Something I posted on ROKDrop, a blog worth reading and a perspective worth knowing about. We disagree from time to time on some things, most recently on his recent piece on a New York Times piece I read last night, was very saddened by, but quite appreciated. Whether or not they got some things wrong, I don't think such journalism is "anti-troops."
My comment on the ROKDrop post in question:
Sure. Being Af-Am isn't actually a reasonable "cause" for troubles back home, and the rates of bad things happening amongst people with PTSD seems to be higher, and the incidents caused by the violence and stress of being in action.
And to be fair, the NYT reporters were very clear from the jump about the context they wanted to be taken in, the fact that their research for the story was not scientific nor exhaustive, as well as the fact that they went to great lengths to interview talking heads who point out that PTSD is one of many factors that lead to problems back home, but to say PTSD is not worth looking at unto itself is a problem, especially given the stigma that exists about the subject even (and especially) within the military itself.
One might disagree with aspects of their take on the story, but that article struck me as honest – certainly not "anti-troops."
And major newspapers (The Washington Post is a recent example, in their series on black men) and the print publishing media has done a great deal of good, responsible work on the problems endemic to certain parts of the black community (black men in particular), and dealt with the problem of violence and drugs in particular.
I don't and didn't have a problem with that being pointed out, as long as it's done responsibly and with an eye to context, as I think the NYT story was.
Combined with a very good story done by NPR recently on PTSD, involving both a civilian and official Army psychologist, veteran representatives, vets from Vietnam and Iraq, which looked at the complex issues involved in coming home and the difficulties in getting help sometimes, or identifying the problem, I don't think the so-called "liberal" media is troop bashing at ALL, but on the contrary, taking a nuanced take through good journalism on a difficult and emotional subject.
Kudos for the NYT tackling this issue. When I read this as a civvie leftie, I didn't think "damn troops!" but I sympathized with the hell that soldiers are going through in war. And I really think most of the readers of the NYT are with me on that, since that's the spirit in which this is written, tone, context – all of that.
If any criticism is being leveled in the direction of the "military" it's for failing to recognize the problem and help its soldiers get treatment, as expressed through pending suits against the government, not just the NYT's alleged agenda or hatred of "troops." I think this is real news, and an issue worth looking at, just as the Walter Reid issue is and was.
This kind of journalism is about as "anti-troops" as saying that a failing health care system is "anti-patient" or pointing out the collapse of public education as "anti-student."
I don't find the content, tone, or context of these articles "anti-troop" at all. I think, as a self-avowed right-of-center guy and as a member of the military yourself, you might just be taking this in much more of a sensitive way than need be, which is understandable, given the emotions running high about this war.
Still, I maintain that it has become quite politically possible to be anti-war and have no animosity towards "the troops" and in fact, anti-war protest has always been such, even and especially in Vietnam. Even the ever-present spectre of the "spitting on troops" image is quite overblown, as peace/anti-war/free speech activists in the late 1960's worked quite closely with veteran groups against the war. A man I heard on NPR, and a book I want to read and has been quite talked about: The Spitting Image
He makes a very compelling case that even the "fact" of troops being spit upon as a rule back in Vietnam is mostly a media creation and more of a function of post-Vietnam war movies than something grounded in reality, or much more than urban myth amongst vets who did in fact face some negativity towards them, but rarely, if any spitting or other pattern of obvious derision.
Personally, I think the "anti-troops" myth right now is a big one, because I don't know anyone on my side of the fence who has anything against soldiers, and this includes activists and other active anti-war people. Just like the NYT piece, whenever a liberal speaks out against the war, or against even one of the government's institutions in the NAME of saving American lives and getting our men and women 1) back home, 2) the proper equipment, as in criticizing Rumsfeld for not getting the proper armor on Humvees, or 3) help and treatment upon returning from war - we get slapped with this "anti-troops" thing and dismissed as disrespecting men and women in uniform.
I don't believe this is happening, nor is that the intent. And I just wanted to extend that to the present NYT piece as well. I think some very good and helpful work is being done to help soldiers. And as a person with family members presently in the military, as well as a father, uncle, and other family members 20 years retired, I am certainly not "anti-troops." And one of the reasons my Dad got such good hospice care in his fight against colon cancer (lost in 2001) was because he lived near the UMich hospital and was able to receive care through them, as opposed to the Dayton, OH VA hospital that I wouldn't want to wish on anyone fighting for their lives in a hospital bed. Which is where the heart of the Walter Reed reporting was, and where I think – for what it's worth – is where the heart of the present NYT article is.
That's where I'm coming from, in any case. I just think it's kind of a cheap shot to lump everything critical of the war or the military as "anti-troops" when there's much more complexity and carefulness than you imply here.