Kindly don't misread the intent behind my comments. They were not an attempt to exonerate the military personnel involved, or to whitewash their actions. They were an attempt to explain a mindset. Some of my gainsaying pointed out the notion that some of the ingrained adversarial attitude in military people toward the press might not be entirely baseless. But my laying out some evidence for their side of the story doesn't amount to a defense of their actions, which I think are wrong and dishonorable.

Pedinska:

I would really like to hear the positives that you think justify the death, destruction and dislocation we have wrought in Iraq.

Hold on there- I didn't say what I didn't say. In point of fact, some of my on-line commentaries on various websites in the months preceding the Iraq invasion were devoted to repeatedly transmitting my advice 'to who it may concern' to 1) refrain from joining the armed services; and 2) if already enlisted in the armed services, to immediately apply for conscientious objector status- along with practical advice on how to satisfy the qualifications (i.e., declare some form of pacifist religious affiliation, be vocal in the advocacy of non-violence and ahimsa, refuse to carry weapons or ammunition, abstain from eating meat, etc.)

My point was more along the lines that if all one knows of, say, the Iraq conflict is an unending narrative of violence and atrocities inflicted on the Iraqi people, including hapless civilians, it isn't likely that there will be much in the way of dialogue- or even conversation openings- possible with soldiers returned from the war zone, who may carry with them a much more multifaceted catalog of firsthand experience. I'm coming from a place that says that people who haven't been there- like myself- need to listen to those who have been there, before they speak. Some of what has been done in Iraq by the US military really has taken the form of authentic attempts to improve the lives of Iraqis. Acknowledging this fact does not equate to being a supporter of the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Perhaps my observation was a digression from the topic. But, fwiw, I put it out there.

As for my observation that "characterizing soldiers as a class simply as bloodthirsty premeditated murderers is unfair"- rest assured that is was not directed at you personally, Pedinska. I apologize for not making that clear the first time around. I write my posts for the general readership, and it seemed like a germane point to add- especially in light of the fact that I have previously encountered such shat sounds to me like characterizations in my on-line reading. Not from you, however.

The same goes for the following statement of mine: "Remember what underpins the touchiness of many soldiers on questions of military morality, even moreso when hurled as accusations by uninvolved civilians: they've put more on the line than you ever have."

My employment of the second person- "you"- was simply a rhetorical device, Pedinska. It was not directed at yourself, although I find your confusion understandable.

J Nagarya:

The media is NOT INTENDED to be "loyal" to the gov't, or even to the military. It is INTENDED to be loyal to the FACTS AND TRUTH.

Otherwise, you are insisting that the media be nothing more than a propaganda arm for gov't -- which is exactly the issue here -- regardless how subtly you are doing that...

I didn't say that I shared the attitude of the military people to whom I was referring. I was pointing out their perspective, blinkered though it may be.

The military service is renowned by many Americans for instilling qualities of competence, initiative, discipline, and motivation- even in alienated young people with track records of shiftlessness, laziness, and other traits of impending loserdom. That's why there's often so much of a push by some parents, friends, or communities for someone to join the military to "make a man out of them."

But there are problems with this paradigm.

Leaving aside what's probably the biggest deal-breaker- that as a founding principle, the recommended institution in question is organized around the activity of dealing death and grevious bodily injury to other humans, as well as wholesale property destruction and natural devastation- there's an Achille's heel in the military program of character development: it never really confronts the problem of Peer Pressure. Peer Pressure is one of the major challenges that a person faces in any society, if they're determined to live a principled life of integrity. And as far as I know, individuals are pretty much on their own in learning how to cope with it, to resist it, or in how to redeem oneself once one has succumbed to it with ill consequence.

Those pressures are much more severe in an institution like the military. Individual self-discipline and independent thought invariably runs into the demands of institutional hierarchy, group identity loyalty, and the bonding and camaraderie built within a unit of well-trained soldiers. It's one hell of a contradiction. Group pressure usually wins out- and the longer one stays in, the more ingrained it gets.

J Nagarya, you bring up a very good point about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. But the ideals of the UCMJ are always co-existent with the huge inertia of Peer Pressure. Once again- I say this not to excuse, but simply to state a fact for consideration, with all of its implications. Max Weber laid out the insights I'm alluding to long ago, in his writings on bureaucracy and modernity. Institutional power tends to be very corrupting, especially when the complexity of the workings and the absence of checks and balances from outside makes it difficult to tell where the buck stops.

You neglect to mention that it is also inslting to men.

Not that that should matter, of course. Only men are draft-eligible, and only women are oppressed.

You not only missed my point but you are a humorless ass as well.

The issue is not oppression of women, but rather why men feel that referring to other men as being a part of a woman's body should be insulting at all.

It implies that women are, by nature of possessing said anatomy, lesser, and therein lies the insult. You equate a man with a woman and, voila, you have somehow made him a lesser being. Nice.

I think the draft should come back and I think women should be eligible too. I think it would make us a lot less eager to enter unnecessary wars.

Oh, and I'm not oppressed. Men like you, who are weak enough to think that a comparison to a woman somehow automatically lessens you, aren't strong enough to oppress me.