Posted by
dolfinwriter on Friday, June 22, 2007 3:09:45 AM
[Note on 19 July, 2009: See update at bottom]
About 18 months ago, in September 2005, the small local "newspaper" the East County Californian (actually a local branch of the Democrat Public Relations arm, posing as a newspaper, just as the NY Times and the LA Times do), published an article by a "journalist" named Miriam Raftery. The article was titled Be All You Can Be Without The Army. It was full of leftist slant against the military, and against the War in Iraq. Worse, it used either deliberate lies or careless inaccuracies to underscore certain points. I was furious, and so I wrote a rebuttal, well documented and thorough.
Unlike the school newspaper, they actually published my letter—after I neutered it down to 700 words, of course (to rebut an 1800 word article). Had that been all, I would not have been irritated. But the publisher did not have the courage to print my letter on its own, even after I chopped it from 3500 words to 700. He gave the “journalist” an 800 word space for a rebuttal next to my rebuttal, full of yet more lies and/or inaccuracies, and capped it with a typically whiny complaint asking whether I advocate censorship for the press. No, I don’t want censorship! I just want them to tell the truth, or at the very least to correct errors or lies when readers point them out!
Of course, I would like to have my own voice to comment on their lies, but I would have to buy them or start my own newspaper, I guess.
When it appeared in print, I wrote a new rebuttal, but they refused to publish this one, citing a once every three months policy. When I asked if they intended to at least print corrections to what reasonable people should be able to agree were falsehoods in that rebuttal, the publisher added insult and said no, citing Bush Administration announcements such as “Mission Accomplished.” So in other words, his journalistic integrity is a function of his assessment of the Administration’s integrity. I find that disturbing, appalling, maddening, disgusting, hypocritical, and just plain sleazy.
I can’t impact them, but I can finally have my say in this forum!
Here is the text of an early version of my letter to the editor in response to the article:
I’m writing in response to Be all you can be without the army by Miriam Raftery, in the September 22nd East County Californian. I find it unfairly biased against the military and littered with half-truths and falsehoods. Ms. Raftery quotes the New York Times, “Recruiters desperate for warm bodies to be shipped to Iraq are prowling selected high schools and neighborhoods across the country with sales pitches that touch on everything but the possibility of being maimed or killed in combat.” The ignorance, bias, and short-sightedness of this statement is stunning. What sane person wants a world without our military? Remember Hitler? Hirohito? The Berlin airlift? Libya’s Qadafi? Panama’s drug lord dictator Noriega? Kuwait under Saddam?
“Recruiters desperate for warm bodies…” Ms. Raftery writes “Some recruiters, under pressure from falling enrollment numbers and an all-volunteer army buckling under the strains of war, are resorting to high-pressure tactics, exaggerations and in some cases, outright falsehoods.” She fails to list any falsehoods or that recruiters are competing with a booming U.S. economy. The August 2005 unemployment rate was 4.9%, a four year low (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics). This is an example of a conveniently omitted inconvenient fact that betrays her true agenda. A second inconvenient fact is that recruiting declined much more sharply during the entire Clinton Presidency, from 1993 and accelerating into the late 1990’s (Have Improved Resources Increased Military Recruiting and Retention?). Recruiters were competing then with the Internet bubble economy, and no one can dispute that on numerous occasions, Bill Clinton ran from any engagement that resulted in casualties, or that might have. In other words, difficulties in recruiting and an ongoing war are not dots you can just draw a line between.
“…warm bodies to be shipped to Iraq…” No, not everyone goes to Iraq! Does Ms. Raftery support shipping “warm bodies” to Afghanistan to hunt down al Qaeda and Taliban? Our Armed Forces stand vigil around the world ready to defend freedom. They are also among the first on scene, providing relief after natural disasters. Some of those sent to the hurricane battered Gulf Coast were the very same 4th Infantry Division soldiers who pulled a dirty and humiliated Saddam Hussein from his spider hole in Iraq almost two years ago. The 82nd Airborne (now also known as the 82nd “Waterborne”) helped evacuate some 6,000 in New Orleans (82nd Airborne Division Becomes 'Waterborne' in New Orleans). The Air Force Reserve 304th Rescue Squadron (of the elite pararescue “PJ’s”), saved more than 1,040 people (A PJ's Night in New Orleans).
When deployed overseas, the troops build or renovate schools and hospitals—whatever is needed. They give native children everything from chocolate bars to baseball gloves, and lifesaving or life changing medical treatment unknown in their own countries. If you dare, read the story of Saleh “Lion Heart” Khalaf, a 9 year-old Iraqi boy nearly killed by unexploded ordnance, and saved by an Air Force Reserve surgeon deployed to Tallil Air Base, near Nasiriya. It’s unfortunate that anyone would think only of Iraq or their own politics when recruiters call.
“…prowling selected high schools and neighborhoods across the country…” This is over the top. You have to believe that the military which defends our freedom to make such statements is some dark predator. I wonder if Ms. Raftery would even describe in such terms the registered sex offenders living closest to our schools.
“…with sales pitches that touch on everything but the possibility of being maimed or killed in combat.” This is either a lie or complete ignorance of the paperwork that a candidate must read, fill out, and sign. From DD Form 1966/5, RECORD OF MILITARY PROCESSING:
Block 25 ABILITY TO PERFORM MILITARY DUTIES, subsection a. “Are you now or have you ever been a conscientious objector? (That is, do you have, or have you ever had, a firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or to the bearing of arms because of religious belief or training?)”
(Emphasis my own.)
Ms. Raftery quotes an absolute falsehood, "Did you know – this is absolute fact – that your 17-year old doesn't need your permission to enlist?" Again from DD Form 1966/5:
Block 40 PARENT/GUARDIAN STATEMENT(S), subsection a. “I/we certify that (Enter name of applicant) has no other legal guardian other than me/us and I/we consent to his/her enlistment in the United States (Enter Branch of Service).”
“I/we acknowledge/understand that he/she may be required upon order to serve in combat or other hazardous situations. I/we certify that no promises of any kind have been made to me/us concerning assignment to duty, training, or promotion during his/her enlistment as an inducement to me/us to sign this consent.”
(Emphasis my own.)
Ms. Raftery quotes “Leave My Child Alone” in San Francisco “Recruiters 'commonly say you can get $50,000 or $70,000 for college, yet statistics show that 57 percent of kids who join the military don't get a dime for college.'’” This is a misquote. The cited pamphlet says “Since 1985 when the Montgomery GI Bill program (MGIB) began, 57% of military personnel who signed up for the program (Presumably the MGIB program), received nothing!” But their numbers are inconsistent. On one page, “Only 35% of all program participants have received any benefits at all!” On another page, “Why do 65% of recruits who pay the required $1200 into the Montgomery GI Bill never get a dime in return?” Is it 57%? 35%? 65%? Sounds like fuzzy math.
They complain that the VA does not just write a $36,000 or $50,000 check for college. It doesn’t work that way and that was never promised. You have to actually go to college, and apply for benefits. I have attended a number of schools around the country, and know the process well. It’s really not that hard. I have personally completed BS and MBA degrees, funded almost entirely by active duty and GI Bill education benefits, and I am still receiving benefits. I have had to make sacrifices to take advantage of it as much as possible, but I am grateful for this benefit. I take personal exception to Ms. Raftery’s uninformed comments. My own brother is one of those who paid in $1200 and will likely never use his full GI Bill benefit. Ms. Raftery would have us believe that recruiters somehow mislead him when he joined the Navy in 1993. My brother wasn’t lied to; he has just had different priorities.
Ms. Raftery focuses on school district policies for parent notification of opt-out rights to withhold student personal information from military recruiters. She claims that Grossmont Union High School “buried” notification about opt-out provisions in a handbook for parents…” In a time of almost non-existent local school funding, GUHSD went to the trouble and expense to provide an informational handbook for parents, but Ms. Raftery says this notification is “buried.”
I believe if Ms. Raftery were honest, she would admit that her real agenda has less to do with concern for young men and women who could find themselves in combat in a war she opposes, and much more to do with damaging recruiting public relations to hurt the Bush Administration by hobbling the war effort. Ms. Raftery’s article reveals either her vast ignorance or blatant denial of the good of the military, and a transparent political agenda.
Ms. Raftery quotes Valhalla High School parent Peter Polischuk who opposes the war in Iraq. "I voted for Bush in year 2000, but I feel absolutely violated for having been lied to about the pretext of the war." This quote deserves its own article, but she again betrays her agenda. No one can prove this allegation that anyone lied about Saddam’s WMD’s, yet it continues to be repeated as fact by those driven by blind hatred of this President. George Bush took the job knowing the sort of partisan attacks he would be subject to. But I take exception when those attacks are directed at the men and women of the Armed Forces.
Some say “I support the troops, but not this war.” I can’t question their sincerity, but this reveals an ignorance of attacks on our troops in the Muslim world over the last 30-plus years. Iraq is no longer a rogue nation providing funding, training, aid, and comfort to terrorists, but is now a young democratic nation training hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and police to hunt and kill terrorists. Our enemies pouring into Iraq to attack our troops and Iraqi’s seem to understand this better than many of us do! One failure I fault the Bush Administration for in the war on terror is its continued failure to communicate, and showcase the positive progress being made in Iraq, the progress in bringing onboard former “lost” allies, and to make the case to the world that this war is not just about 9/11, and that it was never only about Saddam’s WMD’s.
We mourn every mother’s son or daughter lost when our troops go into battle. This war is not just about 3,000 lives taken on one day on 9/11. Why do so many seem to have forgotten the six souls lost in the first, what our enemies must consider failed, WTC bombing in 1993. I don’t see in Ms. Raftery’s article, nor often elsewhere, compassion for at least 1,000 Americans killed by Islamic radicals in the years before 9/11. Are their lives somehow irrelevant? Many were lost in bombing attacks, each of which would have been considered an act of war if a nation state could be proven responsible. Those responsible are a collection of loosely bound Islamic terror groups who have been at war with America for over 20 years. Some have disparate aims and often don’t like each other. Some of us have been in denial, and some of us still are.
Ms. Raftery seems to want young adults to be hopeless, helpless, and naïve. We should teach our kids to take responsibility for their own lives, not that we will isolate them from choices that may be at odds with our politics. I wouldn’t send young adults to a car dealership the first time alone and unprepared. Nor would I send them to a recruiter’s office unprepared to make more important decisions than buying a car. The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors web site says that military service is a serious commitment, and anyone considering it should research the pros and cons. They say that money for college should not be the primary motivation for joining the Armed Forces. I think that’s all good advice! I think it’s also good advice that no promise made by anyone is good for anything unless it is in writing, but read and understand what you are signing! Young adults who have been taught these things have nothing to worry about from the most unscrupulous people in any profession. Ms. Raftery seeks to block recruiter access entirely, and ensure that our kids don’t have a choice. But as I said before, her agenda has more to do with damaging PR than it does recruiter access. She stated that calls to a local recruitment office were not returned. I only wish that she had been more specific. I would love to hear the part she left out of that story.
I must add that there are some people who believe that there is never a just cause for war—even when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. These folks account for roughly a constant eleven percent of the population from WWI to present. I think they are misinformed and misguided, but I also think they are genuine, and I respect their right to their beliefs. Ms. Raftery and others however, represent a more “situational” type of opposition, i.e., if George Bush thinks it’s necessary, they’re against it. She has just as much a right to voice her opinion, but I have a right to say I think she is being dishonest and to point out inconsistencies in her arguments.
I have a two and a half year-old son, and a 14 year-old stepson. I am retired Navy, and recruiters are welcome to contact our boys when they are of age. Their mother concurs, and so does my stepson’s father. They will be well prepared to take care of themselves and to face a world that they can expect will not always be kind to them.
I’ve quoted my letter faithfully, but what I wish I had restated that last sentence thus, “They will be well prepared to take care of themselves and to face both a world that they can expect will not always be kind to them, and newspapers that will not always tell them the truth.”
19 July Update:
I need to add to this that the publisher above has had an awakening, or a conversion since this exchange occurred in 2005. Specifically, it was the 2008 Presidential Campaign that opened their eyes. He and his wife are now conservatives and watch Fox News rather than CNN, and they have changed their voter registration to Republican. His wife proudly proclaims to all interested that I “converted” them and turned them “to the dark side”.