Charging the NYTtimes of Not Supporting The Troops
For a while many on the left argue that criticizing the war does not mean they don’t support the troops. I would be the first to agree that dissenting opinion on war decisions does not mean you don’t support the actual soldiers carrying out those decisions. However, war supporters rarely point to examples where a war critic simply gives a dissenting opinion. Most often the war critic commits a egregious error which basis indicates a lack of support for the troops.
Recently the NYTimes posted a massive front page article about how there have been 121 homicides caused by soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The inference was to indicated the wars are causing war veterans to be more violent because of their service. So shoddy was their analysis that one must draw the conclusion that those involved in the article do not, in fact support our troops. For you see, if they actually did support our troops, that concern for our troops would of translated into motivation to do some very basic statistical analysis just to insure validity. Since they failed to do so, one must conclude they lacked the motivation of getting it right because they ultimately do not support the troops. For the purpose of the story, the tragedy that these murderous soldiers is yet another liberal tool to show that war is wrong. When you are using soldiers as tools to advance your political agenda critics are right to say you don’t support the troops.
Pajamas Meidia has more details:
The Times found, “121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.”
Bruce Kesler of the Democracy Project was among the first to note that despite finding the time to pen 6,253 words in this first article of the series, “the New York Times could not find words to put the 121 cases of physical violence by vets in full perspective,” by providing the context of how these deaths measure up against the number of deaths attributed to similar civilian demographics.
In an article in the Weekly Standard, John J. DiIulio Jr. offered the much-needed context that the Times failed to provide.
The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and other veterans’ advocacy groups are absolutely correct that not merely “many” but the vast majority of veterans not only remain completely law-abiding but go on to lead stable and productive personal, professional, and civic lives. Assuming 121 homicide cases in relation to 749,932 total discharges through 2007, 99.98 percent of all discharged Iraq and Afghanistan veterans have not committed or been charged with homicide.
And assuming 121 cases and 749,932 total discharges, the homicide offending rate for the discharged veterans would be 16.1 per 100,000. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has demographic data aplenty on homicide offending rates. For instance, in 2005, for white males aged 18-24, the rate was about 20 per 100,000. The Times opined that 121 was the “minimum” number, even as it counted veterans charged but not convicted with veterans tried and found guilty. Doubling the number to 242 would double the rate to 32.2 per 100,000.
Far from being an indictment against veterans, the actual homicide rate among civilians is higher in similar demographic groups.
On some level its no surprise to discover that the NYTimes, or at least the staffers that wrote this piece, don’t support the troops. This after all is the organization that published extensive details about a secret intelligence program used to track money being moved among terrorists organizations. A program that nobody anywhere thought was illegal.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I’d say the Times supports the troops about as much as all the major news organizations who failed to do more rigorous journalism in the lead up to the Iraq war, which is to say, all of them.
I think the Times was arguing on behalf of the troops in a broader way: They inflate the importance of this murder statistic in an attempt to show the American people the negative effects of war. They hope to turn public opinion against war itself, since no war is probably the best thing for a soldier’s well being. In this way they attempt to support the troops by ending that which hurts the troops so much. However, I think they might be better served in talking to the nearly 30,000 soldiers who have been wounded in Iraq. If the American people saw the horrors of war close up, we would think a lot harder before starting one.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
From the original source:
“The Times used the same methods to research homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years before and after the present wartime period began with the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.
This showed an 89 percent increase during the present wartime period, to 349 cases from 184, about three-quarters of which involved Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. The increase occurred even though there have been fewer troops stationed in the United States in the last six years and the American homicide rate has been, on average, lower.”
That being said, I don’t find the original source very compelling. At the same time, I think it is quite a jump in logic to say that this is an article that is “anti-troops.” In fact, the entire tone of the article calls for better treatment of our soldiers after they return from service. How is this “anti-troop?” That’s like saying an author who advocates new education and medical programs for intraveneous drug users because of an increase in AIDS is actually an author who hates drug users…. The logic doesn’t make much sense.
January 18th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
BTW… Why are we trying to “boost the economy.” Didn’t you tell me that the economy is at an all-time high thanks to GW? I’m confused.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Yes it was. Only recently has the economy started to slowdown. And to be perfectly frank I can’t help but think this slow down, like many new stories, is mostly a MSM fabrication.
January 19th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Well then maybe Bush should stop reading the MSM?