Agenda Journalism from the Times
The New York Times remembers America's soldiers on Memorial Day with this piece detailing the misgivings about the Iraq mission on the part of what is admittedly a small group of soldiers from one company.
What's important to remember is that almost every war has included those who are unhappy with either the conduct or the aims of the conflict. But what's also worth noting is that many of the soldiers' gripes have to do with a sense that members of the Iraqi army -- or the Iraqi public -- don't appreciate what we're doing there.
That's terrible if true (and no doubt many soldiers would disagree), but that's not the point. Although it's wonderful that we're able to help the Iraqi people -- and, indeed, building democracies is, so far, the only long-term strategy for defeating and containing Islamofascism that I've yet heard -- we're not there just for them.
We're there because, first, Saddam Hussein was a patron and contributor to Islamofascism all across the Middle East, he was (at the very least) eager to develop nuclear weapons, and he was a staunch enemy of America -- one who wished to do us harm. With his removal has come the danger that Iraq will become an Al Qaeda stronghold, and to responsible, security-minded Americans, that's simply an unacceptable risk.
As long as America's national security would be jeopardized by a surrender in Iraq, we must fight on, whatever the alleged ingratitude of specific members of the Iraqi army or public. And perhaps next Memorial Day, perhaps the NY Times can find a more positive, less agenda-heavy way to honor our troops.
What's important to remember is that almost every war has included those who are unhappy with either the conduct or the aims of the conflict. But what's also worth noting is that many of the soldiers' gripes have to do with a sense that members of the Iraqi army -- or the Iraqi public -- don't appreciate what we're doing there.
That's terrible if true (and no doubt many soldiers would disagree), but that's not the point. Although it's wonderful that we're able to help the Iraqi people -- and, indeed, building democracies is, so far, the only long-term strategy for defeating and containing Islamofascism that I've yet heard -- we're not there just for them.
We're there because, first, Saddam Hussein was a patron and contributor to Islamofascism all across the Middle East, he was (at the very least) eager to develop nuclear weapons, and he was a staunch enemy of America -- one who wished to do us harm. With his removal has come the danger that Iraq will become an Al Qaeda stronghold, and to responsible, security-minded Americans, that's simply an unacceptable risk.
As long as America's national security would be jeopardized by a surrender in Iraq, we must fight on, whatever the alleged ingratitude of specific members of the Iraqi army or public. And perhaps next Memorial Day, perhaps the NY Times can find a more positive, less agenda-heavy way to honor our troops.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:48 PM
3 Comments:
As anyone who has been in the military can tell you, griping about anything and everything is part of the territory. My CO used to have regular "*itch sessions" to get everything out into the open where he could quell rumors and head off perceived problems.
When 3 or 4 members of a real family can seldom agree on things, how ignorant is it of the NYT to believe hundreds of members of a military company will agree on things?
As the NYT's circulation figures show, more and more readers recognize the paper's biases and become non-readers.
Saddam Hussein was a patron and contributor to Islamofascism all across the Middle East
We lefties keep saying that Bush was wrong on this, and then you righties say "Bush never actually said that".
But you still believe it.
There's no evidence of Saddam's links to ether Al-Qaeda or the broad "Islamofascism" you speak of. Saddam was a village idiot whose imperial ambitions were scuttled when he was spanked back in 1991. He ran a shell of a dictatorship since then and was never a threat to anyone except his own people - a fact that has been proved by the subsequent occupation.
This war has been a complete waste of time, money and lives. It shames America and insults the men and women in uniform who are willing to defend it.
And they're not going to forget it.
OSO "This war has been a complete waste of time, money and lives. It shames America and insults the men and women in uniform who are willing to defend it." To me this sounds like World War 2. Why did we waste the time, money and lives then? To help Stalin?
Post a Comment
<< Home