“The Age of the Warrior”, by Robert Fisk
 

I just finished reading “The Age of the Warrior”, by Robert Fisk. He has reported from and on the Middle East for the past thirty two years. It is, Imho, in many ways required reading if you are interest in exploring a perspective that will challenge your view. Almost all of what I have read caused me to question the truth of what I believed it to be: the facts of the conflicts, major players, intrigue, political tics, excreta. I have come to the conclusion that his point of view is somewhat flawed, or mine is ill informed and naïve.

The book it presented as a collection of essays written btw 2006-2008 in the Independent Magazine, a UK based publication.

I recommend it as great writing, strong foreign policy insight, a contrary view eloquently stated.

After reading some of his articles and quotes from the compiled writings you mention, I'd believe the first part of your above statement but not the second. Unless that second part were applied to Fisk.

He believes President Bush changed the Soldiers Creed?

Sample article.

Robert Fisk: The US military and its cult of cruelty

There are links from this page to more... Fisk

This thread caught my eye, so after following the link to Mr Fisk's other articles....reading them was a waste of 10 minutes of my life.

IMHO Mr Fisk is another "hate America/Israel looney".

I agree, he is an asshat, his view is polar opposite of mine, but I counld not help being impressed by his writing style. Wish I had that ability to form an arugment and the tap dancing shoes to present it.

Robert Fisk's habit of playing fast and loose with the truth, and either making things up, or leaving out things that don't support his conclusion, is so well known that the verb "to fisk" has entered our vocabulary - it refes to a point by point debunking of an argument by pointing out the inaccuracies and ommissions in it.

There are those who object to "line by line" rebuttal as a counter-argument by making the claim that a counter-argument should be based on constructing a counter-thesis, and not a point by point rebuttal of the premises that support the thesis.

I find that objection to "fisking" unpersuasive. If a conclusion is built on incorrect premises, then the whole argument is suspect.

And, for the same reason, I find Robert Fisk to be suspect. He's kind of like the Baron Munchausen of the middle east. He might tell the truth from time to time, but it's by accident. I know from the work done by other people who've spent the time debunking him that he's prone to build his point of view out of errors and omissions - and since I don't have the time or the inclination to fact check everything he says to see if he's telling the truth this time, I pretty much discount his point of view.

I read the "cruelty" article and was underwhelmed. It should go without saying that I disagree with his opinion.

I also have to point out that if his theory is that the change in the Soldier's Creed is the origin for this "problem", then why is the sole example he presents that of alleged mistreatment by Marines? Either he doesn't understand that the Marines would never have an opportunity to read the Army Soldier's Creed, or he thinks everyone else is stupid enough not to notice.

On the other side of the equation, one can't help but notice that the new "Warrior Ethos" cribs strongly from the Ranger Creed. It seems like an omission that they basically copied the line
but left out the "morally straight".

Frankly, I don't see what was wrong with the old Soldier's Creed.

The stories of barbarity grow by the week, sometimes by the day. In Canada, an American military deserter appealed for refugee status and a serving comrade gave evidence that when US forces saw babies lying in the road in Fallujah - outrageously, it appears, insurgents sometimes placed them there to force the Americans to halt and face ambush - they were under orders to drive over the children without stopping.

I can't believe this,can anybody? :(

GB TFS :munchin