HuffPo Poster Claims To Know More About War Than People Who Have Actually Been In One
Nick Turse over at the Huffington Post knows a lot about war, even though he has never been in one. He knows so much in fact that he can tell people like Sebastain Junger who has actually in been in a war that they don’t know what they are really talking about.
Turse has a lot of issues with Junger, which really boil down to the fact that Junger didn’t make an anti-war film (It should be pointed out that Turse wrote a book about why we should withdraw from Afghanistan). More below the fold…
First, here is Nick Turse’s bio from HuffPo:
Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of TomDispatch.com. His work has appeared in many publications, including the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times, and regularly at TomDispatch. His first book, The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, an exploration of the new military-corporate complex in America, was recently published by Metropolitan Books. His website isNickTurse.com.
Just so you get the idea about where this guy is coming from.
Here is the opening line of the article:
I’ve never heard a shot fired in anger. But I might know a little bit more about war than Sebastian Junger.
Really? Lets sum this up. Nick Turse: No time in combat. Sebastain Junger: Covered the war in Kosovo, reported on the Northern Alliance before 9/11, covered multiple African conflicts, and was embedded with an Army infantry platoon in the worst place in the world for five months. Hmmm its a close call but I think I am going to go out on a limb and say Junger knows a little more about war than Turse.
Junger and Hetherington may know something about Afghanistan, a good deal about combat, and even more about modern American troops, but there’s precious little evidence in Restrepo that — despite the title of Junger’s book — they know the true face of war.
What Turse really means is that they don’t share his point of view and didn’t make a completely bias anti-war film.
Turse then goes on to discuss a book review Junger did of a book about Vietnam.
Matterhorn touches on none of this. Marlantes focuses tightly on a small unit of Americans in a remote location surrounded by armed enemy troops — an episode that, while pitch perfect in depiction, represents only a sliver of a fraction of the conflict that was the Vietnam War.
It’s not surprising that this view of war appealed to Junger. In Restrepo, it’s his vision of war, too.
Yet again, Junger doesn’t see the “bigger picture” (which is Turse’s view of history) so Junger doesn’t know what he is talking. You see the brillant logic here?
Few Americans born after the Civil War know much about war. Real war. War that seeks you out. War that arrives on your doorstep — not once in a blue moon, but once a month or a week or a day. The ever-present fear that just when you’re at the furthest point in your fields, just when you’re most exposed, most alone, most vulnerable, it will come roaring into your world.
Those Americans who have gone to war since the 1870s — soldiers or civilians — have been mostly combat tourists, even those who spent many tours under arms or with pen (or computer) in hand reporting from war zones.
Yep, the Marines on Iwo Jima were just looking to take a really cool picture on top of a mountain. The guys at Normandy were just trying to get to EuroDisney. The Rangers in Somalia were there for the surfing. I went to Iraq for seven months just to work on my tan and see the sites in Ninawa and Anbar province. No, seriously….
Turse pretty much goes on a rant about Vietnam, the military, drones and every other leftist complaint about the military. He closes with this:
If Americans care only sparingly for their paid, professional soldiers — the ones A.O. Scott says deserve 90 minutes of our time — they care even less about Afghan civilians. That’s why they don’t understand war. And that’s why they’ll think that the essence of war is what they’re seeing as they sit in the dark and watch Restrepo.
So I suppose that is why the United States is investing billions in bolstering Afghan infrastructure and has implemented the most restrictive ROEs in the history of warfare.. because we don’t care about the Afghan people. Right.
Fire away folks….
Category: Antiwar crowd, Liberals suck, Media, Military issues
What a jerk.
Idiot comes to mind…or chest puffer extraordinaire…or shit for brains…
“Few Americans born after the Civil War know much about war. Real war. War that seeks you out. War that arrives on your doorstep — not once in a blue moon, but once a month or a week or a day. The ever-present fear that just when you’re at the furthest point in your fields, just when you’re most exposed, most alone, most vulnerable, it will come roaring into your world.” ~N. Turse
Does the date September 11, 2001 mean anything to you? I think our entire country saw war come roaring into our world on that fateful morning.
I’m not much for calling people names, even if they are morons. But you are a moron sir.
V5
Nick Turse has publicly disowned this piece he wrote as a doctoral candidate, about how kids who shoot up schools are just radical protesters, maaaaan:
http://www.49thparallel.bham.ac.uk/back/issue4/forumturse.htm
On his bio, he chides right wing bloggers for focusing on this piece of bygone academic lunacy, and claims he no longer feels that way. So, there ya go: Nobody can question the moral compass of Nick Turse, who has never heard a shot fired in anger but is an expert on war, and no longer thinks that killing kids is just a form of protest.
The main reason I don’t post here on discussions concerning combat is I have nothing to say. I am married to a retired soldier, I have family members that are soldiers, and we have friends that are soldiers; BUT — that does not make me a soldier, and I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about combat.
Maybe someone will be successful explaining that reality to Turse.
Typical leftist. They know they know more than we ‘normal’ Americans do, on every subject, and that we are just too dumb to help ourselves…so they need to guide our lives to make them better.
f**kstick.
“You see any action?”
“A little. On TV…”
Full Metal Jacket
The ONLY two uses the left has for the military is using it’s assets to fight the “war” on drugs. Which has turned into a war on the American people, The other one is to round up their political ememies and dispose of them. The left really thinks that the type of people that tend to join the military will follow orders do just that. Why wouldn’t they? Those military types took orders from the evil “Boosh”. And it rounded up Japanese when ordered to by FDR. The demo-rat. So why doesn’t ObotOne just order the Army to shoot those racist tea party types and be done with it???
Freakin’ no nothing Twits….
“I’ve never heard a shot fired in anger. But I might know a little bit more about war than Sebastian Junger.”
What bloody planet is Turse living on? Just… Is it even possible to take the rest of the article seriously after this bit of super-dense stupidity and arrogance?
Turse is a douche nozzle, period.
He needs to keep his pie hole shut regarding the affairs of MEN about which he knows nada.
Okay. I spent quite some time reading the whole piece. (I admit I took breaks. It reads like a rant, not an article.) Both points of view are correct. Civillian populations bear the brunt of warfare. Both sides, however, are “guilty” (for lack of a better term.) In past wars, such as WWII strategic objectives were well defined and easily understood. While we all know that the occupation of Afghanistan is a direct result of 9/11, the strategic objectives have never been defined. Definitions of success are elusive and strategic benefit to the United States is not easy to understand.
I want to watch the film, I have not yet seen it. I have a lot of respect for what our military is trying to do. But, I don’t begrudge those with questions. I just wish that Turse would puick one complaint or even two and go with that rather than this long laundry risk or random musings.
HM2 FMF-SW Ret
I applaud you for going in and reading the article, which I won’t do. The question I have, does he ever elaborate on his vast knowledge of war and make an attempt to edjoomakayte us dumb folk?
“Definitions of success are elusive and strategic benefit to the United States is not easy to understand”
Please please PLEASE tell me this is some kind of a joke on your part, you can’t possibly be that insular or dense.
Sponge:
Among my many complaints with the article is his cavilier attitude. His position is not so much based on his “vast knowledge of war,” but rather an ability to sympathize with civillian populations in war torn countries. His contention against the movie is that it ignores the civillian population and fucuses on the American serviciemen. He also ignores the impact of the Taliban on that same population. He also states a belief that the insurgency will cease when US troops leave. So, in short, the rant has many logical flaws. At this point, the question for the opposition is what is the best strategic solution for American forces. If civil war starts/continues, it’s not our fight. Our goal is the security of the United States.
Jacobite:
How does attempting to create several large cities and a western style democracy in Afghanistan serve our security? Small and medium sized groups of terror cells use Afghnaistan as a place to train troops against the US and export tactics back to their home countries. Fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan does not perclude a terror attack on American soil. If the goal is denying Al Qaeda a base of operations, they will go elswhere (like Somalia) and some reports show that they may have done so already. Moreover, resources are stretched thin. It is not clear if we could respond to a near peer competetor like China or Russia if we had to. So what exactly is the strategic importance of Afghanistan?
Damn, did he toss that off with his right hand or his left?
Errr, what’s up Doc?
Simply put you stated, “Definitions of success are elusive and strategic benefit to the United States is not easy to understand”.
However, you have failed to demonstrate how either assertion is true, when examples of both are readily available. You may disagree with the definition, goal, or degree of importance, but it’s disingenuous to state that definitions are ‘elusive’ and the importance is ‘not easy to understand’. Because those things may hold true for you does not make them fact.
And in answer to your last question, “So what exactly is the strategic importance of Afghanistan?”, my answer is exactly that which you feebly attempted to discredit.
Our involvement in their back yard weakens them and their resources vastly more than the other way around, and reliable intelligence has proven for years that yes, it’s keeping the fight out of our own back yard. Sorry, try again.
Jacobite,
Your answer is feeble not mine. Terrorist attacks have increased worlwidenat a steady rate since 2002. There is credible intelligence that lessons learned on the battlefield are being applied to operations elsewhere. To date there has been no concrete definition of success. You fail to provide evidence that there is.
Now quick go turn on Glenn Beck. He might tell you what to say next.
Well, doc, in reference to your post #13; what do you suggest we do? If fighting them over there isn’t a solution, I would like to hear yours. We’ve tried ignoring them and we’ve tried not pursuing them. We’ve tried apologizing for anything and everything, including being America in general, yet they still hate us. So, if you’ve got a great solution, then I want to hear it.
HM2,
Please note that you are stating a lie when you state “Terrorist attacks have increased worlwide at a steady rate since 2002.”
First off, I presume you are citing to: Patterns of Global Terrorism put out by the State department (last published in 2004) That is as close to a source your qoute could find on the Interweb.
So, first off your assertion is dated, by 5 YEARS. Update your records for the peace and prosperity in Iraq since the surge quieted things down.
Further, in that last report, terrorist attacks have not increased. The only way they get that factoid is to include attacks on military targets in a war zone. An IED explosion targeting a HMMV is an attack. It might even be carried out by a terrorist organization. But it is called an ambush, at least using old fashioned dictionary terms. So, once you eliminate all the ambushes that occurred in Iraq, terrorist attacks have gone down. Look at the report. It is on the Internet, even from government sources that have a chance of being authentic.
Next, even if you somehow grant that attacks went up from 2001 to 2004, so what. Your underlying point, that the Bush adminstration war on terror is useless. Even the current, democratic party administration has followed the same strategies in Afghanistan. That is because when you address a problem, it often gets worse in the short term. Like lancing a boil. It hurts worse while you are cleaning out the infection. That is a sign things are getting better.
Addressing stupid liberal tropes, one liar at a time.
JAG
Doc, Nope, nothing feeble about my argument at all. Your response is all the evidence I need, but I’ll persist a little longer here. You originally tried to claim that our involvement in Afghanistan does not make us safer here at home. I assert that it does, and that the prevailing evidence as well as simple logic proves it. Your response is to try and widen the scope of the argument with “Terrorist attacks have increased worldwide”. Well first off I don’t know that to be at all true, but even if it were, the original argument concerned our back yard, not the world’s, so you really haven’t answered my assertion at all. Looking for the definitions of success? Straight from the U.S. State Department, The United States’ goals in Afghanistan; “A Stable and Democratic Afghanistan: Helping Afghanistan to achieve peace and stability will require a continued commitment by the Department, USAID, and international donors to four interlocking objectives: (1) Afghanistan must establish internal and external security to ensure economic reconstruction, political stability, and stem the rise in opium production; (2) we must work to establish a stable, effective, and broadly representative central government; (3) economic development must bolster this new government and reduce dependence on donors; and (4) we must help the people of Afghanistan meet their critical humanitarian needs while reconstruction proceeds.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg, I suggest you go to the State Dept website and read the Global Mission Statement for yourself so that you get the whole picture in context. Also pertinent to the topic, from the International Security Assistance Force – Afghanistan http://www.isaf.nato.int/ ; Mission Statement ISAF, in support of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, conducts operations in Afghanistan to reduce the capability and will of the insurgency, support the growth in capacity and capability of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), and facilitate improvements in governance and socio-economic development, in order to provide a secure environment for sustainable stability that is observable to the population. Security In accordance with all the relevant Security Council Resolutions, ISAF’s main role… Read more »