Hopefully this issue has not already been discussed, and if it has, I apologize. I was a little shocked when I heard how many soldier and marines died in June over in Afghanistan. When Bush was president, I seemed to hear about every soldier or marine who was killed in combat. Now, it's like the fourth estate has made an attempt to put it on the down low. Maybe it's just me.
__________________ Let us conduct ourselves in such a fashion that all nations wish to be our friends and all fear to be our enemies. The Virtues of War - Steven Pressfield
No Dennis, it is NOT just you! I have noticed the same thing, as have many other Gold Star families that I talk to on a regular basis. The lame-stream media has "conveniently" forgotten to mention the sacrifice of our military, or have moved it to the back of the paper/news reports, etc. It is my opinion that this is done on purpose, and it is a disgrace and a slap in the face of those families who have lost someone who has given all. Not that I needed anything else to hate the media, but this has taken my distain for the media to a new level!
I watch "This Week" every Sunday morning - under their "In Memorium" piece at the end of the show, they list the name, rank, branch of service, and home of record for every casualty which occurred that week.
__________________
“Sometimes the Bible in the hand of one man is worse than a whisky bottle in the hand of (another)… There are just some kind of men who – who’re so busy worrying about the next world they’ve never learned to live in this one, and you can look down the street and see the results.” - To Kill A Mockingbird (Atticus Finch)
“Almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.” - Robert Heinlein
Photo caption:
Hundreds line the sidewalk in front of El Dorado High School along Valencia Avenue in Placentia, holding American flags as the funeral procession for Yorba Linda Marine Cpl. Claudio Patino went by late Friday morning.
__________________
“This kind of war, however necessary, is dirty business, first to last.” —T.R. Fehrenbach
“We can trust our doctors to be professional, to minister equally to their patients without regard to their political or religious beliefs. But we can no longer trust our professors to do the same." --David Horowitz
One of the primary factors in my mind is the numbers are broadly spread throughout each month. Unlike Iraq where we would unfortunately lose troops in larger groups at one incident.
There is a suppression and not suprising the MSM and current political environment lead to less airplay. Everyone is worried about their bottom line, re-election or insertion of (insert political party) into incumbent slots.
After November, just wait we'll become someone's focus, good or bad.
"Let the blood of the infantry flow through your veins,or the blood of the infantry will be on your hands."
- GEN John A. Wickham, Jr. speaking on the responsibilities of MI soldiers.
I've given this a lot of thought. In WWII they would simply describe casualties as light or heavy without giving numbers generally. Starting with Vietnam the media was given a daily count. That continues to this day. A breathless anchor with sad eyes describes June as "the deadliest month".
50 kia. In a month. True it's the most so far but hardly a military catastrophe. Constant reminders of casualties can eventually sap the public's (and Congress') commitment to a campaign.
It's happened before.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the fallen don't need to be honored. I just don't know what purpose numbers flashed across the screen serve.
__________________
"...But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive."
Shakespeare - Henry V Lazy Bob Ranch
I've given this a lot of thought. In WWII they would simply describe casualties as light or heavy without giving numbers generally. Starting with Vietnam the media was given a daily count. That continues to this day. A breathless anchor with sad eyes describes June as "the deadliest month".
50 kia. In a month. True it's the most so far but hardly a military catastrophe. Constant reminders of casualties can eventually sap the public's (and Congress') commitment to a campaign.
It's happened before.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the fallen don't need to be honored. I just don't know what purpose numbers flashed across the screen serve.
Your post falls on the timeline in which America witnessed one of it's most difficult times. Casualties were high on this day in 1863. July 1st through the 3rd of that year saw some many thousands killed, wounded or captured.
So is there a comparison, or is it just the media's continued exploitation of numbers and a lack of considerable benefit for them? I think so.
"Let the blood of the infantry flow through your veins,or the blood of the infantry will be on your hands."
- GEN John A. Wickham, Jr. speaking on the responsibilities of MI soldiers.
I watch "This Week" every Sunday morning - under their "In Memorium" piece at the end of the show, they list the name, rank, branch of service, and home of record for every casualty which occurred that week.
It has been very prominent in the Washington Post how deadly a month June was. Perhaps its just that I look for it and notice it.
There hasn't been this much coverage of Afghanistan (including casualties) since 2001/2002, and very little of it is positive. So no, I don't think the media is downplaying casualties in Afghanistan or giving Obama a free pass.
Yesterday the Washington Post's headline was a quote from a soldier, "This Is Not How You Fight a War". (When you read the article you saw the quote referred to the ROE troops must follow. The tone of the article was that the current ROE restrict soldiers' ability to defend themselves and wage war. )
Remember that in 2004 many were upset when Ted Koppel read the names of soldiers killed in Iraq.
Linear Mode
