I had to re-read this front page story in the Los Angeles Times to make sure I didn’t miss anything. Take a look at it. Remember that it runs on Armed Forces Day, and it is entitled, "Far From Ready for More War." The subtitle is this, "With battered gear and nerves, a third of the Army is ’unfit to fight’ but preparing to return." What is amazing is that there is nothing in the story to indicate any such thing, except that the guys have to do a lot of cleaning, and some have personal problems, and some have too much money to spend on trucks and motorcycles. This is quite remarkable. The author of the piece, and the editors who allowed it in, should be forced out of the profession. First two paragraphs: ’From their first days as ’Screaming Eagles,’ the 18,000 soldiers of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division are taught to be ready for anything. As the force’s proud creed goes: ’First in, last out.’
But at its sprawling home base — after a long year in Iraq that wreaked havoc with the blades of its helicopters, the sights of its guns and the nerves of its soldiers — the 101st is as far from ready as it has ever been."
"The subtitle is this, "With battered gear and nerves, a third of the Army is ’unfit to fight’ but preparing to return." What is amazing is that there is nothing in the story to indicate any such thing..."
Could it be that what we’re seeing here is just the flip flop of what occured back in the sixties? The media carried the water for the military back in those days, remember? Remember, too, how they got caught up with Westmoreland’s hubris, and how it all soured them when they finally saw the Pentagon Papers? Today it’s just the opposite, with a cynical press refusing to report anything positive, lest they fail prey to the U.S. military’s deceptive ways.
The only question remains is would the Times et al be behaving this way were it a Democrat running the show? We certainly could place some reasonable bets on the answer to that question. But their certain retort would be that no Democrat would be waging the WOT the way Bush is. No, instead liberals would have continued to do just what Clinton had done previous to 9/11. Nothing!
Either way, the sixties are still with us.
US military’s deceptive ways?? I strongly disagree with that statement, but enjoyed the rest of your commentary Marc.
I would love to know a couple of men in the 101st just so I could get the feel for how they feel about the article. I’ll bet a $100 to $1 that there are some irate soilders in the 101st. These guys are professionals, they will go anywhere, today, and perform above expectations.
The anti-American(anyone who hopes that our military fails is anti-American, end of discusion in my mind), anti-military, anti-Bush press could annoy the balls off a brass monkey. Sad thing is, they have a readership.
Military Tactics 101
US military’s deceptive ways?? I strongly disagree with that statement...
Deception is a primary tenet of military tactics. Effectively deceiving your enemy in any engagement not only saves lives, but is crucial to winning the engagement.
Trust me, the mainstream media knows this.
The Volokh Conspiracy had a devastating deconstruction of this piece over the weekend. See
https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_14.shtml#1084738728 and
https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_05_14.shtml#1084665971
Ahhh, I misunderstood your intent with that statement. I am a Marine infantryman of 10 years, I have a basic understanding of military tactics I would say. I understood your statement to be one of say moral deception i.e. intentional deception of the press by the military, say, concerning casualties etc, or to put it in layman’s terms, lying.