IVAW’s Jorge Gonsalez weighs in on Afghanistan shootings
In a link sent to us by Patrick, CNN goes straight to Iraq Veterans Against the War when they want to blame the military for those shootings in Afghanistan. They take the same tone as the Washington Post, blaming the leadership at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, because the media likes to see general officers take the fall. But CNN goes to Jorge Gonzalez, apparently, according to his profile at IVAW, one of the few remaining actual Iraq veterans left in the organization, if that tells you anything about his character. But, of course, CNN needed the insight of a five-year specialist to judge the leadership of the Joint Base;
“This was not just a rogue soldier,” said Jorge Gonzalez, executive director of G.I. Voice, a veteran-run nonprofit organization that operates a soldiers’ resource center near the base called Coffee Strong. The base is “a rogue base, with a severe leadership problem,” he said.
“If Fort Lewis was a college campus, it would have been closed down years ago,” Gonzalez said.
In the wake of Sunday’s shootings, he called for a congressional investigation and hearings “into the multiple crises” at the base.
Of course, it’s not the first time we’ve heard of Gonzalez. NSOM wrote about him a few weeks ago doing the same shit.
For those of you who have never served, we senior leadership in the Army get to hear the opinions of Soldiers in the E-4 pay grade like Gonzalez everyday, all day long and we don’t pay attention to them, because most of them think they have valuable opinions, but that’s hardly ever the case. According to Gonzalez’ profile he spent five years in the Army and only managed to get promoted three times. that’s a little on the low side for soldiers. But he’d probably tell you it’s because the man was keeping him down and didn’t recognize his talent.
So, good job, CNN, finding the least credible person in Washington State to support your story. Gonzalez hasn’t been stationed on Lewis-McCord since 2009, so he’s basing his expertise on listening to the more current E-4 Mafia as they bitch and complain about things they don’t understand.
Then to further support their story, CNN uses the case of Benjamin Colton Barnes, the Army-trained survival specialist who was found face down in a creek when he dies from hypothermia (like a true survival specialist whom the Army trains) who was booted from his service at JB Lewis-McChord more than three years ago. Of course, CNN used him as an example of “vets gone nuts” a few weeks ago, too. So it must be JBLM that’s at fault, even though the nut they used in the “vets as nuts” story with Barnes was a Marine.
Category: Iraq Veterans Against the War, Media
Hey Tanker, I thoroughly enjoyed your input, as you personally know him and have deployed with him. Here is my main problem with some of the people on this site. They want to whine and complain that there are a lot of members of IVAW who did not actually go to Iraq. And that is something that I actually do kind of agree with them about. But then, when there is a member of IVAW who has deployed to Iraq, they attack them for being a member of IVAW in the first place. I’m not sure that people here even listen to the opinion, they just hear or see IVAW and write the person off as a “dirty hippie.” There are varying viewpoints and attitudes in IVAW, all with the one common anti-war stance. I’ve met some fairly conservative people in IVAW, people who are most certainly not “dirty hippies.” I’ll even admit that I used to be an active member, and the reason I am not so active anymore is because I became unhappy with some of the stances and actions of the organization. BUT I will say that I still think I met some very amazing people in the organization and I don’t think it is helpful to judge all of them right from the get go.
Hell Hondo, we hardly ever did. In my experience unit procedures are as varied as the demographics where you find them, within the restrictions of regulations of course. I don’t mean to defend the little cretan, but I understand how very different all our individual experiences with the system can be.
“I’m not sure that people here even listen to the opinion, they just hear or see IVAW and write the person off as a “dirty hippie.”
Yep. One of the first things many if not most of us learned as children was ‘Birds of a Feather…’. If you want to be taken seriously in our society, choose your companions carefully.
BUT I will say that I still think I met some very amazing people in the organization
I’m sure someone somewhere can say the same thing about even the most evil of organizations in human history, so what? A person should still have the good sense to disassociate one’s self from people and groups that have the potential to bring you and your message down. You did lots of good things for people and met lots of nice folks while a part of IVAW? Good for you, you could have done the same working for a more mainstream and better vetted organization, and not run the risk of having your ultimate goal of helping, or your core message of peace, buried under a dump truck load of crap. And many of us feel life is to short to waste time listening to anything originating with a member of an organization that has already proven its self to be corrupt.
Former ‘Pvt Snuffy’ with the American Legion will always be taken more seriously than former ‘Pvt Snuffy’ affiliated with IVAW. F’n simple.
In Jorge’s defense, his position is not a radical one. The University of Maryland has the foremost military sociology program in the country, and it’s lead by David Segal, who worked for the Department of Defense for decades, and lectured at the United States Military Academy and Army War College. He’s still called upon by DoD to do research for them. Needless to say, he’s pretty objective, fair, and knows a great deal about military sociology. His response to the Panjwai Massacre was essentially the same as Jorge’s. He argued that if the massacre was a hateful event that occurred in isolation, then it might be able to be brushed off as simply psychological. But because the kill team, urinating on dead bodies, posing with Nazi “SS” regalia, burning of Korans, and the massacre happened in such a short time span in the same general location, and because it correlated positively with potential influences like multiple deployments or counterinsurgency strategy, the military deserves a share of responsibility. He actually said that the military always writes off incidents like this by assigning blame on individuals and makes the mistake of never asking how they might contribute to the problem. He said they do this with suicide for example, and it’s a mistake.
Also, I too know Jorge personally, and he’s far from a “dirty hippie.” He was actually a staunch Republican for the longest time. He’s right in calling out Fort Lewis. I’m sure there are plenty of other bases with similar problems, but this just happens to be across the street from him. There have been serious leadership issues there, going as far back as the Tillman incident, and includes as a recent example, their disgusting handling of the suicide of a Ranger who deployed 8 times. After that much action, the least he should have received was respect when he came to his command asking for help with his PTSD, but instead they treated him like he was a weak coward, threatened him with another deployment, and refused to give him a military burial when he shot himself. That’s not just rogue behavior; it’s negligence. More soldiers die from suicide than combat right now, so the biggest enemy isn’t the Taliban or al Qaeda but leadership that knowingly refuse help to soldiers who need it.
He’s more than a dirty, filthy hippie. He’s a parasite. He’s only interested in pursuing a specific agenda because it’s how he makes his money.
He decides on his conclusion, then cherry picks his data to support it. That’s not research, his the equivalent of a drive-by shooting.
Fuck him, and the rest of his ass maggot supporters and enablers.
Jacobite: I believe you’ve said your experience was mostly in USAR/ARNG units. Please correct me if I’m confusing you with another individual here.
It’s been my experience that the USAR/ARNG is variable as hell regarding awards, particularly when it comes to awards for reassignment/EOT/ETS. Some units/organizations do a great job; others, not so much. My comment was geared towards the active component – and I beliveve this guy was AC vice RC. It’s been my experience (dated as hell now) that in the AC, it was pretty much standard to put in your good troops for some kind of award on departure, even the departure was due to ETS. The establishment of the AAM actually helped that come about, IMO.
That practice could easily have changed with time, and may well have varied substantially from unit to unit in the AC also. But it did generally seem to me to be the case while I was serving on active duty – each time.
Anonymous in Jax,
Leaving aside the issue of Jorge, I’m really sorry to hear you’re less active because of organizational stances. I’d really appreciate if you would email me- (Selena) and let me know about it. If you don’t already have my email, you can contact me through the staff section of the website. Can even stay anonymous if you like.
AW1 Tim, what money are you referring to? He doesn’t make money through IVAW, through interviews, and he makes enough to keep Coffee Strong open. If you’re gonna have the class to a call a person a parasite anonymously on an online comments section, at least have evidence to back it up.
Also AW1 Tim, “He decides on his conclusion, then cherry picks his data to support it. That’s not research, his the equivalent of a drive-by shooting.” I don’t understand the analogy of a drive-by shooting. One thing that does get people killed, however, is when certain military leaders and psychologists also start with a conclusion and cherry pick data to support it. The conclusion that many military leaders start with is that war is objectively moral, which runs contrary to two of the greatest American generals, i.e., General Sherman and Eisenhower, who both called war “hell.” Regardless, the question is not what war IS objectively, but what it MEANS to the subjective minds that experience it and act within it. That should be the concern of military psychologists and sociologists when dealing with mental trauma, which is an inherently subjective phenomenon. Instead, they explicitly state that their goal is to get soldiers with PTSD or TBI back into the fight – no matter what, this is the ultimate aim – and this is unethical practice. It would be like a marriage counselor who refused to consider divorce, or a sexual trauma therapist whose goal was to get the patient back into bed with the perpetrator. This is an agenda, and Jorge’s position is hardly one. Neither Jorge nor IVAW’s Operation Recovery assume that the path to healing for all soldiers with PTSD and TBI are the same. We take a much more nuanced position than the military that respects the complexity of the issue, and we therefore set our agenda to the side. Many of us acknowledge that some soldiers feel that in order to preserve heaven, someone has to do battle with hell – someone has to face the darkness to preserve the light – and those soldiers are willing to answer that calling and they want to be able to get back into the fight without having nightmares, mood swings, drug dependency, moral reservations, etc. This is a legitimate position which should be respected, and of course they should be free to pursue that course. But there are… Read more »
There are a lot of angry people on here.