There's been a lot of bloviating going on lately over Joel Stein's column in the LA Times the other day where he said "I don't support our troops." Of course, in the tradition of our bullet-point, one-liner culture of political "debate," very little of the substance of the column is actually being discussed by the numerous talking-heads on the news. Several admit to not having even read it.

As a member of the Armed Services, my curiousity was piqued. I thought it was hilarious, and well-reasoned.

So first, since it is generating so much hot air, I wanted to encourage everyone who thinks they have an opinion on the subject to actually read it. As a topic for debate, I suppose it could go a couple of ways, so I'll ask both, and see where the thread leads:

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

(2) Not that it doesn't happen all the time, but what do you think the effect of news commentators (do they just report anything anymore) discussing controversial writings such as this in such cursory fashion? Or that invited guests are not expected to have read something they are brought on to talk about?

1. I very much agree with this article. For one thing, I have read opinions which seriously suggested that you must support all the missions of the armed forces in order to "support the troops." Well, I don't.

Obviously Stein chose a provocative way to begin his article, in order to get the reader's attention. The rest of it seems very reasonable, and the self-deprecating humor is a nice touch.

2. I get very tired of people offering opinions about writings they have not read, movies they have not seen, and so on. What's wrong with just saying "I am not informed enough to offer an opinion"?

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

After reading it, I am reminded of the blowup that resulted from Sinead O'Connor tearing up a picture of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live so many years ago. Her message about the Roman Church's blatant denial of so many years of pedophilia committed by priests was pretty much lost because of the outrage expressed by viewers.

I agree with the man in principle. In our current political climate such opinions are viewed as treasonous, yea, nearly sacrilegious. But I would not put down the soldiers for a couple of reasons.

Yes, I know that soldiers are aware that at some point they may well be called upon to pull the trigger and kill someone. But I also know that they volunteered out of a desire to right a wrong that was perpetrated on their fellow Americans. And regardless of whether they were deceived into joining the military, they have to follow orders. It must be especially bad for soldiers who have had to repeatedly serve due to the stop-loss policy, which seems incredibly unfair. If I am a wussie for taking this into consideration, so be it.

(2) Not that it doesn't happen all the time, but what do you think the effect of news commentators (do they just report anything anymore) discussing controversial writings such as this in such cursory fashion? Or that invited guests are not expected to have read something they are brought on to talk about?

Those who comment on articles or books should have more than a secondhand knowledge of them. This isn't true with just the news media. These days, our society in general seems to expect us to operate at a less-than-desirable level of knowledge. As a result, we make a lot of mistakes. Wherever the impatience comes from that causes us to rush to making decisions when more time and care would grant us some needed insight, we need to change it. Rushing to judgment might also be included in the time-worn saying, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."

If the Congress had said, "Hey, wait just a darned minute" to the President a few times instead of caving in to pressure to pass the PATRIOT Act and acquiescing to grant Bush such broad war-waging powers, we would not be in the mess we are in in Iraq, and there possibly would not be an impending investigation of whether the President overstepped his Constitutional boundaries in approving the wiretaps that were supposed to be approved by the established FISA court.

Right arm!

Here's another take on the situation:

Reggie Rivers: You Call This Support?

I'm all for our troops. I want them to get better pay, better health care, better treatment after service, better housing, better equipment, better leadership, and better assignments.

I'm also all for the people in general. We need better jobs, better pay, better health care, etc. and so on.

So, there you go. I have no ribbon magnets or bumper stickers either, just a hollow sensation that nobody really supports anyone else.

Well, while I disagree with him I applaud his honesty. The fact of the matter is that most of the people who are against the war but support the troops are lying and covering their backsides with yellow ribbons. Joel Stein is plainly truthful and has absolutely every right, wartime or not, to express his views.

QUOTE

People that listen to Rush, or Franken are already sold on their message. They listen to have their message reinforced. The danger is when a Dan Rather offers up a shoddly researched story timed to do political damage under the guise of informed news reporting.

*edited because I cannot type.

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

It would be perfectly fine, if Stein had a better understanding of what goes on in the military.

Stein was on the radio Tuesday and did an interview with Hugh Hewitt. Transcript

He admits to not knowing any troops in Iraq, not knowing why they join or why they serve. He admits to not visiting any veterans hospitals, not reading any books about military life. He admires the bravery of soldiers but doesn't feel they protect him.

It's fine to have an opinion, but please try to have an informed opinion, Mr. Stein. Statements such as:





He has admitted he doesn't know why people join, but he claims to know they are tricked?

I sort of agree with Mr. Stein's assertion: how can those that do not support the war claim to support the troops with a straight face? It does seem hypocritical on some level.

(2) Not that it doesn't happen all the time, but what do you think the effect of news commentators (do they just report anything anymore) discussing controversial writings such as this in such cursory fashion? Or that invited guests are not expected to have read something they are brought on to talk about?

I don't have an opinion. You didn't cite any examples of this and I didn't watch any cable news last night.

I sometimes wonder why people agree to do those talk shows, only to be grilled by an interviewer who, like a lawyer, is only interested in getting what they want out of the interviewee, and not actually expanding on the discussion. You can tell because the interviewee is rarely allowed to say more than two sentences before the interviewer gouges him again to get the answer he's looking for.

As to the first quote, he is of course wrong, because most soldiers do carry their morals into combat, but their moral basis is different than that of Joel Stein's. They believe that the mission they are doing is justified, or at least, that following orders is necessary for the greater good of the service.

Joel Stein's criticism is ultimately not of the troops but the civilians who are against the war, with whom I'm sure he is very familiar.

Apologies for not including an example of #2. The last I saw was Al Franken on MSNBC. He was invited on to talk about the column, but admitted he had not read it. However, he still commented, being sure ot mention his radio show in the process.

After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

Though this may surprise some people, I don't have a problem with Joel Stein's Op-Ed. At least he's (purportedly) being honest. I would like to believe that I could speak for most servicemembers when I say that we as a whole, don't expect, ask for or require much in the way of accolades or recognition. When we return from a deployment, the last thing we want to spend our time doing is standing in a parade or ceremony. We simply wish to spend much needed down time de-pressurizing. All we require is the love and support of our friends and family.
This may be unfair to Mr. Stein as an individual, but I have much more of a problem with the elitist snobbery that pervades many paid mouthpieces, who take neither the time nor the effort to actually understand why a person joins the military, and the sacrifices that this way of life entails. True, every serving person volunteered, but all we really ask for is the same simple respect that is given to the other professions that require risk.

Yellow ribbons and bumper stickers have been a nice gesture, but one quickly ignored as meaningless over the last few years. A ribbon or a tattered flag on one's car does not equate actual support for the military. It's for show and vanity. If you'd like to support me and my brothers, then petition congress for better pay and shorter rotations to the Middle East.

To not attempt to understand the bonds of brother and sisterhood in the military, the daily examples of courage and sacrifice for no other gain than the love and safety of your comrade, and the noble ideals that inspired many to join either pre or post 9/11...........that may be Mr. Stein's greatest crime. Not his written opinion. His knowledge of his right to speak and act however he wishes leads to an isolated comfort zone, because his rights are not defended in a tangible manner in his eyes.

As long as Mr. Stein has no issues with sentiments such as those espoused by LTC Russell in my sig line below, I have no issue with his opinion.

I don’t agree with Stein, it’s not hypocritical in the least to support the troops and not support the war. He admits that most sign up not knowing where they’ll be during their military careers, all they’re doing is following orders which all enlistee’s understand before they sign up.

I also disagree with this statement:

Don’t think he’s thought this one completely through. Can’t find the link but was reading an interview with a sniper in Iraq a few weeks ago. The journalist asked the sniper if they felt anything as they carried out their duties, his reply was simple: “Yeah, I feel recoil”. He’s just doing what every soldier has done for centuries and what he was trained for: following orders.

Edited to adjust quote.

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

Well, I respect the honesty. He represents a large segment of our population who know nothing about the military, know no one in the military, and think that "supporting the troops" is symbolic at best and jingoistic at worst. At least Stein has the guts to admit it, even going so far as to admit his complete ignorance of the military.

I'll agree with Fife and Drum on this one, though
He has zero context or information to make such an assertion, as he readily admitted in that radio interview. Hewitt eviscerated this guy, but again at least his candor was refreshing.

Stein also had the bad timing to write this:
while his own paper was reporting this...


If this column provokes discussion into the "I support the troops but not the war" conversation, I'd say it's helpful. Shame that this honesty had to come from such an obviously ill-informed source though. He's not a great poster boy for political discussion. As he himself puts it:

That's actually an urban legend:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/recoil.asp



To the questions:
Of course everyone should read the article before commenting on it, especially considering it took me all of two minutes to read it. The same thing happens with nonfiction film like Walmart, F911, and now, the Enron film. So, it's not really a surprise.

One of the reasons I love The Daily Show, even if Jon Stewart isn't the best interviewer, is because 9 times out of 10 he's actually read or seen the book or movie the guest is associated with. (Or at least he does an absolutely awesome job of faking that he has.) Talking about something you have no first-hand knowledge of is an atypical sympton of "junk media" and the internet age. Everyone has an opinion, informed or not, and feel as though they need to share it with others. Think about it, ten years ago, was there anywhere like Netflix or IMDB where you could read 100's of common reviews from normal movie goers about whether they liked or disliked a film? It's also an alarmingly disturbing trend to see people writing reviews of films they didn't finish, especially on NetFlix.

Maybe I'm old fashioned in my 27 years, but if you couldn't even stick it out to finish a film, you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion online or off about a movie, beyond the fact that you didn't have the attention span to sit through it.

Joel Stein's argument is completely off-base however, I have friends in Iraq, and I have never supported this war. I want and have always wanted immediate withdrawl, because that's the only way to ensure their safety. I don't see how wanting to see my friends safe & home is not supporting them. They'll have jobs on the front lines or at home, and when they signed up Clinton was in office and the USAs lengthy policy of not starting uninstigated wars hadn't yet been violated by the Neocons. One, thankfully has made it back, and the other never wants to go back to Iraq again once he gets back. How could they, I, or anyone else, advocate continual beating of the war drums when none of us would want to be there ourselves? It's my moral obligation to oppose the war, but its certainly not to oppose support of the troops.

I don't get your objection to this. Anyone who thinks that killing is bad has the qualifications to say it. War is a strange creature. Your leaders tell you that it's OK to kill these particular people because these particular people were told by their leaders that it's OK to kill you. In what we might call normal times, individual participants in the army would presumably not kill others, and for reasons of their own morality. So to those of us who are inclined to question the leaders' motives, it looks like they're ignoring their own personal morality for an inscrutable purpose. Such things could be classified as horrifying.

And no, I don't have any military experience. For those of us who don't, and who see attacks like this by people who do, it appears like a matter of pride rather than ethics.

Thanks for the clarification smorpheus. I initially found the quote here and remember looking for more of the interview elsewhere and found not only that question/repy but several others, all referenced the same CNN source.

Apologies, but hey, it was on the internet it must be true!



Right before I replied to this thread, I had just replied to Lesly in a pm that war and morality would be a great topic.

When you mention leaders I'm not sure if you're referring to the President or the top military brass. There are so many layers to this subject but this sums it up for me:


From the foot soldier to the President, in a conflict against a clearly defined enemy, morality can’t be a factor when the lead is flying.

Well, you say that "killing is bad" and you say that you are "inclined to question the leaders motives" yet you don't have military experience. So what exactly is your point regarding Mr. Stein projecting his own morality onto that of the all-volunteer, US military? And what in the world makes you say that US military "don't kill people because of their own morality?"** If the US military does not kill people it is because they were not ordered to do so.

**edited to add - I get what you're saying about "normal times" but given the percentage of time mankind has spent at war, I question what you mean by this phrase.

Just a quick news flash - before it was possible to chit chat about these moral issues whilst enjoying some cool ranch Doritos®, there was a US military securing our free speech rights. Just sayin'

Its all kind of deja vu all over again...thanks yogi

This is the war to end all wars.......make the world safe for democracy......freedom marches on.
whats the saying , those who claim to want to save the world always seem to really wish to rule the world.

Isn't that when morality must take control?

Save us from the Saviors..

Right, and not exercising free speech is not having that privilege. The main threat to free speech is a complacent press, just pointin' this out

Also, speech isn't exactly free when the powers try to destroy your career for exercising it. Just rememberin' post-9/11

I think you're confusing "the powers" with "the people" - the Dixie Chicks and Bill Maher almost ruined their careers because their fans / listeners / viewers / sponsors took issue with their stances. The government had no say in the matter.

Joel Stein has every right to disrespect the military, just as Californians have every right to continue dropping their LA Times subscriptions, which they have been doing for some time now.

Yes, but who's morality? A morality that values honor, loyalty, duty? Or a morality that treats everybody's desires as being equal? A morality that always puts 'compassion' above duty and justice?

Because, if you read or listen to Stein's interview, you'll find that he does support the troops, just not the troops carrying out missions he disagrees with. He supports the troops serving in Pakistan on earthquake relief, but not the troops serving next door in Afghanistan chasing the Taliban. He supports the troops who were (and still are) deployed to Bosnia to prevent ethnic cleansing there, but not the troops who toppled Saddam's regime, a regime that has committed ethnic cleansing against both the Kurds and Shiites.

So yes, Stein is "honest" enough to express his disagreement, yet either lacks the intellectual capacity to come to grips with his paradox, or the moral empathy to understand a morality that encompasses both tsunami relief and hunting terrorists in the barrios of Mosul, or the moral clarity to come to grips with the situation. Of course, a combination of the above could be the case.

Am I to take from this that only people who are in or have been in the military get to question the causes for war? Supposedly, we have a civilian government in this country that controls what the military gets to do. So the causes for war have to come from a civilian perspective.

Mr. Stein, or anyone else for that matter, gets to project the morality of not killing people because that is a standard of society that we've chosen to uphold. There's a law that says you can kill people without civil consequence: War. But just because the legal ramifications are nil, that doesn't mean anyone's off the moral hook, not even according to the New Testament. Without that word, without those casus belli, no one would fire a shot.

Hey, war is complicated. There are various threats to consider, and sometimes force is the only option if your goal is idealistic. But none of this means that soldiers aren't human. On an individual level, eye-through-the-sights, hand on the grip, finger on the trigger... those decisions have consequences.


Yeah, I think you know what I mean. If we're always at war, a la 1984, then there would be no need for civilian laws, now would there?


That's always a fallback argument, isn't it? I could be tried and shot in certain places in the world for saying some of the things I say about the administration of my country. Either way, someone gets killed. No one's saying that the way nation-states are set up in our modern world is a prime example of rational thought. At this stage of human societal development, we still apparently have a need to kill one another, either to oppress someone else or to stop someone else from oppressing us. This, in itself, is horrifying.

OK, I think this is important, so I'm going to try one more time. Joel Stein claims that the soldiers in Iraq are an army full of soldiers "ignoring their morality." He has not spoken with soldiers in theater, visited wounded soldiers in hospital, read any books about the military, didn't even know how many people serve in the military. He has absolutely no idea what a soldier's morality is. Most soldiers I've met have are NOT at moral odds with their mission, whether in Afghanistan or Iraq. Sure they have doubts, as we all would, but most of their killing comes in the form of shooting at an armed person with a gun pointed back at them. Not the toughest moral issue to wrestle with - should I die here and leave my wife and kids forever, or maybe shoot the bad guy?

I am NOT claiming that you have to be in the military to criticize the military. I am not in the military and criticize them all the time. I am stating that the vacuous Mr. Stein is projecting his morality on people whom he has never met, accusing them of compromising their morals. Which is ridiculous, especially as bikerdad noted he was all over the board with what the military ought to be doing and who they ought to be killing.


So now you're basically saying that all of our soldiers in Iraq are immoral? Going to hell perhaps? That's rich. So, if they had the luck to only pull Tsunami relief duty, perhaps heaven, but since they were sent to Iraq, it's the fiery pit. Or were you being more vague about "consequences" for ignoring your own pacifistic view "their own morality"?

If you are against all war, fine. If Mr. Stein is against all war, fine. But don't accuse soldiers of "denying their morality" for many people believe that there is such a thing as a just war. Even Stein admitted that "if he lived in Kabul" he would have supported our war in Afghanistan, but he still couldn't support our soldiers.

Indeed. It would be nice if 6 billion of us could join hands and sing kum-ba-ya, but as soon as we got started I fear that Kim Jong-Il or someone would lob a missle into the chorus, throwing the Japanese contra-alto's hopelessly out of tune. I don't have the solution, but I'm pretty sure if the Western world unilaterally disarmed tommorow, an opportunistic somebody would take up arms to fill the power gap.

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?
I think Stein has pretty good points about "not supporting the troops." The unfortunate truth is that many people do join the military without thinking carefully about the consequences. Anyone who fights an unjust war can be considered brave. But bravery in an unjust war does not make anyone a hero. If Society gives every veteran a hero's parade, than that will only encourage youngsters to sign up for military duty without thinking about the moral repurcussions. Does anyone think that 18 year olds are responsible enough to make such big decisions like laying down their life for the Government? I don't think so, and I favor raising the recruiting age to 21.

The are not "laying down their life for the Government" , they are risking their lives for their country, for their families and friends, and for their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen.

And yes, they are responsible enough.

Nope, no confusion. The powers and the government aren't necessarily the same. The powers have the power to fire yer tush, and that's what happened to some journalists who were too critical after 9/11.

The Dixie Chicks and Maher are still doing well in their careers. Let me know when the LA Times goes under, will yah?

Unless you are willing to say that every decision that U.S. government made regarding deployment of the military is the correct one, every war and every conflict since WWII has been justified and necessary for the security of the state, then you can say that. Otherwise, they are paying with their lives for the fateful decisions of our government... just like skeeterses said.


Answering the debate's question, though, I still Stein makes some excellent points regarding "trinket patriotism", people buying yellow ribbons to place on their cars - to make them feel better about soldiers being killed and maimed in some country thousands of miles away which many of them will not find on the map. He could be a little off base regarding why people join the military - unfortunately, at 18 young people don't have enough of healthy cynicism yet to fully recognize the consequences of their actions - that's what the military counts on, actually.

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

(2) Not that it doesn't happen all the time, but what do you think the effect of news commentators (do they just report anything anymore) discussing controversial writings such as this in such cursory fashion? Or that invited guests are not expected to have read something they are brought on to talk about?

[/quote]


I read Mr. Stein's column with interest, also being a military man. I found it thought provoking, and a bit tongue-in-cheek.
His arguement about the immorality of governmental sponsored killing, as I guess he convicts the military of is a worn out liberal mantra. And I would that opinion is the sanctuary of cowards, for how convient is it to call soldiers immoral from the warmth of the freedom their sacrifice has bought.
His closing statement that veterans are due benefits and monetary compensation for their service, but not the parades they receive in some places seems to be born of jealousy. Hey, I don't begrudge athletes their cheering fans and money and fame, so he need'nt be hating on the fact that many places in this country like to honor their young men and women who risked it all.

Anybody heard of a parade given to pilots of Alaska? Meanvile, this job is one of the most dangerous; according to CNNFN,



What about a parade for lumbermen, who do THE most dangerous job in America with the highest rate of fatalities? Or fishermen, who have the second highest rate of fatalities while working in terrible conditions such as that:



United States has a professional military. Every last soldier in the military is being paid for his services, just like pilots and lumbermen. What's the difference?

The fatality statistics don't include military service, and even if it did, they wouldn't be very useful without breaking military service down by MOS (Military Occupational Specialty, for the Army, or the equivalent for other branches.) I doubt if anybody making an honest argument would lump Morale, Welfare and Recreation Specialists into the same group as Army Rangers.

I'm tempted to say "If you have to ask, you can't understand", but I'll pass on that for the moment, in hopes that this question will illuminate the answer for you: What's the difference between a fireman and pizza delivery driver? Maybe its that we honor one for serving the public good?


Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps there's a whole lot of 18 year olds out there who haven't yet been poisoned by an unhealthy misanthropy along with towering moral arrogance, who don't mistake their poisoning for "healthy cynicism"? Clear headed, optimistic young men and women without the crippling baggage of malignant leftism are the folks the military recruits. People who look at the tsunami relief, and see that the US military had boots on the ground helping within 48 hours, while the much vaunted UN relief agencies were still booking rooms for press conferences to discuss their plans for setting up a planning commission? Which would you rather work for? The UN, with its child prostitution scandals, Oil for Food corruption and a virtually unbroken record of incompetence stretching back 30 years, or the US military? Heck, even Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and most the other Islamofascist terror organizations have more success under their belt than the sclerotic UN. Why do I bring up the UN? Because it is the culmination of the worldview that Stein and his ilk hold.

Joel Stein is a satirist. He clearly knows little to nothing about what a military force is or what is it used for. He obviously knows even less about what American soliders are called upon to do. Or maybe he does know and just doesn't care.

I don't take what he says all that seriously. His know-nothing, cavalier attitude comes easily when he's never heard a shot fired in anger and certainly not directed his way. Stein can afford the comfort of his position because braver men than himself have fought and died to allow him the privilege.

I think I most object to this statement:

The truth is that people who pull triggers are ultimately responsible, whether they're following orders or not. An army of people making individual moral choices may be inefficient, but an army of people ignoring their morality is horrifying.

That is very simply a incredibly stupid remark. Soldiers do not give up their morality when the volunteer to join the armed services. However, to accomplish the group objective the "individual moral choices" of a particular soldier has to come secondary. It wasn't my individual choice to shower in a communal setting with 49 complete strangers when I went through basic training, but then again, nobody asked for or cared what my thoughts were on the matter.

Soldiers are called upon to do things that civilians would be arrested, jailed and possibly executed for. But they have to sublimate their individual beliefs and mores because on a battlefield that can get them or someone else killed.

If Mr. Stein were to spend a little less time trying to be witty and sarcastic and actually bothered to speak with someone who has served and seen combat, he might actually learn something instead of exposing his appalling ignorance. Maybe he should go read his column to patients at a VA hospital and see how much they enjoy it. That, or go read some Ernest Hemingway.

It is entirely possible to support the troops in Iraq and not support the war. I agree with Stein there are many soliders who joined with the idea of protecting America in the war on terror instead of being turned into cannon fodder to enrich war profiteers at Bechtel or to give the Republican Party a campaign issue for the 2006 elections.

The men and women who join the armed services don't need lessons in morality from Joel Stein. Clearly he feels his is superior to theirs. Of course, the biggest difference is Stein has never had his morality (or courage) tested the way the troops do every day in Iraq.

I swear BD, i hear the voice from from those old 50's public service announcers when I read your posts.
18 isn't really old enough to be that cynical i agree--it usually happenes after you make the choice from being all bright eyed and bushy tailed and learn how the real world actually works.
I've known a great many people who did military service and for the most part they joined because they were 18 and bored. At time such as after 9/11 I'll believe the serve my country reasoning, but let's be honest most join because there is nothing else all that appealing for them.



That's where I would question some morality. There is no crime in self defense.
As the line goes someone tries to kill you--You try to kill them right back.
But if you need to start using "we're in a war" to justify your actions--something stinks.


Do I think that our soldiers need to question their morality--No
I have become very proud of what out soldiers are accomplishing and have done.
They have been the definition of honor.
Thats why I am indeed very upset about the whole Iraq campaign and the idea of "bringing" democracy to the ME.
Anyone else seeing Hamas and the Brotherhood getting elected in droves over there. They are closer to actually uniting over there for the first time than at any time since Saladin.
I'm sure that makes the Rapture fanatics here in the states all frothy that their prophecies are being self fulfilled but it just makes me sad that so many have died and will die for a bad idea that I have no faith at all will work. I wonder just how many are digging furiously through their closets for their old "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out " T-shirts. from some of the posts i have read i would estimate a high number.

I am not sure which is more pathetic, the thought it would work or those actually surprised at who is getting elected.
What did you really expect? Flower strewn street parades?
And all the while the one country whose citizens actually attacked us and murdered thousands of our own people. Who are actually responsible for the wahhabist garbage that fuels those types of maniacs and who are still to this day are the majority fundraisers and supporters of those scum--gets favored treatment here and handholding from our own leaders.
Crack whores have more decency and honor.

As for Stein, who cares. He's a writer for the LA Times--its birdcage liner.

If it would be universally true, the Army wouldn't miss its recruiting targets by up to 42 percent since the beginning of the Iraqi war - and this is despite significant recruitment bonus. People join military for various reasons - for some, it's the only chance to get out of poverty, some join for patriotic reasons, some considered it "easy college money", etc.
A person joining the military lends his individual moral choices to the government for the duration of his contract. A soldier may end up helping victims of the tsunami - or he may end up in Iraq regardless of whether he considers the Iraqi war just or not - and this is where Stein is incorrect. Once in the military, soldiers can not and must not question their morality, otherwise they become a less effective fighting force. The decision must be made prior to enlisting.

1. What do I think of Stein's argument? Well, I think he's one of the few on the left who is actually honest about how they feel about the troops. It's certainly better than the focus-group-driven democratic argument of "I oppose the war (that I voted for) but I support the troops". What do I think of Stein? I think that he and people like him give aid and comfort to our enemies during time of war when our troops are in harm's way. Therefore, I don't think much of him and his ilk. Stein, and the rest, conveniently forget that Bush did not act as a dictator in the pursuit of the Iraq war. Both the UN (via 1441) and the US Congress (including "yes" votes by notables such as Clinton, Reid, Kerry, and Edwards) signed off on this adventure. They are morally contemptible if they authorize such action and then fail to stick together in order to protect the human beings who volunteered for the life-risking efforts to pursue this "regime change" policy which, after all, was formulated by the previous democratic administration.

2. What do I think is the impact of news commentators (sorry for adapting your question to my answer)? Well, I think that their "corporate culture" ranges from moderate liberal to far left (with a few notable exceptions) therefore, they tend to all "go with the flow" with what "they" see as "correct". That tends to be liberals, those who agree with liberals, or leftists pretending to be liberals. What is the effect when these people actually say what they really think? Usually, they back-track after their bluff is called (like the GOP calling for a vote on the democratic cut-and-run Murtha, Pelosi, et. al, proposals) and retreat to the safer land of "dissent" which is a far more convenient, less risky, and ultimately politically safer land than "leadership" which, by nature, involves high risk and the element of the unknown. I also think that what passes for "news" is actually "entertainment" which is the end result of the primary focus on the TV industry. To your point, I think that because of their entertainment orientation, their corporate culture, and their overall lack of intellectual objectivity, they don't like the concise "bullet point" arguments since it's far safer to adopt a soft, fuzzy, and touchy-feely nebulous approach that "sounds" right but really doesn't mean much upon closer examination.

I think it's particularly arrogant of those on the right to assume that liberals are against the troops, who are, after all, fellow American citizens and human beings.

Just what is a soldier supposed to do with a gun when other people are shooting at him or trying to blow him up? Joel Stein's perception of morality does not match mine. In principle it is wrong to kill, but a person should always have the right to defend himself/herself.

My eldest son was, until last January, one of the troops stationed in the Middle East. I have only love for him, even though I opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq and the underhanded way that bogus intelligence was used to scare the American people into supporting it.

And just why can't we have affection for those who go off to war while opposing those who made it necessary for them to do so?

Joel Stein does not speak for all those on "the left" any more than you speak for all those on "the right", lordhelmet.

The most heroic, ethically courageous, morally resolute men and women in the world today are the Americans, British, and other forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are fighting the most evil men and women currently on the world scene. The American Army soldier, Marine, Navy sailor, Air Force warrior, and Coast Guardsman fighting in Ramadi or Mosul is fighting men and women who kill children and old people for sport. The men and women of the United States military are fighting the remnants of a regime so evil that it pioneered the use of torture against children -- just for the amusement of Saddam and his family. The men and women whom Joel despises rid the world of a dictator so twisted and murderous that he openly admired Stalin and Hitler and sought to match their level of atrocities. The men and women who wear the uniform fought, bled, and died to rid the world of the most dangerous man on the planet in the most flammable place on the planet. They died to save a slave people from the genocidal control of a mad killer who thought nothing of gassing his own people, of wiping out entire regions, of setting up special rape rooms to allow his henchmen and his sons to rape women at will, who amused himself by pouring gasoline down the throats of totally innocent people and setting them on fire.

Ben Stein - Saints in Armor

I don't think there is much of an argument. He's just drawing attention to himself by causing people to react by repeating oversimplified cliches that were designed to play with people's emotions in the first place. Not just "support the troops" but "for or against the war", and "spitting on the Vietnam vets". You can read his bio online, it doesn't say that he's a serious journalist, it literally says he wants to draw attention to himself. He's being a court jester, not a critic. If the LA Times wanted a serious voice they wouldn't have fired Robert Scheer, who actually made compelling, well thought out arguments in his columns and not shallow little jokes like this Stein idiot.

" The real purpose of those ribbons is to ease some of the guilt we feel for voting to send them to war "

WE who? I thought the senators and congressmen voted for the war.

And sentences like this almost make me believe the guy is a hired straw man by the GOP (not really, but do you think this really helps the Left?):

"I do sympathize with people who joined up to protect our country, especially after 9/11, and were tricked into fighting in Iraq. I get mad when I'm tricked into clicking on a pop-up ad, so I can only imagine how they feel."

It's not really an argument, it's more of a commercial so the LA Times can increase the cost of advertisements.

January 30, 2006: After falling short by eight percent last year, the U.S. Army is five percent above its recruiting goals so far this year. Equally important, reenlistments were the highest in five years in 2005, with 69,500 soldiers deciding to stay in. The highest re-enlistment rates were in units that had been to Iraq and Afghanistan. The troops overseas believe they are making a difference, and that is demonstrated in their attitudes, as well as their re-enlistment rates. But the media does not consider this news, and concentrates on any real or imagined negative aspects of the war. This makes it more difficult to recruit new troops.

Incidentally, the active components of the Marines, Navy and Air Force have all met their recruiting goals, the active Army grew by 3% last year, and the Navy Reserve, which missed it recruiting goals by 11%, hasn't made its recruiting goals in 20 years. Can't exactly blame that on Iraq, eh?

What is the source of your contention that the military is meeting its recruitment goals, Bikerdad? I'm not finding those numbers.

I don't know about the rest of the services, but the Army is doing better.

Army Meets Recruiting Goal

Well, they aren't "doing well" but no, the LA Times hasn't gone under yet. Belatedly...from The Wall Street Journal (requires pay subscription)

(1) After reading it, what do you think of Joel Stein's argument?

Misinformed and left biased for starters. He tries to be funny but with statements like “After we've decided that we made a mistake, we don't want to blame the soldiers who were ordered to fight. Or even our representatives, who were deceived by false intelligence” ………


We pretty much know which part of left field he is coming from. Since I strongly disagree with this moron I find his humor less than amusing.