“Mission accomplished!”
March 7, 2015 9:43 PM Subscribe
I have disliked Petraeus ever since I heard he made sure he was awarded a Bronze Star with a "V" device during one of his "tours" in Iraq. The "V" means you demonstrated valor under enemy fire at personal risk to yourself.
This bullshit (brass nowhere near combat getting medals) has gone on for as long as the US has been in wars but it speaks volumes about the integrity of the person who would wear it not having earned it.
It also pisses me off b/c my grandfather was awarded the same medal during WW II and he earned it while sustaining a combat injury that left him with a permanent limp. The Petraeus bullshit is an insult to every veteran of every war who earned their Bronze Stars with "V" devices.
posted by mlis at 11:15 PM on March 7, 2015 [30 favorites]
This bullshit (brass nowhere near combat getting medals) has gone on for as long as the US has been in wars but it speaks volumes about the integrity of the person who would wear it not having earned it.
It also pisses me off b/c my grandfather was awarded the same medal during WW II and he earned it while sustaining a combat injury that left him with a permanent limp. The Petraeus bullshit is an insult to every veteran of every war who earned their Bronze Stars with "V" devices.
posted by mlis at 11:15 PM on March 7, 2015 [30 favorites]
Armstrong was a manipulating bully and liar, but author Frank Rich pulls a little sleight of hand with this statement:
Jenkins and other Armstrong defenders frequently argue that he deserves special dispensation because his cancer charity, Livestrong, has raised some $350 million. Revealingly, conspicuous charity is a common element in all these cases. The Kelleys of Tampa tried to accrue social status with their scantly funded “foundation” for terminal cancer patients. Sandusky worked tirelessly for his youth charity, the Second Mile, that also came in handy for rounding up potential rape victims.
Through juxtaposition, he just equated Armstrong's well funded and respected cancer charity with the Kelley's poorly funded charity and Sandusky's charity work that served as a source of rape victims. This paragraph is a despicable and unwarranted criticism of Livestrong. There's plenty enough material to criticize Armstrong with without this unfair defamation through association of the charity.
posted by eye of newt at 11:33 PM on March 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
Jenkins and other Armstrong defenders frequently argue that he deserves special dispensation because his cancer charity, Livestrong, has raised some $350 million. Revealingly, conspicuous charity is a common element in all these cases. The Kelleys of Tampa tried to accrue social status with their scantly funded “foundation” for terminal cancer patients. Sandusky worked tirelessly for his youth charity, the Second Mile, that also came in handy for rounding up potential rape victims.
Through juxtaposition, he just equated Armstrong's well funded and respected cancer charity with the Kelley's poorly funded charity and Sandusky's charity work that served as a source of rape victims. This paragraph is a despicable and unwarranted criticism of Livestrong. There's plenty enough material to criticize Armstrong with without this unfair defamation through association of the charity.
posted by eye of newt at 11:33 PM on March 7, 2015 [10 favorites]
David Cain's blog, Raptitude, had a recent post, This Just In: Humans Are Bad at Everything That's Important where he points out (emphasis mine):
[...] we know it is virtues like fairness, honesty, discipline and kindness that are going to make it easier to be human, to deal with suffering and loss and all the stark realities that come with knowing you’re a vulnerable, animated bag of meat. We desperately want to get ourselves (but especially others) to embody these higher human qualities, which promise to save us from cruelty and misery. But as much as we covet them, we forget that these new capacities are in fact skills, and that as a species we’re generally not very good at them.posted by mikelieman at 11:48 PM on March 7, 2015 [27 favorites]
Essentially, this higher territory is what we call morality, and I think we tend to greatly overestimate how good we are at it. We’re a species who, as I point out frequently, can barely uphold our New Year’s commitments to ourselves, yet we seem to expect everyone else to be more or less upstanding and incorruptible.
I found this article a bit thin. It's human nature to look for heroes and once we've anointed one, to ignore any evidence that they're arseholes or criminals. But why do we hero-worship? And how can we get better at spotting clay feet before we give people all the money and power they ask for?
posted by harriet vane at 11:55 PM on March 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by harriet vane at 11:55 PM on March 7, 2015 [3 favorites]
during one of his "tours" in Iraq
If it makes you feel any better, it was while leading the 101st Airborne into Baghdad and taking on the Republican Guard. It was real combat, not an occupation rotation. See In the Company of Soldiers by Rick Atkinson. It is unrelated to his later role as counterinsurgency architect.
unfair defamation through association of the charity.
No, I think it's deserved. It's clear in retrospect that Armstrong founded the charity to buy goodwill and defenders. The importance of Livestrong in the fight against cancer has long been disputed, and this Outside analysis suggests that it's all but superfluous.
My own general understanding of such things is that often, these high-profile charities do little to actually increase overall amounts donated. I watched as our local Alzheimer's Support Center's fundraising was all but obliterated -- it recently closed -- when both national Alzheimer's organizations decided to do their own fundraising events here.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 PM on March 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
If it makes you feel any better, it was while leading the 101st Airborne into Baghdad and taking on the Republican Guard. It was real combat, not an occupation rotation. See In the Company of Soldiers by Rick Atkinson. It is unrelated to his later role as counterinsurgency architect.
unfair defamation through association of the charity.
No, I think it's deserved. It's clear in retrospect that Armstrong founded the charity to buy goodwill and defenders. The importance of Livestrong in the fight against cancer has long been disputed, and this Outside analysis suggests that it's all but superfluous.
My own general understanding of such things is that often, these high-profile charities do little to actually increase overall amounts donated. I watched as our local Alzheimer's Support Center's fundraising was all but obliterated -- it recently closed -- when both national Alzheimer's organizations decided to do their own fundraising events here.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 PM on March 7, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's just it. All these fools start "charities" as cover.
Nah, they usually just start as ways to offset tax liabilities. Then they get some recognition for their 'charity', then down the rabbit hole and when they self-destruct in various ways it would all implode except for the vested fund-raising interests.
posted by mikelieman at 12:18 AM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Nah, they usually just start as ways to offset tax liabilities. Then they get some recognition for their 'charity', then down the rabbit hole and when they self-destruct in various ways it would all implode except for the vested fund-raising interests.
posted by mikelieman at 12:18 AM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
My primary criticism of the article was the way Livestrong was criticized by juxtaposition rather than any direct criticism.
In any case, the Outside analysis article is interesting because it starts out to crucify Livestrong and his charity and ends up being fairly positive toward the charity.
And Armstrong created the charity two years before he raced his first Tour de France, so while you can argue that he uses it to help his reputation, I don't think it is fair to say that this is why he created it.
posted by eye of newt at 12:30 AM on March 8, 2015
In any case, the Outside analysis article is interesting because it starts out to crucify Livestrong and his charity and ends up being fairly positive toward the charity.
And Armstrong created the charity two years before he raced his first Tour de France, so while you can argue that he uses it to help his reputation, I don't think it is fair to say that this is why he created it.
posted by eye of newt at 12:30 AM on March 8, 2015
I did.
Well, not Paterno because I don't follow American handegg.
As with Jimmy Saville, whom a lot of people had already figured out as creepy pedo uncle, it's been mainly the media who had been taken in by these people. This because the supposedly critical news media are by and large sycophants for anybody with a hint of power, as eager to kiss up to winners as they are to kick down. Therefore somebody like Lance Armstrong or Petraeus will long escape the scrutiny some random poor person may get.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:48 AM on March 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Well, not Paterno because I don't follow American handegg.
As with Jimmy Saville, whom a lot of people had already figured out as creepy pedo uncle, it's been mainly the media who had been taken in by these people. This because the supposedly critical news media are by and large sycophants for anybody with a hint of power, as eager to kiss up to winners as they are to kick down. Therefore somebody like Lance Armstrong or Petraeus will long escape the scrutiny some random poor person may get.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:48 AM on March 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Frank Rich is slowly turning into Lewis Lapham.
I don't know the man's reputation, so I can't tell if that's a compliment or an insult. Personally, I was thinking he's morphing into Tom Friedman. This piece felt like a mix of platitudes. Yes, a lot of "great men," now and throughout history, are actually walking shams. There are always people eager to amplify the mythology, yes. Many, if not most, are associated with high profile charities. Like most rich people. Like a lot of good people, too. So that's not really a good indicator.
What is the key insight? Maybe the fault is in the reader, here. Either way, I'm not sure that Frank Rich is the antidote to the problem.
posted by Edgewise at 1:32 AM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know the man's reputation, so I can't tell if that's a compliment or an insult. Personally, I was thinking he's morphing into Tom Friedman. This piece felt like a mix of platitudes. Yes, a lot of "great men," now and throughout history, are actually walking shams. There are always people eager to amplify the mythology, yes. Many, if not most, are associated with high profile charities. Like most rich people. Like a lot of good people, too. So that's not really a good indicator.
What is the key insight? Maybe the fault is in the reader, here. Either way, I'm not sure that Frank Rich is the antidote to the problem.
posted by Edgewise at 1:32 AM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
dhartung, I will read In the Company of Soldiers, thank you for the recommendation. Do you know if his citation for the award is quoted in the book? I can not find it online. Also, during his time in command of the 101st, he was a two-star general, meaning he was with his staff, in the rear, coordinating the assault on Baghdad. Not at all the same thing as a platoon, company or even battalion Commander, all of whom would have been "leading" the assault on Baghdad.
posted by mlis at 1:33 AM on March 8, 2015
posted by mlis at 1:33 AM on March 8, 2015
I agree with MartinWisse, it's the media - however I'm willing to believe that quite apart from sucking up to power there's just a really a strong incentive to repeat good stories. Armstrong was a great story, Saville too (ageing weirdo philanthropist TV personality). An awful lot of people can see through this stuff, there's been intense suspicion about Armstrong all along. What ordinary people say to each other is a lot different to to what's printable in the media without evidence though, so even though the fall of a major star is a truly great story it's not going to get any mainstream exposure until some tipping point is hit.
Armstrong still gets grudging respect from me. How do you become the most sucessful and famous cyclist in the world when you're not, and will never be, the best? You have to work damn hard, you have to be clever, you need balls of steel. When we watch Gattca we're all behind that guy! Also, he definitely had cancer, right? And recovered to a physical condition most people will never achieve. Respect, again. Compared to all the bad things humans have ever done, Armstrong's misdeeds are pretty minor.
(Who's responsible for invading and utterly destabilising Iraq? Drone strikes fuelling extremism in the Middle East? The ghettoisation and destruction of Palestine? Illegally spying on everyone? Maybe this famous-person-did-something-naughty shit is just a distraction.)
posted by dickasso at 1:38 AM on March 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Armstrong still gets grudging respect from me. How do you become the most sucessful and famous cyclist in the world when you're not, and will never be, the best? You have to work damn hard, you have to be clever, you need balls of steel. When we watch Gattca we're all behind that guy! Also, he definitely had cancer, right? And recovered to a physical condition most people will never achieve. Respect, again. Compared to all the bad things humans have ever done, Armstrong's misdeeds are pretty minor.
(Who's responsible for invading and utterly destabilising Iraq? Drone strikes fuelling extremism in the Middle East? The ghettoisation and destruction of Palestine? Illegally spying on everyone? Maybe this famous-person-did-something-naughty shit is just a distraction.)
posted by dickasso at 1:38 AM on March 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Who's responsible for invading and utterly destabilising Iraq?
Asquith.
posted by Segundus at 1:55 AM on March 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Asquith.
posted by Segundus at 1:55 AM on March 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
American culture is based on people who see themselves as Rocky but act like Rambo. It seems unlikely that this is going to change anytime soon for 2 reasons.
1. The incredible capacity for self deception that humans possess. Almost no-one who is "successful" in a field, no matter how illegitimate that success gets there by thinking of themselves as bad or evil or doing things that are wrong. If pushed, they will admit they were not perfect, that they cut some corners - but no-one is perfect right?
I have no doubt Armstrong genuinely thinks his cancer charity does good, that he set it up as a selfless act and believes he should be granted "special treatment" because of it - he still feels he deserves his tour de france wins .
I've no doubt Petraeus sees himself as a serious patriot and great leader - those profile pieces reflected what they saw - the person he genuinely thought he was, and he didn't and may well still not have seen anything wrong in "bending" the rules as he did.
2. We want bright lines and good v evil fights. Good v Evil is baked so hard into our cultural bones from the Christian tradition that it distorts everything - our media is setup to portray good v evil or atleast green v blue fights not nuance. Especially for the the profile / interview journalist whose day job is doing culture section work promoting films, rewriting the bland non-answers of a post match press conference or reciting talking points for performative politics - I dunno how realistic it is to expect these people to uncover the deception or report on its presence - it is not what they are trained/expected to do.
Therefore Hindsight bias is an easy game to play but does not help us much. We don't spot people as evil because we want to believe they are good, we need a trigger event to switch their side - once they are evil we can open the floodgates
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 3:46 AM on March 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
1. The incredible capacity for self deception that humans possess. Almost no-one who is "successful" in a field, no matter how illegitimate that success gets there by thinking of themselves as bad or evil or doing things that are wrong. If pushed, they will admit they were not perfect, that they cut some corners - but no-one is perfect right?
I have no doubt Armstrong genuinely thinks his cancer charity does good, that he set it up as a selfless act and believes he should be granted "special treatment" because of it - he still feels he deserves his tour de france wins .
I've no doubt Petraeus sees himself as a serious patriot and great leader - those profile pieces reflected what they saw - the person he genuinely thought he was, and he didn't and may well still not have seen anything wrong in "bending" the rules as he did.
2. We want bright lines and good v evil fights. Good v Evil is baked so hard into our cultural bones from the Christian tradition that it distorts everything - our media is setup to portray good v evil or atleast green v blue fights not nuance. Especially for the the profile / interview journalist whose day job is doing culture section work promoting films, rewriting the bland non-answers of a post match press conference or reciting talking points for performative politics - I dunno how realistic it is to expect these people to uncover the deception or report on its presence - it is not what they are trained/expected to do.
Therefore Hindsight bias is an easy game to play but does not help us much. We don't spot people as evil because we want to believe they are good, we need a trigger event to switch their side - once they are evil we can open the floodgates
posted by Another Fine Product From The Nonsense Factory at 3:46 AM on March 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
I was struck by a curious omission in the article. Among all the notables who turned out to be other than what they were sold as, there is not one mention of the Nobel-Prize-winning Obama. I would have thought him the premiere example of the set.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:58 AM on March 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:58 AM on March 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
But not being George W. Bush is the whole point of Nobel Peace Prizes. Take that away and you have nothing.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 4:35 AM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 4:35 AM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Abuse of power is no surprise
posted by mcstayinskool at 4:53 AM on March 8, 2015
posted by mcstayinskool at 4:53 AM on March 8, 2015
A number of the comments on the article nominated Obama as an example of "feet of clay." But to the point that it's the media that falls for frauds, there's a contradiction in the Oregon political scandals now underway. There are multiple examples of wishful-hero-worshipping there, but it is a dogged investigative journalist, Nigel Jaquiss, who has undertaken the unravelling of it all.
posted by mmiddle at 4:57 AM on March 8, 2015
posted by mmiddle at 4:57 AM on March 8, 2015
Armstrong [...] balls of steel.
Um...
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:14 AM on March 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Um...
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:14 AM on March 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
Obama came into office with more than half the existing political establishment dead set against letting him do anything at all. That he managed to achieve any of his agenda at all is something of a miracle, and largely down to the absolute crass incompetence of his opposition. Still, he had to pick his battles and spend his political capital where it was most likely to make the best impact. That probably sounds hollow if your particular ox is still getting gored, but just take a look at issues like pot legalization and gay marriage, which so many people criticized him for ignoring or actively hurting in his first term, and ask yourself if any help Obama might have given to those would have been worth still freezing millions of people completely out of the health care system because of pre-existing conditions.
Obama might not have earned his peace prize in quite the way the Nobel committee would have liked, but he sure as hell earned it for not being a Bush.
posted by localroger at 6:08 AM on March 8, 2015 [21 favorites]
Obama might not have earned his peace prize in quite the way the Nobel committee would have liked, but he sure as hell earned it for not being a Bush.
posted by localroger at 6:08 AM on March 8, 2015 [21 favorites]
Yeah, I mean, the guy did save the global economic system from utter collapse, surely that's worthy of recognition.
I myself am glad I'm not standing in a breadline or signing up for the Stahlhelm or any of a million other grisly fates we barely avoided.
posted by atchafalaya at 6:51 AM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
I myself am glad I'm not standing in a breadline or signing up for the Stahlhelm or any of a million other grisly fates we barely avoided.
posted by atchafalaya at 6:51 AM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
And if Obama had done what many of us thought he should, and imprisoned many in the previous administration, what would happen to him and his team when the raging hyenas steal another election?
posted by scottymac at 7:38 AM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by scottymac at 7:38 AM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
When you hear "awareness" smell a scam.
I would subscribe to your newsletter.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:56 AM on March 8, 2015
I would subscribe to your newsletter.
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 8:56 AM on March 8, 2015
Also, Sandusky's "charity" was very well respected and apparently did lots of good things in addition to facilitating rape.
One thing that really creeps me out is that the autobiography Sandusky wrote before he got caught is called Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story. It's like the signs were there all along, similar to how Bill Cosby was constantly referencing "spanish fly" for almost 50 years.
posted by jonp72 at 9:24 AM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
One thing that really creeps me out is that the autobiography Sandusky wrote before he got caught is called Touched: The Jerry Sandusky Story. It's like the signs were there all along, similar to how Bill Cosby was constantly referencing "spanish fly" for almost 50 years.
posted by jonp72 at 9:24 AM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
People rise in organizations rarely because of brilliance or bravery. They rise because they typify the organization and best forward organizational goals, overt or covert. They receive rewards forwarding the status quo and promoting the safety and stability of the top tier. They can't better, or be better than their organization. Maybe P-dog's pedigree looked good but he wasn't even mediocre enough to make the grade for goverment work.
posted by Oyéah at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2015
posted by Oyéah at 10:39 AM on March 8, 2015
What would happen to him and his team?
"I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind" -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
posted by localroger at 12:05 PM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
"I want to splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the wind" -- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
posted by localroger at 12:05 PM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Through juxtaposition, he just equated Armstrong's well funded and respected cancer charity with the Kelley's poorly funded charity and Sandusky's charity work that served as a source of rape victims. This paragraph is a despicable and unwarranted criticism of Livestrong.
Really, you're making a big deal out of nothing.
Google Moses Annenberg sometime.
posted by phaedon at 12:28 PM on March 8, 2015
Really, you're making a big deal out of nothing.
Google Moses Annenberg sometime.
posted by phaedon at 12:28 PM on March 8, 2015
When you hear "awareness" smell a scam.
What we need is a campaign to promote awareness awareness.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 12:29 PM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
What we need is a campaign to promote awareness awareness.
posted by Spathe Cadet at 12:29 PM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Localroger -- in 2009 and 2010, Obama had a Congressional majority which was stronger than any President's since President Johnson in 1965 and 1966; considering the much more ideological uniform character of 21st century Democrats versus those of the mid-20th century, his majority during the seven months (July 2009 through January 2010) where he had a filibuster-proof Senate majority was arguably stronger than any Congressional majority dating back to the Democratic super-majorities that Roosevelt enjoyed in the 1930s.
posted by MattD at 2:43 PM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by MattD at 2:43 PM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
No, he had a filibuster-proof majority for 72 days (that is, the days Congress was actually in session for the four months +1 week that he had a majority); please stop repeating the right wing's lies.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:57 PM on March 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 2:57 PM on March 8, 2015 [5 favorites]
There is a lot in common here with the UK and the Saville cover-up (most recent report from the Graun - Those who reported the issue are being fired / sidelined)
The most common feature is: hierarchy and continuation therein. The old: "Well, this is bad, but the system must prevail".
D. Petraeus. His girlfriend who he shared docs with over email: probably an Israeli intelligence asset.
L. Armstrong. His dismissal just proved that all of the other top 20 riders were also doping.
J. Paterno. He made the University billions and the children affected had no chance of ever funding a legacy chair.
I can provide links for all three above. All of these are classic cases of: The continuation of the system overrides singular humans.
It's a well known problem, been around since Kings, Queens and turbulent priests.
Oh, and charities: 19th Century Victorians knew they were merely the bandaid on a larger moral problem. Elizabeth Gaskell comes to mind.
posted by Themis at 4:25 PM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
The most common feature is: hierarchy and continuation therein. The old: "Well, this is bad, but the system must prevail".
D. Petraeus. His girlfriend who he shared docs with over email: probably an Israeli intelligence asset.
L. Armstrong. His dismissal just proved that all of the other top 20 riders were also doping.
J. Paterno. He made the University billions and the children affected had no chance of ever funding a legacy chair.
I can provide links for all three above. All of these are classic cases of: The continuation of the system overrides singular humans.
It's a well known problem, been around since Kings, Queens and turbulent priests.
Oh, and charities: 19th Century Victorians knew they were merely the bandaid on a larger moral problem. Elizabeth Gaskell comes to mind.
posted by Themis at 4:25 PM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
> And if Obama had done what many of us thought he should, and imprisoned many in the previous administration, what would happen to him and his team when the raging hyenas steal another election?
By that argument, no matter what any Republican President does, they will never see the slightest consequences from their actions, because of the reciprocal threat. "We can't enforce the law, because then people will make up crimes to jail other people."
This is feckless, particularly considering that Bush told lies that killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and drained a couple of trillion from the US Treasury - gross, massive crimes that you'd think would be impossible to ignore.
What exactly would Mr. Obama be charged with? "Presidenting While Black"?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:28 PM on March 8, 2015
By that argument, no matter what any Republican President does, they will never see the slightest consequences from their actions, because of the reciprocal threat. "We can't enforce the law, because then people will make up crimes to jail other people."
This is feckless, particularly considering that Bush told lies that killed thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and drained a couple of trillion from the US Treasury - gross, massive crimes that you'd think would be impossible to ignore.
What exactly would Mr. Obama be charged with? "Presidenting While Black"?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 4:28 PM on March 8, 2015
What exactly would Mr. Obama be charged with? "Presidenting While Black"?
Basically, yes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:44 PM on March 8, 2015
Basically, yes.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:44 PM on March 8, 2015
mlis, last year the actual citation turned up on Wikipedia (weirdly, saying "owner provided" ...).
Also, during his time in command of the 101st, he was a two-star general, meaning he was with his staff, in the rear, coordinating the assault on Baghdad.
According to what I can search of the book online, he was primarily in a mobile command post close enough to the action for Atkinson to be going out on Humvee and chopper runs. It is my assessment that the concept of a "rear" in the Iraq War is somewhat difficult to define (see Jessica Lynch, etc.). I did not find anything saying he was personally on patrol or taking fire, but I couldn't search the entire book. The Army standards for the V device are "participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy" (cf. for the Navy/Marines/CG, where "personal hazard" is necessary). I'm not saying he's immune from criticism in other areas, not at all, but on this one I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
posted by dhartung at 6:10 PM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, during his time in command of the 101st, he was a two-star general, meaning he was with his staff, in the rear, coordinating the assault on Baghdad.
According to what I can search of the book online, he was primarily in a mobile command post close enough to the action for Atkinson to be going out on Humvee and chopper runs. It is my assessment that the concept of a "rear" in the Iraq War is somewhat difficult to define (see Jessica Lynch, etc.). I did not find anything saying he was personally on patrol or taking fire, but I couldn't search the entire book. The Army standards for the V device are "participation in acts of heroism involving conflict with an armed enemy" (cf. for the Navy/Marines/CG, where "personal hazard" is necessary). I'm not saying he's immune from criticism in other areas, not at all, but on this one I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
posted by dhartung at 6:10 PM on March 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
>>Jessica Lynch
Um. I'm new here.
In our world it's understood that the entire Jessica Lynch story was a psyop. Not only that, it's been outed as such multiple times by credible sources. (There are many: Here's one)
So?
I was lead to believe that MetaFilter was a left-ish forum that was engaged with truth telling. How different reality is.
And, no, Patraeus never hit the front lines. There is proof of this. (Just as the story of H. Clinton dodging bullets on landing is false, just as the story of Iraqi nationals tearing down the statue is false, just as Fallujah not breaking the Geneva Convention over use of phosphorous weapons and civilian casualties is false).
Wow.
This is retrograde levels of propaganda. This is stuff not even the troops believed. Five years ago.
Wow.
Memory Hole beckons, this stuff is silly. And no-one flags / moderates this kind of lies? That's really corrosive.
posted by Themis at 6:21 PM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Um. I'm new here.
In our world it's understood that the entire Jessica Lynch story was a psyop. Not only that, it's been outed as such multiple times by credible sources. (There are many: Here's one)
So?
I was lead to believe that MetaFilter was a left-ish forum that was engaged with truth telling. How different reality is.
And, no, Patraeus never hit the front lines. There is proof of this. (Just as the story of H. Clinton dodging bullets on landing is false, just as the story of Iraqi nationals tearing down the statue is false, just as Fallujah not breaking the Geneva Convention over use of phosphorous weapons and civilian casualties is false).
Wow.
This is retrograde levels of propaganda. This is stuff not even the troops believed. Five years ago.
Wow.
Memory Hole beckons, this stuff is silly. And no-one flags / moderates this kind of lies? That's really corrosive.
posted by Themis at 6:21 PM on March 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
Obama's so-called filibuster-proof majority included Joe Lieberman. So it was not, in practice, a filibuster-proof majority for anything of importance.
posted by localroger at 6:28 PM on March 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by localroger at 6:28 PM on March 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
In our world it's understood that the entire Jessica Lynch story was a psyop.
Well, I think it's more accurate to call it just propaganda - as far as I know, it was a case of exploiting circumstances and selling a false story around them. But maybe you could consider that to be a species of psyop. IIRC they did the same thing with Pat Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire but packaged up as having died in some heroic combat against overwhelming numbers.
I was stopped on the street by a news crew, who wanted to ask me if the rescue of "Private Jessica" changed my opinion of the war. I was actually speechless and had no blistering reply for them, I'm sorry to say.
posted by thelonius at 6:46 PM on March 8, 2015
Well, I think it's more accurate to call it just propaganda - as far as I know, it was a case of exploiting circumstances and selling a false story around them. But maybe you could consider that to be a species of psyop. IIRC they did the same thing with Pat Tillman, who was killed by friendly fire but packaged up as having died in some heroic combat against overwhelming numbers.
I was stopped on the street by a news crew, who wanted to ask me if the rescue of "Private Jessica" changed my opinion of the war. I was actually speechless and had no blistering reply for them, I'm sorry to say.
posted by thelonius at 6:46 PM on March 8, 2015
>>Well, I think it's more accurate to call it just propaganda
In our day it was merely this kind of thing. Simpler days, of course.
Notice one thing: no-one has an idea of how to counter the system. Not a single iota of snarl. My mind goes back to Spain and the 30's where at least we fought, and lost. And, for all you readers - there was a Fascist junta in both Spain and Greece until the late 70's if you need a history lesson. We remember. It was our blood, not yours. Hint: Corporations broke these perverted governments. cf. Black & Decker (nice Mormon owners *cough CIA cough*) in Spain and so on.
The world is complex, for sure.
Oh, apart from GS. Snakey little bastards they are.
posted by Themis at 7:14 PM on March 8, 2015
In our day it was merely this kind of thing. Simpler days, of course.
Notice one thing: no-one has an idea of how to counter the system. Not a single iota of snarl. My mind goes back to Spain and the 30's where at least we fought, and lost. And, for all you readers - there was a Fascist junta in both Spain and Greece until the late 70's if you need a history lesson. We remember. It was our blood, not yours. Hint: Corporations broke these perverted governments. cf. Black & Decker (nice Mormon owners *cough CIA cough*) in Spain and so on.
The world is complex, for sure.
Oh, apart from GS. Snakey little bastards they are.
posted by Themis at 7:14 PM on March 8, 2015
Um. I'm new here.
Hi, and welcome. Perhaps, being new here, you should sit back and read a little, get a feel for the place, rather than taking potshots?
Your post has some really interesting information, but I fear it might be lost in the posturing and the attitude.
I thought your link to the analysis of Jessica Lynch as war propaganda was informative (though not above criticism). And your assessment of Patraeus never having "never hit the front lines" is shared by a few here, though there seems to be a lack of corroborating evidence for either side (absent the citation for the Bronze Star). I hope you choose to continue to engage with Metafilter, though possibly in a more friendly and open manner.
posted by aureliobuendia at 9:56 PM on March 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Hi, and welcome. Perhaps, being new here, you should sit back and read a little, get a feel for the place, rather than taking potshots?
Your post has some really interesting information, but I fear it might be lost in the posturing and the attitude.
I thought your link to the analysis of Jessica Lynch as war propaganda was informative (though not above criticism). And your assessment of Patraeus never having "never hit the front lines" is shared by a few here, though there seems to be a lack of corroborating evidence for either side (absent the citation for the Bronze Star). I hope you choose to continue to engage with Metafilter, though possibly in a more friendly and open manner.
posted by aureliobuendia at 9:56 PM on March 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
In our world it's understood that the entire Jessica Lynch story was a psyop.
Clearly exploited for propaganda purposes, but even the link that you supply states "Her Iraqi guards had long fled", which seems to at least bow to the possibility that she hadn't just wandered away from her convoy and into a hospital by herself. Since my point was simply that there was no secure "rear area", I think the support is there even from the link you provided (and I do consider the Guardian credible, for the most part).
But if you're still concerned, then I'll just withdraw Lynch and substitute Lori Piestewa (December 14, 1979 – March 23, 2003). I could also continue googling to find the names of their colleagues who also did not survive the firefight, and I could determine how many miles behind "the front lines" this firefight was, but I'm sure that shouldn't be necessary.
Patraeus never hit the front lines. There is proof of this.
Usually proof goes in the other direction, but anyway, I would like to hear the Pentagon's definition of "front line" in this circumstance. I think it sort of ends up in a kind of ourobouros of logic to start saying the Pentagon doesn't know its own medal criteria. The phrase "the front lines" is not in my argument, and it is not in the citation, and it is not in the V-device criteria.
Memory Hole beckons, this stuff is silly.
I'm awfully sorry that I subjected you to an interpretation of events based on a book written by a Pulitzer-winning (and Pritzker Military Library Literature Award-winning) journalist. I hope that you can survive this traumatic incident and find the will to move on.
posted by dhartung at 12:18 AM on March 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
Clearly exploited for propaganda purposes, but even the link that you supply states "Her Iraqi guards had long fled", which seems to at least bow to the possibility that she hadn't just wandered away from her convoy and into a hospital by herself. Since my point was simply that there was no secure "rear area", I think the support is there even from the link you provided (and I do consider the Guardian credible, for the most part).
But if you're still concerned, then I'll just withdraw Lynch and substitute Lori Piestewa (December 14, 1979 – March 23, 2003). I could also continue googling to find the names of their colleagues who also did not survive the firefight, and I could determine how many miles behind "the front lines" this firefight was, but I'm sure that shouldn't be necessary.
Patraeus never hit the front lines. There is proof of this.
Usually proof goes in the other direction, but anyway, I would like to hear the Pentagon's definition of "front line" in this circumstance. I think it sort of ends up in a kind of ourobouros of logic to start saying the Pentagon doesn't know its own medal criteria. The phrase "the front lines" is not in my argument, and it is not in the citation, and it is not in the V-device criteria.
Memory Hole beckons, this stuff is silly.
I'm awfully sorry that I subjected you to an interpretation of events based on a book written by a Pulitzer-winning (and Pritzker Military Library Literature Award-winning) journalist. I hope that you can survive this traumatic incident and find the will to move on.
posted by dhartung at 12:18 AM on March 9, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think the real problem here is that Petreaus got an award for "Heroism", yet we're all grasping around for something actually heroic for it to be based on, and so far it appears that the reason was, "He showed up and did the job he was paid for -- like pretty much everyone else".
So, I put this in a 'feel good' award. Basically, everyone on the T-Ball team gets a trophy... Which might be diluting the value of real awards, like the Medal of Honor..
posted by mikelieman at 4:21 AM on March 9, 2015
So, I put this in a 'feel good' award. Basically, everyone on the T-Ball team gets a trophy... Which might be diluting the value of real awards, like the Medal of Honor..
posted by mikelieman at 4:21 AM on March 9, 2015
« Older indoor model plane championships | What weren't you taught that you think you should... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by benzenedream at 10:25 PM on March 7, 2015 [4 favorites]