classes will be abused in that war. Because a dead child, missing limbs, and traumatic brain injury know no social distinctions.
And you might look into Hedges history a bit. "living and working as a journalist in the war zones of Central America, the Balkans and the Middle East," The guy spent over a decade in war zones under fire in more conflcits than most active military will see.
Perhaps you'd accept his view more from General Smedley Butler? The most decorated American of his time, who won the medal of honor twice and was up for Commandant of the Marine Corps? http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
. . .
Here’s an excerpt from page 3 of the April 2012 feralfirefighter post “Something to Die For”:
“War is always about betrayal. Betrayal of the young by the old, of idealists by cynics and of troops by politicians.”
-- Chris Hedges (2009)
“[Pat Tillman] admitted…he always felt a surge of energy and emotion at the point the National Anthem was played. He chuckled and said, ‘I guess I have a patriotic bone in me.’”
“From the time I was very little, I was aware of my father’s pride in being a Marine. When I was three years old … I would stand between my parents, feet digging into the soft leather of the big front seat, and sing the entire Marine Corps Hymn at the top of my lungs… Military service was prevalent in my family and my husband’s family and we were taught to respect it.”
-- Mary Tillman, “Boots on the Ground by Dusk” (2008)
“For Mary Tillman, what the army did to her son made a mockery of everything he went to war for – honesty, integrity, the defence of the truth. 'If you ask me if I trust our system now, the answer is I’m pretty disgusted by it. Unfortunately in our culture people survive more effectively through lies and deception and dishonourable behaviour than they do the reverse. And that’s very sad.’
-- Mick Brown, “Betrayal of an All-American Hero,” UK Guardian (Oct. 7, 2010)
And here’s an excerpt from Marie Tillman’s book, “The Letter,” that was just published last month:
“… neither Pat [Tillman] nor I agreed with the Iraq War. … We felt it was illegal and unjust. “I’ll do my job,” Pat told me one night before he left, when we were discussing the war. “But I don’t think our role there is virtuous at all.” … “What the **** kind of marriage involves my absence for months at a time? … It’s funny because at the time I felt that any absence would be tolerable due to the “cause” or whatever concept I deluded myself into believing I was standing for. I’m a fool. How I managed to find a way out of our perfect existence is incredible.” … He wondered if he could have contributed to the cause in another way.”
. . .
For more on the Tillman story, I’d suggest Kevin Tillman’s “After Pat’s Birthday” (Truthdig Nov. 2006), the DVD “The Tillman Story,” Mary Tillman’s “Boots on the Ground by Dusk” (at blurb[dot]com] Marie Tillman’s “The Letter,” Jon Krakauer’s (flawed) “Where Men Win Glory” (updated paperback), or the post “Something to Die For” at the feralfirefighter blog.
As for those claiming that Chris' statistics are off because Freakonomics says differently, Freakonomics is hardly a definitive source of information. If anything, it's a work of entertainment, and not to be trusted as a valid empirical authority.
Chris is completely right to say that the poor are disproportionately the ones who pay the cost for America's wars. This is not just his opinion, but is also well-documented in solid academic works. For instance, according to The Casualty Trap (published by Oxford University Press), the most important cost of American military campaigns–the loss of human life–has been paid disproportionately by poorer and less-educated communities since the 1950s. That book draws, among other things, on National Archives data on more than 400,000 American soldiers Americans killed in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Therefore, the empirical basis of Chris' argument is well-established.
For Chris, and not for the deluded militarists who will look for any flimsy reason to attack his article, the truth must come first. For that, we should stand with him and against the warmongers.
But I would love to hear Hedges attackers explain why military suicides are at unprecedented levels. Evidently some vets are not sleeping very well.
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=5858
What happened to actually doing your research?
The men telling the whore politicians what to do and gloat at AIPAC & Bilderberg gatherings could very easily be wasted.
The limo drivers, the cooks, gardeners, body guards with access to these war mongers don't have the stomach to kill the hand that feeds them, but the higher ranking officers???
Take the damn pension and screw America. Every man for himself. Yeah. Far out, man.
Sure he did, considering the sustained rate of fire from a .50 cal "ma deuce" is 40 rounds per minute, in bursts. So that didn't happen.
Whether Millard was ever even in Iraq is questionable in itself.
Do you even check your sources? I'm guessing not.
Very poor journalism here...I'll certainly be contacting your editor and other media outlets regarding this. Fakes like this bring major discredit upon the anti-war movement.
Awaken, and know that while we have been sleeping
That our intended masters attempt to cage us.
Broaden our vision and see,
that we dare not look away,
discard the blinkers that blind our periferary,
see beyond the screen. the mirage.
And know, that the rulers that we obey,
Have lied again.
It is only plain to see that
Kindness to each other is what we need.
And When we see, they will not keep us separated.
When the LAST soldier has resigned,
when all of the armies have disbanded
And returned home to their mothers
Their loved ones, and cherish one another,
Peace will return to this world again.
And War, the lies, exposed, brought to the light.
For millennia we have fought, with intention to kill.
To murder another man. The father, the son of another man.
And For the spoils, the soldier has paid. But pay no more,
for the power of rulers.
When the soldiers turn away from their violent mood,
And return home to their families with peace in their hearts,
To find that they will not again torment another life.
Peace will infiltrate this war machine. And disable it. Render it obsolete.
Not with a candidate, biding his time with lies of change,
but with the soldier who stands up, and demands peace.
It is the soldier who will disarm, refuse to harm another.
It is the warrior of peace Who will lead the armies back to the embrace of their children.
Children, Call them home. Call your fathers home.
Mothers, call them home, call your sons and feel their embrace once again.
No more should you wait in torment, call them home and they will come.
With peace in their hearts, they will return.
Warriors of peace, loved and cherished by the peaceful,
respected and revered by those who use force and coercion to keep them from you.
Call them and tell them that the rulers that sent them to off to the slaughter, Have turned their eyes to the meek, for their spoils.
Tell them to come home and defend our homes
from the invasion of our intended keepers.
tell them to return, with the peace that you know pervades them.
For it is fear that binds us to our rulers. The fearless walk free.
Tell them to return, free of fear, as warriors to defend our homes from tyranny.
Tell them to bring the end of war with them, one by one. Home, so that the intended masters will see for themselves that they have been thwarted, that the peaceful warrior has returned victorious. that no longer shall they keep us from each other.
No of you have ever or in your past been ocupyed in any form, my famliy have.
And fouth wars in centurys, from Prausen to Russia and against Russia.
The simple fact is that all the wars USA is involved or comitting are based on corruption and lies, documented year after year, plundering of recources and what ever there is, minerals.And stil you try to convinse us that you have a Right and Duty to "help". This war mongering that USA have done since they begun as a functional state, for over 230 years, in 188 wars.
Nobody have killed and maimed more that USA.
And whats even more disturbing is the wars and states supported by USA since it stated, like the Finnace of China(cheep labor) and the Revolution aganist Russia(cheep labor, and in all of this conrtys, the bigg companys was having cheep labor, specaly the productoin and testing of medics, did you know that, the famine in Ucraina, 10-20mill christians died as a result of Jews in Moscow gave everything to USA for s litle money, hurray).
I could go on for hours, but I completly agee with the notions that is in this article, war is the ultimate sin and evil.
And will eventualy ruin your own contry, a year or to and you are down, sacrifyed as Good and Obidient Goiyms.
Almoust humans.
peace
For instance, that blog post says that "Also considering that a case where a entire car being shot up would be in EVERY media outlet known to man that you think that it could be covered up?" This shows how naive the blog author is. Many American atrocities have indeed been covered up and not reported on, until watchdog groups like Wikileaks reveal videos showing these events.
It's really sad to see Hedges' attackers quote a blog to attack him merely because that blog is written by US soldiers, and all the while claim that they are using "facts" to attack him. I'll remind them again that they're committing a logical fallacy. Merely because someone is in the US military does not give him privileged access to the truth about the military. If Chris' detractors are going to attack Chris' arguments (rather than his character - another logical fallacy), they'd do well to quote from a legitimate source, where the author provides actual statistics, citations, or other empirical evidence. Instead, they find the first blog post written by a soldier that they can, which is filled with all kinds of fallacious ad hominem attacks and claims that are falsely said to be obvious.
And yes, the rate of fire from a .50 cal is 40 RPM. Not 200 in under a minute as Millard claims.
All you have from Millard is stories, back up by no evidence, VS the evidence I'm submitting, which is fact, backed up by the guy's own records.
But lets not defend our pet convictions of political posturing for the sake of justifying our murders...either side!
The writer has made a valid HUMAN point which many seem to miss...the point wasn't about which social class pulled the most weight, It was about the fact that MOST ALL WARS are about greed and power and hard headed old men who take themselves way too seriously to the point of damn near genocide to prove they are correct.Or to prove whom has the biggest KNADS.
A micro-version of the same is being played out here in the comments.
War cries to rally troops are nothing but mere hypocrisy and down right lies.
This world has seen enough spilled blood all for the sake of the wealthy and powerful. Even if your enemy stops and says "lets end this its wrong" Our MIC and Govt. will not allow it to end!
Coming out of the VN jungles I knew that so-called war was nothing but lies and bullsh*t! Same with every conflict since....lies and deception....nobody is a threat to our way of life or has attacked us...unless of course you consider the US GOVT. Its "New American Century" policy is the enemy...
Please wake up good people
But all this is really beside the point. The main point of Chris' article is that the lower social class is mainly responsible for waging America's wars, that Americans are wrong to glorify the hell that is war, and that our wars are taking a huge toll on America's soldier. Even if you're right on the peripheral issue of one of Chris' sources, these other main points of his article continue are still valid. The American religion of war glorifies pointless and endless imperialistic violence, while ruining the lives of predominantly poor soldiers in the mean time.
Produce all the FOIA's you like, but the American religion of violent militarism will still be a blight on America and its soldiers. The rate of suicides in the military is at an all-time high, while many soldiers have PTSD. Meanwhile, the wars are accomplishing nothing, American infrastructure is crumbling, and more and more American cities are declaring bankruptcy. Instead of military dis-information, the commenters would do well to actually focus on the significance of our devotion to war and how it's ruining our lives.
Semper Fi.
How about instead of being "always loyal" (Semper Fi) to an institution designed to kill people, you're "always loyal" to the democratic citizens for whom truth - and not violence - is the supreme value? Your "semper fi" cult is a threat to peace on earth, a threat to predominantly poor soldiers, and a threat to an independent, critical public that thinks for itself rather than relying on meaningless slogans such as "freedom isn't free." Wake up, Skunk Delta- your unthinking devotion to militarism is in no way helping your countrymen, though it benefits military contractors and political elites quite nicely.
The blog, "This Aint Hell" provides information that proves that he never went there. Here's a link to data that they received via FOIA:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/millard-foia.jpg
He was discharged as a specialist/E4.
Here's a record of the places he has been to, no Iraq Deployment listed:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/gemillard-2-1.jpg
Secondly no one fires 200 rds though an M2HB accidentally into a car. I've manned the gun, and ran a TCP Myself hundreds of times and there are proceedures before you fire into a vehicle and use deadly force. Warning signs in Arabic and English, Spike Strips, Concertina wire, zig zag appraoches to slow a vehicle, etc. Lights lasers used before shooting ahead of the vehicles, etc.
His hearsay anecdote makes fine reading for those who've never served and know no better. for those who have it smacks of Bravo Sierra tall tales. He tells you not what he saw, but what he heard second or fourth hand Purple Monkey Dishwasher.... Mr. hedges you picked a discredited fraud as an example to use for your article.
http://dmna.ny.gov/arng/42div/42id.php?id=history
I'm starting to wonder if PSYOPS has been trying to discredit Chris' story with military propaganda. The purpose of PSYOPS, which is a branch of the US military, is to launch "psychological operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals."
In other words, propaganda. The attacks on Chris look to me very much like propaganda.
If that was the case he'd have expeditionary and campaign ribbons (everyone who goes there gets them)...and as you can see, he doesn't.
so as the evident seems to show, he wasn't there.
Moreover, even if you look at the blogger who has released that FOIA, "thisainthell," he himself said in a separate post that Millard served in Iraq! On March 12, thisainthell said, "Of the three, Geoff Millard was a general’s gopher during his tour of Iraq and then went AWOL when he came back [..]"
How absurd is this? You quote a blogger who said that Millard never went to Iraq, but if you look at the same blogger's post from a few months back, he said that he did go to Iraq. This blogger, who apparently is the gold-mine of truth for so many soldiers, clearly contradicts himself!
If this is the best attempt at propaganda that you can do, you better go back to PSYOPS and do another training session. Because anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills can see right through these contradictory statements.
My hat off to the author.
Yes, I looked at the FOIA request results, I still see that Millard didn't combat deploy.
First, they could say that a division deployed to Iraq, or Afghanistan, if one of its brigades deploys there. The 42nd Infantry division was there, but that doesn't mean that Millard's brigade, or Millard, was. Now, what if the entire division deployed? Onto the second point...
Second, the FOIA request doesn't list a Global War on Terrorism Medal, or Iraq Campaign Medal (voluntary swap out), something he would've gotten had he deployed to Iraq during that time. He would've at least had an Army Commendation Medal. As self-aggrandizing as he is; that would've made it to his DD 214.
Third, if you look at the phony DD 214 that he showed around, it shows nothing for "foreign service" in the upper right hand corner. I guess when he altered his DD 214, he forgot to alter other areas on it. Combat deployments show up in that block.
Fourth, in the document that I showed above, it shows "42 ID DET NY ARNG Troy NY". If he deployed with them, it would've said, "IZ" or Iraq, under the section that read, "Organization and station or oversea country" section. You know why it showed, "NY" instead of "Iraq"? Take a look at "DET" in the line. That's short for "detachment." That tells me that he was "rear detachment."
And you accuse us of attempting to use PSYOP.
Joseph: I'm starting to wonder if PSYOPS has been trying to discredit Chris' story with military propaganda. The purpose of PSYOPS, which is a branch of the US military, is to launch "psychological operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals."
First, PSYOP isn't a branch in the US military. It's an MOS in the Army, now known as MISO, which practices its "craft" overseas.
Second, discrediting Millard and Chris, on a US based website, isn't an attempt to influence foreign audiences, or foreign governments. It's members of the general public calling a reporter out on his BS, and calling one of his sources out on his BS.
Third, Millard's "war" stories don't pass the "first-hand experience" test.
Joseph: In other words, propaganda. The attacks on Chris look to me very much like propaganda.
No, the attacks on Chris represent a segment of the population calling a reporter/writer out for his attempt to perpetrate propaganda on its readers.
Joseph: How absurd is this? You quote a blogger who said that Millard never went to Iraq, but if you look at the same blogger's post from a few months back, he said that he did go to Iraq.
This blog has multiple authors, and they're all capable of using sarcasm; even the author that generated the blog entries that you talked about. The blog entry that you refer to is jam packed with sarcasm. What matters; however, are the documentation that's linked to the blog.
Joseph: This blogger, who apparently is the gold-mine of truth for so many soldiers, clearly contradicts himself!
No human is perfect, that doesn't dismiss the facts that they do present as something that's other than fact. For example, if someone tells me that 1 + 1 = 2, I'm not going to dismiss that conclusion because the person that said this contradicted himself elsewhere.
Joseph: If this is the best attempt at propaganda that you can do, you better go back to PSYOPS and do another training session. Because anyone with the least bit of critical thinking skills can see right through these contradictory statements.
You're engaging in propaganda right now, not critical thinking. You're engaging in a straw man argument. You're bringing an unrelated comment up, then trying to argue that since your own cherry picked topic shows that he's "self contradicting," the other topic, the documentations, are wrong.
You may not have gone out and said that the documentation is "wrong," but that's essentially what you're attempting to do. In PSYOP, that's called, "deflecting."
And you accuse us of doing PSYOP.
You make me want to buy stock in tin foil. ..how many hats do you go through weekly?
i'm laughing also at the idiots who support Mr. Drone Bomb kids Obama, ya know, the Nobel PEACE Prize Winner.
What I'm doing is not PSYOP, because I'm not intending to deceive anyone with propaganda- which is exactly what the goal of PSYOP is. I'm suggesting that there are a thousand reasons why we shouldn't simply assume that the electronic document in question request as accurate. First, bureaucratic mistakes could have caused it; numerous comments on the blog post in question were by other soldiers who had similar mistakes committed by the military bureaucracy.
Second, the very blog author who is so confident that Millard never served in Iraq himself confidently asserted that Millard did serve in Iraq previously. If he was so confident that Millard didn't serve in Iraq then, and was wrong, what is to stop him from being similarly wrong now, when he confidently asserts that Millard wasn't in Iraq? Someone who has a history of making unfounded claims on the fly is not someone whose claims we can automatically trust.
Third, the document could easily have been modified by people hostile to Millard. It's really *not that hard* to open Adobe Photoshop, make some changes to a document, and press save. In fact, I could do it myself.
Now, you say that "if someone tells me that 1 + 1 = 2, I'm not going to dismiss that conclusion because the person that said this contradicted himself elsewhere."
That is a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying. If someone who has made incorrect statements one day said 1+1=2, I would always believe him, simply because I know it to be certainly true that 1+1=2. It follows from the very nature of the concepts. In fact, I wouldn't even *need* to believe him, because the claim is self-evidently true.
By contrast, the claim "Millard did not serve in Iraq because I have an electronic document proving he did not do so" is not self-evidently true, and is of a purely different manner (what logicians call an inductive claim). That claim about Millard's service does not follow deductively from the nature of any of the concepts, "Millard," "electronic document," etc.
The blog author's claim is therefore merely *possible*, granted that we make a number of huge assumptions (noted above). Rather than trying to systematically deceive people as PSYOP trains soldiers to do, what I'm doing is questioning the problematic assumptions on which the blog author relied in the search for truth.
Whereas the goal of PSYOP, like that of everyone serving the US military, is to exercise physical and psychological violence over others in the quest to assert military dominance, my goal is simply to arrive at the truth about things to the best of my ability. There is a fundamental difference between the two pursuits.
"Those who return to speak this truth, like Goodell or Millard, are our contemporary prophets. They struggle, in a culture awash in lies, to tell what few have the fortitude to digest. The words these prophets speak are painful."
Prophets? They have been to the mountain and they have seen and they return to tell you that the only way you can know what they know is to go there too, and thus they are the most responsible for perpetuating it all over and over again. War stories about war stories just lead to more war stories. You need to learn the real lesson of it all and write stories that glorify those who resisted the temptation to kill (or report on those who kill)for glory.
You're dead wrong when it comes to what constitutes PSYOP. My primary MOS is 37F, aka PSYOP, aka MISO. Your definition, and assumption, of what constitutes PSYOP doesn't come anywhere near what we do as PSYOP.
When we use PSYOP, we use verifiable facts. We do this for credibility purposes.
The goal of PSYOP is to convince a group of people to take a different course of action. That's done through persuasion. A part of that is using facts, as that's part of credibility, which is needed to convince a group of people to take a course of action.
The post that I responded to, and the post that I'm responding to now, constitute propaganda. It uses red herrings, straw man, and outright twisting of data around to try to paint a picture that's not true... a picture that you hope people would walk away believing.
There's absolutely no basis in any of your arguments here. I'll demonstrate that with the remainder of your comment.
Joseph: I'm suggesting that there are a thousand reasons why we shouldn't simply assume that the electronic document in question request as accurate.
Now you're expecting me to accept "possibilities" and "reasons/excuses," when we have fact and first-hand military experience as a guide.
That's not how I do business. A person could listen to Millard's so called "war stories," and claims, and know that he didn't deploy to Iraq. None of what he talks about matches similar experiences that many of us who've deployed to Iraq have experienced.
So, it doesn't come as a surprise when we come across a military record document that shows that a faker doesn't have the experience he expects other people to believe he has.
It also speaks volumes when Millard's photos, with the medals he's sporting, show a different number of medals than what Millard's altered DD214 shows.
You don't have a leg to stand on when dismissing valid documents, because it doesn't support your arguments, when you embrace other electronic data that supports your opinion.
Joseph: First, bureaucratic mistakes could have caused it;
Two could play at that game.
*The Martians could've zapped some changes into the document from the NPRC to POW Network/Thisainthell...
* KND, "Kids Next Door," edited the documents to prevent us from seeing Millard's "true" service...
* The editing gnomes came in, erased data from his record, and presto, we have what we see.
* The wicked witch sent her flying monkeys out to change any document "backing" Millard's screed...
The list goes on. Hate to break this to you, but many of us deal with facts, not "what ifs."
Joseph: numerous comments on the blog post in question were by other soldiers who had similar mistakes committed by the military bureaucracy.
First, those are other Soldiers, not Millard.
Second, for a "mistake," it's pretty consistent throughout all his documents. His list of awards doesn't list a campaign medal, or an ARCOM. This is matched by another record that shows that he never left the United States throughout his time in the National Guard.
Third, this is also matched the the inconsistencies between his "war" stories and what actually happens down range.
Joseph: Second, the very blog author who is so confident that Millard never served in Iraq himself confidently asserted that Millard did serve in Iraq previously. If he was so confident that Millard didn't serve in Iraq then, and was wrong, what is to stop him from being similarly wrong now, when he confidently asserts that Millard wasn't in Iraq?
First, let me show you how ridiculous that argument is. When I was in kindergarten, I used to believe that Santa Clause existed. Not long after that, I stopped believing in him. What's to stop me from being "wrong" now, in my belief that Santa Clause doesn't exist, as I was wrong back then, when I believed that he existed?
You see, something happened, between the time he said that Millard "served," and the time that he now says Millard didn't serve.
Humanity used to believe that the sun orbited the Earth... until something happened to cause them to believe that the Earth went around the sun.
Facts and experience will do that to you.
Joseph: Someone who has a history of making unfounded claims on the fly is not someone whose claims we can automatically trust.
I've followed thisainthell and POW network as they've busted one phony after another. Both websites have been meticulous about obtaining the facts, and about arguing from the facts.
With Millard, they've busted another phony. His records don't show that he left the United States. His stories show that he doesn't know what life is like during a combat deployment.
Joseph: Third, the document could easily have been modified by people hostile to Millard. It's really *not that hard* to open Adobe Photoshop, make some changes to a document, and press save. In fact, I could do it myself.
And the document could've easily been conjured by Aquaman in his attempt to call the sea life in his old age...
You're making assumptions and guesses here. The military would have no interest in doctoring Millard's records, and neither would POW Network and thisainthell. The latter two have plenty of fakers to bust and wouldn't have time, or need, to fake documents.
Could documents be faked? Well, look at Millard's DD214, the one that he's showing around, where he forgot to type in his alleged overseas time.
Joseph: That is a complete misunderstanding of what I'm saying.
It captures what you're trying to do. You're busy tap dancing around what "could've happened" with the records, instead of addressing reality... the fact that those records are the real deal, and that Millard isn't what he's attempting to make people believe him to be.
Joseph: If someone who has made incorrect statements one day said 1+1=2, I would always believe him, simply because I know it to be certainly true that 1+1=2. It follows from the very nature of the concepts. In fact, I wouldn't even *need* to believe him, because the claim is self-evidently true.
Which is precisely the case with the records that I linked to in my above post. Most the people that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan would be able to compare Millard's stories with those documents, and see a consistency.
First hand experience downrange makes those documents a "closed case, Millard is a fraud" situation.
Joseph: By contrast, the claim "Millard did not serve in Iraq because I have an electronic document proving he did not do so" is not self-evidently true, and is of a purely different manner (what logicians call an inductive claim).
Wrong on all counts.
First, those electronic documents are based on actual hard copy documents. These are documents that NPRC has on people who are no longer in the military.
Second, Millard's "war stories," isn't consistent with what we've experienced downrange.
Third, saying that Millard didn't serve in Iraq, based on his records, and based on the holes in his war stories, is simply calling a red fire hydrant a red fire hydrant.
There's nothing inductive about the process.
Joseph: That claim about Millard's service does not follow deductively from the nature of any of the concepts, "Millard," "electronic document," etc.
No, the factual statements about Millard's service are based on Millard's actual service. You don't have conclusive proof backing your claims that the documents were "doctored," yet here you are making an inductive claim after erroneously accusing me of making such claims.
I'm sorry, but when I read Millard's comments, then compare it to my own, I have doubts about his claims about serving in Iraq. His records substantiate my argument.
Joseph: The blog author's claim is therefore merely *possible*, granted that we make a number of huge assumptions (noted above).
Actually, POW Network's and thisainthell's statements of Millard being a phony Iraq War Veteran are actual. His records don't substantiate his claims of being an Iraq War Veteran. His stories definitely point him out as someone that has never served in Iraq.
Hate to break this to you, but when it comes to combat deployments, you can't fake first hand experience.
Your tap dancing around reality doesn't make it something other than the facts.
Joseph: Rather than trying to systematically deceive people as PSYOP trains soldiers to do,
I'm a PSYOP trained Soldier, we don't engage in deception, unless we're engaged in a fire fight, and we want to deceive the enemy about our actual movements, and that of the unit that we're supporting.
But when we're doing PSYOP rather than tactical movements, we don't make things up or engage in deception.
Also, if you understood anything about PSYOP, then you'd know that we can't engage in PSYOP on American soil.
Joseph: what I'm doing is questioning the problematic assumptions on which the blog author relied in the search for truth.
No, what you're doing is trying to create an army of straw-men in an attempt to deceive people about the thisainthell blog, its authors, and the veterans that comment on that blog.
Thisainthell isn't working in the dark on this one. There are a lot of people that go behind the attention being brought to bear on a faker.
Jospeh: Whereas the goal of PSYOP, like that of everyone serving the US military, is to exercise physical and psychological violence over others in the quest to assert military dominance,
Wrong. PSYOP is a "soft kill," force multiplier. By "soft kill," I'm talking about non violent. There's nothing violent about handing a soccer ball, saying, "Gift from the U.S." to a bunch of kids. There's nothing harmful about handing a flier out to a group of key leaders. There's nothing harmful about engaging in face to face interaction with key leaders and key players. There's nothing harmful about giving out free pens and notebooks to kids in grammar school...
PSYOP is simply convincing/persuading people to take a course of action that helps our objectives. For example, if a group of people are using our main supply routes, we'd pass out fliers, post posters, set up billboards, etc, to try to get people to use the other routes.
What you talk about, and what we actually do, are two different things. But again, what do you expect when when someone claiming to know what PSYOP is makes inductive claims about PSYOP?
Joseph: my goal is simply to arrive at the truth about things to the best of my ability. There is a fundamental difference between the two pursuits.
No, you're not trying to arrive at the truth. You're trying to set up smoke screens and to create strawman arguments against the valid claim that Millard never combat deployed to Iraq.
Your entire reasoning in your post reeks of someone engaging in propaganda.
Oh yeah, one of our duties, as 37F, is counter propaganda. I know propaganda when I see one. The above article, your comments above, as well as others like them IS propaganda.
Sorry, but your reasoning and argument don't convince me. I follow the facts, not "what if" arguments.
Joe
37F
11B
The second Iraq war in 2003 was, as everyone knows, a total terrible mistake. The NATO invasion of Afghanistan, with the aid of friendly nations that have a backbone, like New Zealand, Australia and Jordan, was absolutely legal and necessary. If you don't agree, then what is your viable solution to the al Qaeda problem? A solution that was good in 2001, today and in the future. Do you think you are smarter than most of the PMs and MPs of the well informed NATO countries?
"No, what you're doing is trying to create an army of straw-men in an attempt to deceive people about the thisainthell blog, its authors, and the veterans that comment on that blog."
There's no straw men here. You and other soldiers are trained in the techniques of psychological deception. Hence, it's plausible that you may be using those same techniques here.
A straw man is a logical fallacy wherein someone attacks an argument that the target does not actually endorse. So you may want to read more about logic before accusing of me a fallacy which I haven't committed.
"There's nothing harmful about giving out free pens and notebooks to kids in grammar school...
PSYOP is simply convincing/persuading people to take a course of action that helps our objectives. For example, if a group of people are using our main supply routes, we'd pass out fliers, post posters, set up billboards, etc, to try to get people to use the other routes."
If only PSYOP were so benign. In fact, PSYOP operations have routinely been used by the US military to overthrow leaders (including democratically elected ones). It rests fundamentally on deception, not on "giving out candy and notebooks," though the latter may also be part of it.
Here is just one example of the psychological violence that PSYOP entails, this one from the CIA:
"On a scarier note, an internal CIA memorandum has been obtained by Venezuelan counterintelligence from the US Embassy in Caracas that reveals a very sinister - almost fantastical, were it not true - plan to destabilize Venezuela during the coming days. The plan, titled "OPERATION PLIERS" was authored by CIA Officer Michael Middleton Steere and was addressed to CIA Director General Michael Hayden in Washington. Steere is stationed at the US Embassy in Caracas under the guise of a Regional Affairs Officer. ...
CIA Officer Michael Steere recommends to General Michael Hayden two different strategies to work simultaneously: Impede the referendum and refuse to recognize the results once the SI vote wins. Though these strategies appear contradictory, Steere claims that they must be implemented together precisely to encourage activities that aim toward impeding the referendum and at the same time prepare the conditions for a rejection of the results.
How is this to be done?
In the memo, the CIA proposes the following tactics and actions:
Take the streets and protest with violent, disruptive actions across the nation
Generate a climate of ungovernability
Provoke a general uprising in a substantial part of the population
Engage in a "plan to implode" the voting centers on election day by encouraging opposition voters to "VOTE and REMAIN" in their centers to agitate others
Start to release data during the early hours of the afternoon on Sunday that favor the NO vote (in clear violation of election regulations)
Coordinate these activities with Ravell & Globovision and international press agencies
Coordinate with ex-militar officers and coupsters Pena Esclusa and Guyon Cellis - this will be done by the Military Attache for Defense and Army at the US Embassy in Caracas, Office of Defense, Attack and Operations (DAO)
To encourage rejection of the results, the CIA proposes:
Creating an acceptance in the public opinion that the NO vote will win for sure
Using polling companies contracted by the CIA
Criticize and discredit the National Elections Council
Generate a sensation of fraud
Use a team of experts from the universities that will talk about how the data from the Electoral Registry has been manipulated and will build distrust in the voting system."
PSYOP here is being used to interfere with the democratically elected leaders of another country. That is deception and psychological violence, pure and simple.
Anyway, this marks the end of my comments on PSYOP, as it's really a distraction from the main points of Chris' article.
So basically, anyone who is critical of the fact that the poor predominantly fight America's wars, or of American militarism, is engaging in propaganda! This is despite the fact that the central claim of Chris' article - that it's overwhelmingly the poor that fight America's wars - is well-established. (The Casualty Trap, a book published by Oxford University Press and which draws extensively on records from the National Archives, is also a work of propaganda. I suppose Oxford University Press and the National Archives are hot-beds of propaganda as well!)
Joe, it's as if you're living in 1950's McCarthyite America. Back then, dissenters were labelled "Communists." Today, you label anyone who is critical of US militarism a propagandist. This is exactly what I mean by the exercise of psychological violence and the abandonment of the quest for truth that Chris and other critical thinkers are engaged in.
Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.
it is important to make clear, War has been, for the most part the purview of the progressives, the Democratic party. Even the Republican McKinley was politically forced into the Spanish American War by the Democratic uproar over the "sinking" of the Maine and the jingoist press was controlled by yellow journalist democrats. ( this was the beginning of the end for America, as it ignited the fuse towards the destructive bomb we have become as the Fascist Empire of the United States). Wilson maneuvered the US into the 1st WW, with cataclysmic historical results--even though a month or so prior to doing so he was elected for his second term under the slogan "He kept us out". FDR not only put American into the War, but deliberately sacrificed our men and ships at Pearl Harbor to become the rallying cry for our entry into the war--the goal being primarily the European Theater to save England. JFK and LBJ are standouts, though LBJ takes the booby prize for the carnage of Vietnam. And though Obama followed the exact plan of escape from Iraq laid out by his predecessor and now claims it as his own ( but does not claim the economy he also inherited, it was indeed the neo-con Bush admin that got us into the current War on Terror--but Clinton also helped lay the ground work for this as well. If FDR was willing to sacrifice American lives and the bulk of the American Pacific Fleet in the pursuit of his Anglophile elitist administrations desires ( 88% of the American people jointly months before Dec. 7th were opposed at all costs to entering the War) and LBJ used the false flags of the Gulf of Tonkein to escalate American engagement in South East Asia, those who hold with certainty that the US elite/military/industrial/Corporate enterprise of America would not risk the lives of the twin towers on September 11th, 2001 are totally immersed in the propaganda of the "Myth of American Exceptionalism". Best remain "agnostic" on this one.
The facts are war is a mechanism of the State--a powerful tool to continue to encroach on your freedoms in the name of nationalistic jingoism. Yet, it is the state that folks like Chris Hedges wants to expand, granted under the guiding hand of the liberal, progressive elite. But they are the ones that seem to have directly or indirectly precipitated the deaths of well over 150 million human lives in the past 110 years. The State wears many masks in America, some call it Dem crate, some call it Republican--but the State, the Leviathan will continue to kill--and Obama and all of his toadies are no different.
You're advancing strawmen, you don't see your argument that way, as it gets into the way of your assumptions that you're advancing a "logical" argument.
Joseph: You and other soldiers are trained in the techniques of psychological deception. Hence, it's plausible that you may be using those same techniques here.
This is an example of you doing what you accused me of doing, using an inductive claim. It's also painfully obvious that you've never been through Basic Combat Training (BCT). Soldiers going through BCT learn basic soldiering skills, like tactical movement, operating in a chemical warfare environment, conducting first aid, marksmanship, etc.
They don't sit around learning how to do psychological deception. They don't sit around learning how to "BS" people, or to zero in on people that they disagree with just to do a smear campaign on them.
Combat Arms, and 37F, would learn battle field deception techniques in order to get the enemy to respond a desirable way for the friendly elements. That doesn't extend to posting on message boards.
What I'm doing is showing you the truth; you're rejecting that truth, because it goes against what you wished were the case.
Joseph: A straw man is a logical fallacy wherein someone attacks an argument that the target does not actually endorse.
Which is precisely what you're doing. I advance the above links proving that Millard never combat deployed, and that he never left the United States under military orders. You respond by arguing about "possibilities" about the documents being "doctored."
Here, we have two different arguments.
Let "X" be documentation proving that Millard never combat deployed/left the US on military orders.
Let "Y" be whether the documentation was doctored or not, based on the ability of people to doctor electronic documents.
Here's how a strawman argument goes:
Person "A" advances "X."
Person "B" advances "Y," a distorted version of "X."
Person "B" concludes that "Y" may be wrong, because people could mess stuff, thus is wrong.
Person "B" further concludes that "X" is wrong.
This is precisely what you did. You didn't advance hard core proof that the documents that I linked to were "wrong" or "doctored." All you did was advance an argument against something I wasn't arguing.
Whether you liked it or not, you advanced a strawman argument.
Joseph: So you may want to read more about logic before accusing of me a fallacy which I haven't committed.
You need to know what logic is and you need to practice logic, before telling someone that advances a logical argument against you to read about logic. Your argument is littered with inductive and other fallacies, and substantive inaccuracies, and contradicts your insinuation that you have a grasp of "logic."
I've got news for you. Your assumptions don't constitute logic, and they don't constitute the truth.
Joseph: If only PSYOP were so benign. In fact, PSYOP operations have routinely been used by the US military to overthrow leaders (including democratically elected ones). It rests fundamentally on deception, not on "giving out candy and notebooks," though the latter may also be part of it.
WRONG. Before you let the public know how clueless you are about PSYOP, download and read the PSYOP FMs: FM 3-05.301 and FM 3-05.302.
Nowhere in those manuals, or in our schools, do they teach you how to do operations designed to overthrow governments.
PSYOP's aim is to convince a group of people to take a course of action that favors our accomplishing our missions. For example, handing out soccer balls to kids, free notebook supplies to schools, or fliers directing poor people to free medical care, etc., would aid in the Psychological/PSYOP Objective of reducing insurgent activity in an area.
People cooperate, or don't cooperate, with the coalition forces for multiple reasons. It's part of PSYOP's job to go and do face to face interactions with people to indirectly find out why they don't do certain things, so that they could suggest to their Civil Affairs counterparts what actions they could take to cause people to turn around and carry out an activity that PSYOP hopes they'd take.
It depends on using facts to persuade people to take the best course of action that facilitates our carrying out our objectives; NOT on deception.
Information campaigns against standing governments fall outside of the military's jurisdiction. That's the job for the United States' Government, the job of agencies that fall above the military.
You argue about logic, yet here you are refusing to accept PSYOP facts from someone that actually holds the 37F MOS... as opposed to your not having a clue about what PSYOP is, and what it entails.
Joseph: Here is just one example of the psychological violence that PSYOP entails, this one from the CIA: *(SNIP)* PSYOP here is being used to interfere with the democratically elected leaders of another country. That is deception and psychological violence, pure and simple.
WRONG again. The examples that you brought up, if true, constitutes PSYACT, or Psychological Activity, in the hands of an agency outside of the United States Military, the CIA. Sorry, we're not trained to do the CIA's job.
You're talking about the CIA, not the Army's 37F community. Yet here you are denying your use of strawman arguments. However; I do thank you for quoting material that actually proves your argument, "that the military engages in PSYOP to overthrow governments," WRONG.
Joseph: Anyway, this marks the end of my comments on PSYOP, as it's really a distraction from the main points of Chris' article.
Actually, this should mark the end of your comments on PSYOP, as you don't know what PSYOP actually entails. I highly recommend studying the documents in those links, multiple times, before coming back to comment on what PSYOP entails.
First, I've got two decades of military service under my belt. I've interacted with other service members, in different units, throughout those two decades. What I've observed sharply contradicts what the above article, and those that defend it, argue. That article, and the comments that support it, argue something that's not the fact, as if they think that it's the fact.
The book that you referenced cherry picked data and perpetrated a myth that you and others believe. That doesn't give it credibility in the eyes of a critical thinker.
Second, here's source with validity when it comes to who serves in the United States Military:
http://www.defense.gov/news/Dec2005/d20051213mythfact.pdf
From the source:
Myth: The Military attracts disproportionately from poor or underprivileged youth.
Fact: Military recruits mirror the US population and are solidly middle class.
A recent report shows that more recruits come from middle income families, with far fewer drawn from poorer families (Figure 2). Youth from upper income families are represented at almost exactly their fair share.
That's a fact that I observed during two decades of military service.
Not the Truth: Joe, it's as if you're living in 1950's McCarthyite America. Back then, dissenters were labelled "Communists."
Not only does it painfully show that you don't understand what PSYOP is, it painfully shows that you don't have much of an understanding of US history.
McCarthy accurately pointed out the fact that there were communists in positions of power and influence in the US.
During the time that McCarthy accurately pointed out that there were communists in positions of power and influence, the United States and UK governments were conducting an operation against those communists. They weren't doing it because of McCarthy, but because they knew, like McCarthy, that there were communists in positions of power and influence.
One of the VENONA Project's aim was to monitor Soviet intelligence activities against the western powers. The Soviet Union knew that it wasn't going to be able to take the west on militarily. So they resorted to recruiting and/or inserting people into key positions in the US to help shape policy favorable to the Soviet Union and unfavorable to the United States.
Part of the Soviet's aim to accomplish this was to influence our media, movie making industry, and politics.
The people that claim that McCarthy was wrong are clueless about our history.
Not the Truth: Today, you label anyone who is critical of US militarism a propagandist.
What I said:
"I know propaganda when I see one. The above article, your comments above, as well as others like them IS propaganda." -- Joe
For years, I've debated against people that have argued your same arguments. Not a single person, who argued against the Iraq War, or against the larger war on terror, understood what they were opposing. They argued from pure emotion, and inductive fallacy. They argued things about the military, proving that they had little to no understanding about how we think in the military.
Joseph, if you're going to have issues with my labeling you as engaging in propaganda, you need to quit erroneously labeling those, who disagree with you, the above article, and against the people that steal valor, as engaging in propaganda. If you can't take it, don't dish it.
Not the Truth: This is exactly what I mean by the exercise of psychological violence
OK Joseph, where's the owie? Where are the bruises on you that my comments on this thread caused? What did I say that caused you injury? Did any of my comments result in you having to be brought to the ER? Am I going to be getting an arrest warrant for aggravated physical assault because of something that I said here?
Here, answer this question:
Joe's comments on this thread caused me to suffer physical pain: YES [ ] NO [ ]
Copy and paste this to your reply, to include the "X" in the "Yes" or "No" option. I just want you to place an "X" in the appropriate box, as well as include the entire question and answer options; there's no need for you to give an additional explanation.
Not the Truth: and the abandonment of the quest for truth that Chris and other critical thinkers are engaged in.
Calling something propaganda, because it contradicts with what you know is the truth, doesn't constitute an abandonment of the quest for the truth. Accepting the article's thesis represents an abandonment of the truth in favor of embracing an opinion that re-enforces the opinions of those that agree with the article.
Neither the above article, or the posts on this thread supporting that article, demonstrate critical thinking. I exercised critical thinking by linking to a valid reference on the demographics of those that are in the military. I continued to exercise critical thinking by relating that to my actual experience, which spans two decades of military service.
Neither that link, nor my experience, matches what the above article talks about. If you're interested in the truth, you'll embrace what those of us, with experience and access to the facts, would say.
On a side note, here's what veterans think of both, the article and the valor thief that I talked about:
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=30798#comments
an attack troop transport was turned into a hospitol ship and collection place for the dead.my father at 18 had to help medics id the dead .he idientified whole and unwhole bodys and put them in canvas bags for burial.he slept next to them on deck for days.many with no heads arms legs.some cut in half.he was haunted by this the rest of his life.he use to tell me i could not do anything for them.this is war and people should see it
Glad you showed your bias from the get go, saved me a lot of reading.
You've gotta be shitting me. I doubt you know anything about the military in general, let alone something as complex as why we serve.
Why don't you just go ahead and shut your cockholster before you make yourself look like more of an idiot.
It seems to me like the real idiot is the person who can do nothing more than launch personal attacks on journalists ("biased," "idiot"). Idiots are capable of nothing more than using derogatory names and engaging in attacks on character; truly intelligent people, like Chris, make claims that are supported by the available evidence.
"War and conflict have marked most of my adult life. I have been in ambushes on desolate stretches of Central American roads, locked in unnerving firefights in the marshes in southern Iraq, imprisoned in the Sudan, beaten by Saudi military police, deported from Libya and Iran, captured and held for a week by Iraqi Republican Guards, strafed by Russian Mig-21s in central Bosnia, shot at by Serb snipers and shelled with deafening rounds of artillery in Sarajevo that threw out thousands of deadly bits of iron fragments. I have seen too much of violent death. I have tasted too much of my own fear. I have painful memories that lie buried most of the time. It is never easy when they surface."
Hedges is the real deal -- he's got the first hand experience of the reality of war as one of the best in the business. So it's laughable to read comments from people who don't bother researching who they are criticizing which say (paraphrasing) "this guy doesn't know what he's talkin' about!"
You aren't going to see Bill Gates son joining the armed forces making $50k a year and putting his life in danger in Iraq or Afghanistan when he can make hundreds of thousands of dollars working in private industry. Same goes for anyone of similar wealthy background -- if you can go get an engineering degree and come out of college making $60-$70k, why would you go risk your life in Iraq and have to give 5 or 10 years for a pointless cause (because they never let you leave once you join -- they abuse people's contracts by repeatedly calling them back)?
But it's more complicated than that. We've seen a revolution in the way America fights wars over the last decade. Given that we fight only wars of our choosing (none of the wars we are currently engaged in are necessary for our survival -- they are simply imperialist exercises of power projection overseas), politicians have become increasingly weary of sending out regular soldiers to die for no real reason. (Why are we in Afghanistan? Has Obama ever given a legitimate reason? To stop the terrorists? How will that stop them when they can orchestrate their little suicide attacks from any country in the world, including the US?).
So instead of regular soldiers, they've turned to hiring mercenaries to do a lot of the fighting. So companies like Blackwater, which changed it's named to XE, and then to something else, pay citizens $150k a year to go to Iraq and provide guard duty -- something that used to be done by a regular soldier. Yet when that person gets killed, it rarely shows up in the papers and isn't listed in the "American soldiers killed" count -- because technically that isn't a soldier. It's a hired gun. But that's how the armed forces is moving -- more to the mercenaries and less to the regular citizen soldier.
It gets even more complicated with the addition of drones. Now war is so easy that people join to become video game killers. They get to sit in cozy work stations and blow up women and children thousands of miles away and make it back home in time for supper at 5. Those jobs pay well, and I can see people of decent backgrounds taking them because they require technical skill to do. Thus the government has to pay these people more to attract them to the job...
But Hedges point is still basically correct as to who joins the regular military - the people on the front lines risking their lives for minimal pay (by comparison to the private sector) are people who have less opportunity and prospects than others. I know three or four people who enlisted out of high school, and they fit that description perfectly. They weren't very good at school, college didn't really look promising for them because they weren't prepared, but they didn't want to work at McDonalds as a career. So they went into the military.
And based on reading their Facebook status updates and talking with them, they hated their time spent overseas in Afghanistan (of those that went there). They immediately understood the lies of the war. Why they say we are there isn't why we are there. It makes no logical sense. Yet they are asked to risk their lives and live in oppressive conditions -- for what? What gain? It's just wasting money and lives. And they were ready to get the F out of there and were so happy when their duty was up.
Second, these mercenaries are not bound by the rules of war to which normal soldiers are subject, so it's very difficult to prosecute them for the atrocities they commit.
Also, they're convenient for the warmongers to use in Iraq/Afghanistan and other countries, since they can claim that they've withdrawn all "troops" and that only "private contractors" (read: mercenaries) remain in the occupied countries. That's a big PR win for those politicians addicted to war.
http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=5858
Sad to say, as long as there are so many people with whom you can't even have a reasoned discussion (as they resort to threats or verbal/physical attacks rather than engage the author's arguments), a lie can live a very long time.
Wow! Nearly half! So, what you're saying is that more than half are coming from upper-middle class to wealthy, disproving Hedges entry argument, QED.
I doubt that earth or humans have ever had peace.
The future will allow soldiers to be home for dinner after killing with drones all day.
We cannot protest or voice any opposition anymore. The cops are not the good guys anymore and must be feared.
Let them speak now and you will see it. I've seen the veterans in my courses, and I give them something I rarely give humans: pity.
Thank you Chris Hedges!
Illuminating. The kind of article that lingers on, like a song you can't get out of you head.
Not only are these policies counterproductive in terms of resulting in so-called "blowback" in the countries targeted, but they're also resulting in the destruction of Americans' civil liberties and a situation where Americans can't afford to fund their deteriorating cities and public services. A permanent war on terrorism (al Qaeda or anyone else) is COMPLETE idiocy, regardless of whether NATO elites support it or not.
Instead of simply occupying and bombing everyone in the Middle East, a wiser policy would reflect on why al Qaeda came about in the first place, and tackle the root causes. For one thing, it would entail ending the state of global empire and ending support for dictators / autocrats in the Middle East.
And by the way, to say that "NATO countries" support this war on terrorism is also inaccurate. Although the political elites who direct NATO forces support these policies, many Europeans do not agree with these policies. So don't make the mistake of thinking that NATO elites represent "NATO countries."
2 percent of the US population are teachers. They serve too.
You wrote: [..a wiser policy would reflect on why al Qaeda came about in the first place, and tackle the root causes. For one thing, it would entail ending the state of global empire and ending support for dictators / autocrats in the Middle East.]
Mike...you don't know why al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1995. You, like so many others, don't know the facts. Let me suggest that you search the info and then you may understand that your dream solution to this problem is worthless. You mention:[..ending the state of global empire]
This is another popular fiction. Can you name the countries in the American Empire the way I can name the countries in the British Empire and the Russian Empire? Can't do it Mike?
The US does have a history of military adventures that were illegal, like the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the Vietnam War. But in the past decades most of our military work has been legal, by international and UN standards, and we have been very successful in a number of just wars. A lot of good men and women gave their lives for a better world by fighting vicious dictatorships and the terrorist al Qaeda fanatics. I'm proud of them and bow my head in respectful remembrance of their ultimate sacrifice.
The article's name is, "War is betrayal." That is worthless misinformation. The magazine knows the facts, but they have an agenda that the true facts obstruct.
There are other irritating fictions:
{Any story of war is a story of elites preying on the weak, the gullible, the marginal, the poor.}
Nonsense!!! The Korean War? The insane North Koreans invaded South Korea where there were thousands of US troops, but not enough to stop the crazies from driving the US and South Korean troops to a small area at the bottom of the country. The UN condemned the invasion and a UN army, made-up of troops from dozens of UN member countries and the USA, pushed the Fascist Commies back to the North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War
The Iraq invasion in 1991 to drive them out of Kuwait? Totally approved of by the UN and the rest of the sane world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
The First and Second World Wars? Please ignore this Boston Review and google up the true facts.
The invasion of Afghanistan to eliminate al Qaeda? Do you have a better solution? The UN again approves of the military action by NATO!
{‘It’s not about defending the country or serving our people. It’s about working for some rich guy who has his interests.’}
Rubbish!!!
This Al Qaeda problem will just go away if we stop attacking them. We don't really have a right to defend ourselves against terrorists that have killed more than 4,000 Americans, at home and in Afghanistan, Tanzania, Kenya and Yemen.
This garbage magazine article is not funny! May Chris Hedges drop dead, yesterday.
According to the Department of Defense, the US has over 750 military bases located abroad. And that's considered a conservative estimate by many analysts. The US is constantly at war throughout everyone in the world, overthrowing democratically elected leaders through coups (as in Chile, Iran, recently Honduras, and many other places). If 750+ bases and a history of constantly fighting wars and interfering in other countries' affairs is not empire, then I don't know what is!
".. we have been very successful in a number of just wars. A lot of good men and women gave their lives for a better world by fighting vicious dictatorships and the terrorist al Qaeda fanatics."
This is absurd. In Iraq, we replaced a secular ruler (Saddam Hussein) with a Shia dictatorship allied with our enemy (Iran). Violent terrorist attacks regularly affect Iraq, with 91 people killed yesterday there. Terrorist attacks were pretty much nonexistent in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. I'm not saying that Iraq is now worse than it was under Saddam, but to say that we were "very successful" is to completely overlook the facts.
Or take Afghanistan. In Afghanistan the puppet Karzai government we support is totally corrupt, with even Karzai's brother deeply involved in the drug trade and a government that controls only Kabul and small urban centers, with much of the rest of the country under Taliban control. Whereas the Taliban prevented poppy growing for the most part and stopped the heroin trade, today heroin production in Afghanistan is at record levels.
The very same militarized policies that created al Qaeda are now creating huge problems for the US. We supported the fighters who would later become al Qaeda with military training and financial support from the CIA, as they were used to fight against the Soviets. Now we're fighting against the very same people, and we're planning to leave the country in 2 years without having achieved barely anything (other than controlling small urban areas and installing militarized bases and embasses).
Now, if this is "success," I'd be very interested to know what failure would look like!
"The article's name is, "War is betrayal." That is worthless misinformation. The magazine knows the facts, but they have an agenda that the true facts obstruct."
As I've pointed out to numerous other people here, John, the fact that it's predominantly the poor who fight America's wars today is well-established. For evidence of this claim, read The Casualty Gap, published by Oxford University Press, which relies on data from the National Archives. Do you really think that Oxford University Press and the National Archives (which is a branch of the US government) are also giving us inaccurate facts? Do they also have an "agenda"?
We are not "defending ourselves." Our drone strikes regularly kill civilians and people who have nothing to do with terrorism. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, "up to 3,180 people have been killed by US unmanned aircraft, or 'drones', in Pakistan since 2004 - with the numbers rapidly escalating under President Obama. As many as 1,007 victims have been wholly innocent, including 175 children. In Yemen, approximately forty drone strikes during the past decade have killed up to 138 civilians. Strikes in Somalia - commenced in 2007 - have reportedly taken up to 169 innocent lives so far."
Now, if you're saying that by killing innocent people America is "defending itself," this is either pure propaganda or complete callousness and disrespect for the lives of innocent people. If the empire you defend requires you to kill innocent indigenous people in tribal lands, then you'd do well to reflect on whether that empire is really worth fighting for. Personally, I'd never defend the killing of innocent civilians and would never justify it as an act of self-defense.
Aside from that misrepresentation, Chris' more general claim that it's overwhelmingly people from poorer and less-educated communities who serve in America's wars is well-established by empirical data. It's simply stupid to rely on a single person's anecdotal data about how his fellow soldiers were educated. Instead, relying on more solid data, we learn from The Casualty Gap (Oxford University Press) that "the most important cost of American military campaigns--the loss of human life--has been paid disproportionately by poorer and less-educated communities since the 1950." Any intelligent person would rely on a survey of over 400,000 American soldiers, drawn from official government sources, over a single soldier's anecdotal stories.
Links are here:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175338/
http://reprieve.org.uk/investigations/drones/
According to the UN rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, these drone strikes threaten 50 years of international law, and may encourage other states to flout international law. These drone strikes you're defending are the height are totally illegal and immoral. Link here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/21/drone-strikes-international-law-un
Mr Hedges would better serve humanity by recounting the sins of the left that has lead to the world we live in: reckless attacks on institutions that are the glue of a country, society & culture, its propensity to spirial towards chaos, its inability to sustain governance, and its current inability to compromise (it will do so as long as it is towards its ill-conceived and destructive goals
Many soldiers from broken homes go into the service to become part of something bigger than themselves, something that is lacking in civil society. It may be that they're not suited for the corporate lifestyle that permeates and sustains our country. Indeed, one soldier's choice was McDonalds or selling drugs in poor neighborhoods. But for many, the motivation is to kill or to blow stuff up. When my father died, the grandson of our next door neighbor returned as a demolitions expert and point blank told me that he loved blowing stuff up. His grandmother and I spent much time and effort to find a place for him, to bring him back into society. He is in Korea and still in the Army, but married with a family. He is finally connected to society in a good way.
Mr Hedges writing would be better served if he re-examined so-called progressivism and how it has been perverted (it was a Republican thing at the turn of the 20th century), how it is motivated by fear which causes binary thinking, hence doesn't allow it to see other viable solutions to today's problems.
Let's stop arguing semantics and talking about statistics that don't tell the whole story, instead we need to begin to process an understanding that war is for profit and greed, nothing else. We, the taxpayers and our children who idealistically sign up to "defend" our country, are the victims. We need to work together to shift this paradigm.
"O yet a nobler task awaits thy hand
for what can war but endless war still breed
till truth and right from violence be freed
And publick faith clear'd from the shameful brand of publick fraud."
And from Dante and the Divine Comedy:
"For as I turned there greeted mine likewise
What all behold who contemplate aright
that's heavens revolution through the skies."
And it's already betting started!
http://www.energon.org.uk