The News-Gazette.com Weblog

Area Extras

Five years of war

Posted by: Meg Thilmony

Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:58 PM

I'll never forget the first night of the war in Iraq.

My high school marching band had just spent a week visiting New Orleans, and we were headed back to Illinois. I remember vaguely knowing the war was coming, but didn't pay as much attention as I should have to current events.

But our driver knew; he left talk radio playing on the bus' loudspeaker that whole night. I remember drifting off to sleep on that bumpy ride north, and waking up to the realization that our nation was at war.

Then, I don't think I grasped the historical enormity of that night's events. I was focused on finishing high school and finding a good college. A war didn't seem too important at the time. (And I believe that opinion was pretty standard among my classmates.) In my sheltered state, I never dreamed it would be affecting our nation five years later.

Sure, the war tempered aspects of my life. The next year, I wrote a senior term paper on the use of propaganda during wartime.

A couple years later, Seymour Hersh visited my university. I fired off an indignant column (that ran on this newspaper's Sunday editorial page) about how my peers didn't seem to care about the war and how we needed to do everything in our power (which, looking back on it, wasn't much) to end it.

It's been almost three years since I penned that particular piece, and I'll admit that my political views - and opinions about the war - have mellowed quite a bit.

Part of that has come from interviewees of stories I've written during my first 10 months as a professional reporter. I now see the war through the eyes of those affected firsthand, rather than through a remote veil of media coverage and general contempt.

I'll never forget American Legion National Commander Marty Conatser's response to my question about whether he supports the war: Our soldiers believe we can win, and I must stand with our soldiers, he told me during an interview for a Veterans Day story.

I've talked to mothers, wives, friends and family members of area men who gave their lives while serving in Iraq. Their stories are heartbreaking, but the general theme is pretty clear: their sons, husbands and children's fathers are heroes. They gave the ultimate sacrifice for their country.

As a citizen, I must give those men - and all veterans - my unadulterated respect. And while I wouldn't necessarily peg myself as pro-war these days, I'm would never call myself anti-war. We're five years in, and my own opinion doesn't change much in the scope of things.

The years have given me some important perspective on how this war will change my life. Many men and women my age have served there and will continue to do so for the indefinite future.

I'm just beginning to grasp the future attention we'll have to give to veterans' health care and benefits. Thousands of people who will be my colleagues and peers for the rest of my life have have firsthand experience with the war.

And perhaps that's the most important lessons I've learned in the last five years: no matter how much longer the U.S. is fighting in Iraq, this war is a historical event. It's been affecting the world for a little less than a quarter of my life. And it will continue to affect our society forever, much like the way World War II and the Vietnam War still reverberate through our culture.

That's something I never imagined five years ago.

Comments

Soldiers are like prize fighters: they ALWAYS believe they can win. If they don't then they stop being good soldiers.

It is the citizen's job to determine whether they are willing to pay the cost for the win -- soldier's lives, civillian's lives and the welfare that will be required for the potentially injured soldier and his family after the war (and perhaps the soldier) has passed on.

Being anti-THIS-war is neither being anti-soldier, nor disrespecting them or their profession in any way. It is a common misconception -- there is nothing so pro-soldier as wanting them to stop them placing themselves in harms way due to the poor judgement of their commander-in-chief.

A true soldier continues to fight and to do his duty; never gives up. A true commander understands this as a huge responsibility and treats it with the care and respect that it deserves. He does not play soldier for a photo-op on an Aircraft carrier stating 'Mission Accomplished' and then keep them there for another 4 years. THAT is disrespectful to their service.

Withdrawing from a political quagmire is NOT losing, it's "stop loss" in it's most basic form.

Posted by dw on March 20, 2008 at 10:09 AM

Meg Thilmony seems to think this war has only been going on for five years, but in reality, the FIRST ATTACK took place in February of 1993, from the SAME Islamofascist terrorists who eventually destroyed the World Trade Center's "Twin Towers" on September 11, of 2001.

dw, you say: "Being anti-THIS-war is neither being anti-soldier, nor disrespecting them or their profession in any way. It is a common misconception -- there is nothing so pro-soldier as wanting them to stop them placing themselves in harms way due to the poor judgement of their commander-in-chief.", HOWEVER, being anti-THIS(OR ANY)-Conmmander-in-Chief IS disrespecting all military members who have sworn to support and defend the constitution of these United States and are under his COMMAND!

I contend that there is NOTHING MORE TREASONOUS than to demand removal of troops from a conflict they are WINNING, to turn the "battlefield" over to the terrorist insurgents to over-run at their will!!, AND leaving our HARD-WON ALLIES on said battlefield to "fend for themselvs", some of whom would convert to the insurgancy in order to STAY ALIVE!!

THE FALLACY OF THE ANTI-WAR "USEFUL IDIOT" FOOLS IS THAT THEY THINK REMOVING OUR TROOPS FROM THE CONFLICT WILL END THE WAR!!! UNLESS AND UNTIL YOU DEFEAT THE ENEMY BEFORE YOU DISEMBARK FROM A CONFLICT, THE WAR WILL NEVER BE OVER, THE ENEMY WILL BE EMBOLDENED AT THEIR WIN AND WILL CONTINUE THEIR ATTACKS UNENCUMBERED!!! AND WITH THE RICHES OF THE SECOND MOST OIL-RICH NATION IN THE WORLD THEY WILL HAVE UNLIMITED RECOURSES TO CONTINUE THEIR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES AROUND THE WORLD!!!

WHAT SAY YOU, dw, TERRORIST ENABLER???!!

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND PLEASE PROTECT US FROM OUR ENEMIES BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WOULD ENABLE TERRORISTS TO CONTINUE THEIR ATROCITIES UNENCUMBERED!!!

Posted by FReRydr on March 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM

I hate it when the caps lock button gets stuck down.

Posted by algon on March 20, 2008 at 3:45 PM

WHAT SAY YOU, dw, TERRORIST ENABLER???!!

FReRydr:

I say your momma failed you, as you have not learned proper manners. Name-calling should be squelched at a young age.

I say your history teacher failed you, as you have not learned the lessons of red-baiting from the McCarthy era.

I say your English teacher (or whomever introduced you to the Internet) failed you as they didn't teach you how impolite it is to type in ALL CAPS on the Internet, as it is considered to be YELLING and yelling has no place in a civilized debate.

Therefore, I say no matter your age, you need to grow up and learn to be civilized, else like a petulant child, people will corner you off and ignore your tirades, and I feel that would be sad as somewhere buried in there you might have something interesting to add to the conversation.

And lastly I say that is the only response you shall get from me until such point as you learn to keep a civil tongue, as I need to remember ad hominem attacks are a poor debating style... and responding to a verbal bully is just adding fuel to the fire.

My apologies, all (but momma, he ASKED for it!)

Posted by dw on March 20, 2008 at 9:33 PM

dw says: "WAHHHHH WAHHHH WAHHHHH I can't respond to factual statements so I'll attack the mean ol' messenger!!"

PLEASE EXCUSE MY "YELLING" AS I AM VERY PASSIONATE IN MY BELIEFS and feel it adds "emphasis" to my statements!!

BTW (By The Way), dw, I could care LESS if you "respond" to me or not!! I'm sick of fools that are trying to enable terrorists to wreak their havoc throughout the world and denegrate the morale of our brave men and women in uniform! When you denegrate the Commander-in-Chief and the mission you also denegrate the brave troops performing that mission!!

MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA AND PROTECT OUR BRAVE TROOPS FROM HARM!!

Posted by FReRydr on March 20, 2008 at 10:30 PM

dw, I know you are checking to see if any more is posted, even though you won't reply, after all you don't want to be "perceived as such a TERRORIST ENABLER", but HERE is PROOF of that very thing!! The direct corrolation between events in the "Lamestream (ene)Media" and attacks against the COALITION Forces fighting TERRORISTS :

'Duh!'(Oliver North)

Townhall.com ^ | March 28, 2008 | Oliver North

MIAMI -- I made a major mistake in a hotel room this week. Not the Eliot Spitzer kind of mistake -- but with a television remote. While changing for a late dinner, I tried to tune in to Fox News Channel, but the electronic device took me instead to MTV and some kind of "reality show." For a few minutes as I dressed, I was treated to several attractive young American women discussing their relationships. The most oft repeated sound in this conversation was "Duh!" -- a word that does not appear in my dictionary. But now I know what it means.

After conferring with several young people at our New York bureau, I was informed that "Duh!" is simply modern shorthand for "No! Really?" or "You just figured that out?" Well, if that's the case, this week should be giving the masters of the mainstream media plenty of "Duh!" moments about the campaign in Iraq.

On Monday, the potentates of the press finally discovered a study completed last month by Harvard University researchers about what we have been saying for years: There is a direct connection between adverse U.S. news coverage about Operation Iraqi Freedom and intensified attacks on civilians and coalition forces in Iraq. "Is There an 'Emboldenment' Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq" shows that negative media coverage and adverse commentary by U.S. political luminaries produce a statistically measurable increase in enemy activity.

To produce the study, analysts researched the number of insurgent attacks and fatalities per week from the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 until January 2008. They also examined the number of "anti-resolve statements" per week by U.S. politicians from November 2004 to January 2008 and American public opinion polls on the war from November 2004 to January 2008.

The researchers found "a positive correlation" between spikes in war-critical statements in the media and the number of attacks and fatalities. They also showed that attacks increased between 7 and 10 percent following a spate of anti-resolve statements by leading political figures.

The authors of the study, Radha Iyengar and Jonathan Monten, baldly state, "We find that in periods immediately after a spike in anti-resolve statements, the level of insurgent attacks increases." Well, Duh!

This carefully researched study verifies what many of us who have spent months in the field concluded long ago: The drumbeat of negative news coverage about events in Iraq and the careless commentary from the political left in Washington have increased the danger for U.S. troops and our allies.

The riots and murders precipitated by a fictitious May 9, 2005, article in Newsweek magazine -- describing how a Quran had been flushed down a toilet in Guantanamo -- certainly validated how quickly bad news is spread, not just in Iraq but throughout the Muslim world. When a U.S. senator likens American troops to those who served Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, it not only disheartens our sons and daughters in uniform but also encourages our adversaries, as well. When the senior U.S. commander in Iraq is depicted as "General Betray Us" in the pages of The New York Times, those who hate us are exultant.

The Harvard study also confirms that our adversary in Iraq is very media savvy. They pay close attention to U.S. news and use it to exhort attacks and recruit new supporters to their jihad. To believe that they are not paying attention to the current U.S. presidential campaign is to deny reality.

The message in this study is not just a cry for responsible reporting -- but a charge for American political elites. It's also very likely that this study is a prediction of the next nine months on the ground in Iraq.

In the aftermath of this study -- and this week's spike in violence in Iraq -- how can there be any doubt that the Iranians and al-Qaida will do all they can to ensure that the next occupant of the Oval Office is a person pledged to "get us out of Iraq starting on Day One." Duh!

Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins .

Posted by FReRydr on March 28, 2008 at 12:16 AM