A Word For "Generic Concept"

This from an Anonymous commenter on the last post:

The crazy vet is a generic concept. It's like the "Postal" guy. While a Middle Easterner or an Arab or a Muslim is an actual guy. There are actual kids and families who are Arab, Muslims from the Middle East.

Behind every veteran identity (Marine, Ranger, Soldier, Sailor, etc.) is an actual identity, that is off limit.

Most law enforcement are military veterans, I think they know what they need to prepare for.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. It shouldn't be a "generic concept." It has been made that way by a meme that has been started and supported by anecdotal evidence; by such things as Lizette Alvarez's slanted reporting in the New York Times. She's not the only one; she's just my poster child. A word for "generic concept" is stereotype.

The same could be said of the Arab stereotype. Each Arab has their own story, their own history, their own experiences, their own trials and tribulations. Take this logic and turn it the other direction and it works just as well. As a matter of fact, in the original article I wrote about, the law enforcement officer wondered if he might offend the ethnic group by stereotyping them, but gave not a thought to training children to shoot a veteran and depicting the bad guy as a veteran; as if that were completely inoffensive and rational.

We are a country of images. Someone pointed out recently that many Americans have little contact with this war or the men and women who are fighting it. The image of the "crazy vet" has taken hold to the point that when a cop is tasked with coming up with a training scenario, he dreams up a crazy murdering vet. That is completely unacceptable.

Completely unacceptable.

There are no other words for it. It's no understandable. It's not accurate. It's stigmatizing, and while people like Lizette Alvarez couch their writings as "bringing attention to the plight of the veteran" as if they really give a damn, they are doing more harm than help by a far sight.

Most law enforcement are military veterans, I think they know what they need to prepare for.

No, many law enforcement officers are military veterans, but I don't believe that most of them are. And no, I don't think they do know what they need to prepare for. I'll bet you a quarter that the Border Patrol Agent who dreamed up that nifty little scenario isn't a vet. With cross-border kidnappings and murders happening on a fairly frequent basis, I'd think that they could come up with a more realistic scenario. In fact, in the general geographic area where these men operate, there have been hostage situations involving drug traffickers barricading themselves in houses with competitors held hostage. Those are realistic scenarios, and things that the Border Patrol may have to deal with.

Perhaps they don't want to stereotype drug dealers.

What struck me about this comment is the matter-of-fact way that someone who has come to accept the meme justifies this subtle form of abuse as completely reasonable.

Lizette's work is nearly complete.

Here are the facts; you are less likely to be harmed by a veteran than a non-veteran. We are not "victims." There are a tiny tiny tiny minority with chips on their shoulders who participate in such jackassery as IVAW and their ridiculous "Winter Soldier" displays. They cry out in some crazy mimicry of "victimhood," but for the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of us who don't participate in such bullshit, they are the complete dorks of the veteran world. Many of them have been thoroughly discredited, and some have proven to be frauds. All of them will live forever in shame before the rest of us.

We are not victims. We are not crying babies. We are grown adults who have made the choice to stand between this nation and whatever danger presents itself, even if there are sheeple who don't believe that the danger is there.

I see a lot of honorable people dealing with the effects, physical or otherwise, of their sacrifices for their country, only to have writers with beautiful prose and oafish motives cast aspersions on them en mass with manipulated data and piteous cries of how they "care." These honorable veterans are not moaning in victimhood, nor are they dangerous. They are the people who, if anyone's life was in danger, would be most likely to endanger their own lives to protect that stranger. These are people who very often give of themselves, of their own time, their own efforts and their own money to make a difference; and they do make a difference. They are the ones who find ways to personally contribute to making the lives of wounded warriors better, instead of moaning about how "someone" or "the government" or "they" should take better care of our veterans. These veterans are the ones who are not so overwhelmed by the dichotomy between war and patient caring that they shirk it off for someone else to do something, satisfied with their acceptance of an ignorant stereotype.

"Generic concept" is exactly what I'm talking about.

So, what Anon is saying is, "Hey, it's only a stereotype. Behind the stereotype identity is an actual identity, and that's off limits."

Errr... what?

Never mind that it doesn't make a lot of sense, or that the whole thing is contradictory. What this says to me is, "Yeah, it's become a stereotype, but don't worry about it. It's just like stereotyping Postal workers because of all the workplace killings. As long as you have your actual identity, then you can just withdraw from your military identity and you're just fine." The thing is, it's not fine. In this country where intolerance is unacceptable, in this country where stereotyping is decried... when it is against a group for whom sensitivity is bred in the media... we are sliding down a slippery slope towards demonizing and victimizing those who have demonstrated commitment to this country, and it's led by the media. Those who have sacrificed their safe easy chair in their living rooms, those who have sacrificed time with their families, firsts for their children including the births of those children, those who have lost friends and given of themselves are becoming the accepted bogey man of training scenarios as if it were simply a matter of course.

Regardless of what the facts say.

We have the Department of Homeland Security writing opinions that returning veterans are a threat to domestic security, and instead of some great hue and cry against it (except from veterans groups themselves,) there is, "Hey, it's okay... law enforcement knows what they're doing."

Nice, people. Really nice.

Now, I've been thanked personally by more Americans than I can count; these are people who are not going to listen to such claptrap. Many of them are veterans themselves, or have family members who have served or are serving. They cannot be turned against the veterans. It's the other, larger, portion of the population who can be influenced by images and repetitive, subtle messages that are at risk of buying into the imagery that is being created. As a matter of fact, the comment that this post regards is a great example that the unacceptable is being accepted.

I saw the slope, and I pointed it out, and we are well down it right now. The only answer is to react with vigor every time the stereotype is forwarded. When there is significant pushback whenever such a falsehood is advanced, there will be a little more thought put into a concept, instead of the lazy acceptance of a stereotype.

My brother returned from Vietnam to people waiting to shower him with dog feces and epithets. I have not had that experience, nor will I tolerate it while I have the words to fight back with. The Deer Hunter didn't come out of the blue; it was a culmination of the distrust that developed between the country they had served and the veterans of that war. It started with stereotyping and demonizing. It resulted in the largescale casting of Vietnam veterans as hapless victims. There are groups at work here in the United States whose business it is to create that same divide. Their tactic is to shape the vocabulary of the current conflict. They resolutely use certain terms, paint pictures and advance stereotypes in order to further their ideas. My tiny voice will not likely stem this tide, but I will not sit silently by as my cohorts and I are cast in a suspicious light in the very country we have risked our all for.
Read full post with comments

From Lizette Alvarez To Homeland Security

H/T to Troy at Bouhammer, who has a bit on this and LT Nixon, who has one himself.

I wrote a post in January of 2007 with the title, "I Knew It Was Coming." What I knew was coming was the Vietnam backlash against veterans. While the country "learned its lessons" from Vietnam, one of which being, "Even if you don't support the war, support the troops," there has always been an element that doesn't support the troops. That faction is increasing in boldness. That's why I have objected to the objectification of veterans, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly as in the case of Alvarez. It is a slippery slope that once trod can easily slide into the very same problems that Vietnam veterans have been subjected to.

It's well underway.

More, plus some good comments, after the jump.

It's funny that in the United States, particular problems that are most often manifested among a particular demographic cannot be directly referred to as such. It's just not politically correct. We have a lot of sensitivity to issues that occur mainly among minorities, or among lifestyle groups. We don't wish to offend, and we go to great lengths to avoid stating obvious relationships between cause and effect for the sake of the feelings or sensibilities of a particular group, be it racial or lifestyle oriented. In the beginning of this war, it was not cool to go after veterans or military members, but that has been inexorably changing.

Phase I starts with stories told by reporters like Alvarez, objectifying veterans of this country's wars as either victims or as potentially dangerous near-criminals. The ultimate expression of such objectification has been demonstrated in the publication of an "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" by the Department of Homeland Security or "Geheimstaats Polizei" dated April 7th, 2009, which labels veterans as potentially dangerous to homeland security. This is Phase II.

(U//FOUO) The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Holy freakin' cow. Now there is a government agency, nay; a department, that publishes the words, "the return of military veterans... could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks." Lizette Alvarez must be jumping up and down with self-righteous justification.

This Soldier gasps in disbelief, shakes his head and sadly looks towards Washington in utter dismay. I saw it coming, and I've spoken against it. I've called the warning and pointed... and there is no stopping the slide towards a great evil which has now taken hold to the point of poisoning the relationship of my government and my brothers in arms. We are now, "them." We are now that minority. We are the Jews of 1930's Germany. We are McCarthy's Communists. We are the ones who are being moved to the back of the bus and who are losing our seats at the national lunch counter. Our honor is slipping away as we become the new insidious threat.

Our own government has declared us suspect.

(U//FOUO) Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to boost their violent capabilities.

Uh-huh. We also possess combat skills and experience that should be attractive to both DHS and law enforcement of all levels. I don't see that noted anywhere. I don't see a recommendation for harnessing the abilities of veterans to somehow be of use, or a recommendation to reach out to veterans to brief them on the existence of such recruiting efforts, if they exist. There does not seem to be any substantial evidence of such recruiting, merely the conjecture that our dangerous abilities and tendencies would be attractive to such groups.

There is the unspoken; veterans may have a tendency to be politically opposed to the current administration. Veterans may have had a tendency to have voted for the other guy. So, without any evidence of a groundswell in returning veterans joining such "rightwing" organizations or practicing or preparing to practice any "rightwing extremism," we are identified as being potential threats. We, who answered the call to defend our country, are now to be carefully watched. We, who have fought in the "War on Terror" are, without any evidence whatsoever, potentially violent terrorists ourselves?

The faction who in the early days of this war found themselves having to mute their cries against the warriors themselves is finding its voice, and with the lack of social backlash began to raise its voice from a low murmur to a conversational tone. That faction does tend to reside on the left end of the spectrum, and the left has taken power in the last election, bringing all causes on the left a new feeling of empowerment. In the first 60 days of the new administration the President of the United States, who insisted that he was stronger on veterans' issues than his opponent, himself brought forth a policy to cause veterans with service-related wounds and injuries to have to pay for medical care for such injuries from their private insurance.

It does not matter that he had to back away from this policy. It does not matter that it became less than politically expedient to continue through to implementation and, for now, the policy had to be abandoned. It matters that it was raised in the first place. It does not matter that a candidate speaks of "sacred trust." It matters what he tries to do once in power. Deeds, not words, are what show the real spirit and the real intent.

Now, under a new Secretary of Homeland Security, there is an "Intelligence and Analysis Assessment" that paints veterans, not as a casual aside but prominently among their main points, as a potential threat to domestic tranquility.

This is not a political blog. This is a military blog. This is an Afghanistan military blog. I try to stay in my lane, but when my brothers and sisters and I are being assaulted, I will not stay silent. This is not just a blog about Afghanistan and the military. It is written by a combat veteran of Afghanistan and a believer that we can make a positive difference in the world with what we do. I believe that we can make ourselves more secure by doing the right things on the opposite side of the world, and that sometimes that means going in harm's way. I believe that when you go in harm's way, sometimes you are harmed, and sometimes you have to harm in return. I believe that is regrettable, but that when it is necessary it should be done with focus, restraint, and with surgical violence at the personal level. I believe that there is a time and a place for such violence and that on our shores is not that time or place. I am finding myself being abandoned by my country in small but growing ways and I don't like it, because I have borne true allegiance to this country and do not deserve, nor do my compatriots, to be treated as a dog who has bitten a child would be.

The President of the United States, during his campaign, spoke of a "sacred trust." He has since made an action that I consider to be in direct contravention of that trust, and now a department of his administration has declared us, veterans, as a group, to be a potential danger. Now is the time for the President to renew his commitment to the sacred trust that he spoke of, because he sets the tone. He sets the tone for his administration and he sets the tone for all of those who feel that growing sense of empowerment to speak against this nation's veterans in derisive or objectifying language.

Being the first president to duck the Medal of Honor recipients on the day of his inauguration is not the way to set the tone. Being the first president to call for wounded veterans to pay for battle-related wounds from their private insurance is not the way to do it, either. Being the president who allows a department of his administration to label veterans as one of the likely suspects, without any evidence, in future domestic terrorism, is not the way to set this tone.

As a candidate, Barack Obama spoke of leadership and its importance. Now is the time for this President to be the President and set the tone for his administration relating to veterans issues. I'm a little worried at this point that this is not the president that the President cares to be.

I hope he proves my concerns to be unfounded. One way to do that would be to ruthlessly go after the unprofessional staff who published a report declaring, without evidence and based on nothing more than conjecture, that veterans are some kind of threat to this nation that we have but our lives on the line for.

I'll wrap this up with a quote from the cover of the report:

Federal efforts to influence domestic public opinion must be conducted in an overt and transparent manner, clearly identifying United States Government sponsorship.

Propaganda needs to be done clearly and in the government's name... isn't that what that means? I notice that the word "responsibly" is not to be found there.
Read full post with comments

Agendas

Gumby's a combat veteran, too. Lizette Alvarez and the NYT are starting to piss him off.


The response to my posting about the venerable Lizette Alvarez and her attempts to start a meme concerning combat veterans of the Global War On Terror has been tremendous. A quick look at the subjects that Alvarez has written about in the past few years shows a definite trend. Below I have listed the titles and a brief description (taken from the NYT,) of her articles.

These articles regard the Army, occasionally the Marine Corps, and trend towards a focus on combat veterans and their misadventures following the their combat experiences. There is also a tendency to focus on violence committed by combat veterans. This is combined with articles which point the finger at the Armed Forces and their apparent mishandling of such issues as PTSD and TBI (Traumatic Brain Injury.) Among these are articles depicting alcoholism, drug abuse, and felony waivers granted by the Army and Marine Corps. It is my assertion that this is a pattern of depiction that is designed to send a consistent message to the readers: "Combat veterans are potentially dangerous. They are trained in violence and are subjected to mind-warping combat that turns their violent training into potentially anti-social behavior. Many of the recruits are defective to begin with, and all are victims of a monstrous system that doesn't care for them, dooming them to eventually give in to their own violent tendencies. Returning Soldiers will be subject to a myriad of problems and while pitiable, one must safeguard themselves against these animal-victims."

Using vignettes designed to inspire shock and pity, Alvarez uses her considerable writing skill to guide the perceptions of the reader gently and not-so-gently towards the conclusions. She also has a tendency to leave the article on a dramatic note, perhaps an open question to be answered by the reader's now-informed opinion. I think that it's effective. If I didn't think so, it wouldn't bother me. Alvarez is no amateur, excelling at her work. That's why her editor keeps her on this path. She devastates Soldiers with a mixture of kindness and horror while simultaneously indicting an entire system that struggles to keep pace in the midst of war.

Message received, Lizette. The question is what is driving this message? While it could be argued, probably by the NYT and Lizette Alvarez, that the message is a compassionate Soldier-oriented concern, it does not appear that way to this Soldier. To this Soldier and combat veteran, it seems to be a consistent pressure towards isolating combat veterans and creating a stigma similar to the Viet Nam Era isolation of veterans. Folks, there is a reason why there is a checkbox on every job application asking, "Are you a Viet Nam Era veteran?" under the EO column. Viet Nam Era veterans have their own demographic group. That didn't happen because American employers were showing a preference for Viet Nam vets, hiring them like they were going out of style.

That's because it wasn't in style; not at all. Viet Nam vets lived in the shadow of a stigma. It's only in the past few years that men who are not veterans are claiming to be veterans; because it is now in style to have served.

This whole line of articles appears to be cleverly designed to gently manipulate public opinion regarding combat veterans. I am not a believer in conspiracy theories or overarching cabals, but I do believe that there are those who hearken to the days when the press was "raising awareness" about Viet Nam. Alvarez even references Viet Nam several times in her writing, showing her hand as far as the influence it has on her "awareness." Awareness is in the eye of the beholder, and some beholders have the ability to influence, through media, the perceptions of larger numbers of people.

I use this blog, since I've been home, to show the perception of Afghanistan, my Army and its methods, counterinsurgency vs conventional methods and other primarily war-related issues as seen through these eyes; forever changed by my experience on the ground in Afghanistan in the Global War On Terror. I work to influence, too. I have an agenda, too... and part of that must be to stand in the face of such portrayals and say, "No."

The argument that these portrayals are not part of an agenda is belied by the clever use of fuzzy numbers, such as the murder statistics claimed in last year's article about murders by combat veterans to make them appear to be an alarming trend. These numbers were later apologized for (after a fashion) by the NYT. Too late, I'm afraid. They had already painted the picture that they wanted to paint, and a mild refutation in the Opinion section doesn't erase the effort. The point is that one without an agenda, who seeks only truth, does not manipulate information to make it appear to be more or less dire than it actually is.

There are inconsistencies also in Alvarez' stance on PTSD, for instance. Notice that when it suits her purpose, PTSD is a "mental disorder," but when it suits another purpose, it is a "wound." A quick glance at the titles of the articles below will bear this out. Her latest column cries out about the Purple Heart, but an earlier article warns of untreated "mental disorders," PTSD being chief among them. Who would advocate for the award of a medal for a mental disorder? Who would even generate an article announcing that the DoD had denied a medal for a mental disorder? Nobody. For a wound? Yes.

The point is that this appears, to this Soldier, to be an agenda-driven relentless line of march that Alvarez and the NYT are on. I find this to be less than acceptable, to put it mildly. I could rant like a field Soldier about this, but I choose not to. Instead, I'm trying to show, through the eyes of a combat veteran, how this continuing behavior by Alvarez and the NYT appear to be less than helpful in any regards.

I am "on about" this subject, obviously. Hey, it's upsetting to actually witness the attempted stigmatization of my kind, who have only the best for our nation in our hearts. To be thus treated by a reporter and a large publication is just as frustrating as can be.

I think I need a little help again (no, not from a professional... heh heh.) I emailed the Public Editor at the NYT, but have not received a response. It appears that he is a busy man, and that only a volume of contacts will bring to his attention that I am not the only one who sees this pattern and objects to it. So, if you can spare a moment to copy and paste his email address into your email, I would appreciate a moment of moral outrage on your part to be sent in his direction. This has worked before, and while I hope not to make a staple out of this type of activity, I feel compelled to stand up to certain behaviors and object. If you're with me and Gumby on this, please send a note to Clark Hoyt at:

public@nytimes.com


Your help would be greatly appreciated. If they know that we're aware and that we're keeping an eye on them, it may dissuade them from continuing to portray combat veterans as dangerous or at best pitiable "victims" of the Global War On Terror. This is the beginning to the path of having to spend public money on "Don't Forget; Hire The Vet" advertising as a result of a persistent meme. It's time to stop this portrayal of combat veterans as somehow "less than" because of their combat service.



What follows below is a list of Lizette Alvarez' articles for the past year. This goes to show the pattern of her portrayal of combat veterans as victims or as dangerous potentially violent criminals.


Purple Heart Is Ruled Out for Traumatic Stress
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and ERIK ECKHOLM

The decision ends hope of recent war veterans who have the condition that the medal could honor their sacrifice.
January 8, 2009


A Focus on Violence by Returning G.I.’s
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and DAN FROSCH

The Army is reviewing whether combat trauma played a role in killings by soldiers in Colorado.
January 2, 2009


Despite Army’s Assurances, Violence at Home
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Abuse allegations against a soldier illustrate the gaps in the way the Army handles domestic violence cases.
November 23, 2008


Mental State of Soldier Questioned
By DAN FROSCH and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

An internal Army document raises questions about the mental state of Specialist Robert H. Marko during his time at Fort Carson in Colorado and his time in Iraq.
November 21, 2008


New Veterans Hit Hard by Economic Crisis
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A combination of factors including unemployment and injury has forced many veterans into foreclosure.
Noveber 18, 2008



Mental State of Soldier Questioned
By DAN FROSCH and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

An internal Army document raises questions about the mental state of Specialist Robert H. Marko during his time at Fort Carson in Colorado and his time in Iraq.
November 21, 2008


Soldier, Student
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

They know where the exit is and how many windows there are. Crowded classrooms can send them into a panic. They have trouble focusing. They can't remember facts. And no one around them understands what they've seen. The new G.I. Bill is expected to swell the number of post-9/11 veterans at the nation's colleges and universities. These new students will need help. Are campuses ready?
November 2, 2008


Combat to College
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A new G.I. bill is expected to swell the number of veterans in the nation’s colleges and universities. But the transition is especially difficult for returning soldiers. Are campuses ready for them?
November 2, 2008


Army and Agency Will Study Rising Suicide Rate Among Soldiers
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

The Army will collaborate with the National Institute of Mental Health in an ambitious five-year project to identify the causes and risk factors of suicide.
October 30, 2008


Action Is Sought to Ensure Timely Financing for V.A.
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

As the veterans’ health system strains to handle a growing caseload, a move is under way in Congress to avoid yearly delays in financing that can hamper the medical care of the nation’s veterans.
September 19, 2008



War Veterans’ Concussions Are Often Overlooked
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

The complications from concussions, a signature injury of the Iraq war, often are not recognized in singular ways.
August 26, 2008



After the Battle, Fighting the Bottle at Home
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

A body of evidence suggests that alcohol abuse is rising among veterans of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
July 8, 2008



Army and Marine Corps Grant More Felony Waivers
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

The trend raises questions about the military’s ability to attract quality recruits at a time when it is trying to increase enlistment.
April 22, 2008



Nearly a Fifth of War Veterans Report Mental Disorders, a Private Study Finds
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Little more than half of the returned soldiers who reported symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or major depression have sought mental health treatment.
April 18, 2008



Six of the Fallen, in Words They Sent Home
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and ANDREW W. LEHREN

Unlike soldiers of previous wars, who were only occasionally able to write letters, many who served and died in Iraq left behind an extraordinary electronic testimony.
March 25, 2008



When Strains on Military Families Turn Deadly
By LIZETTE ALVAREZ and DEBORAH SONTAG; ALAIN DELAQUéRIèRE and MARGOT WILLIAMS CONTRIBUTED RESEARCH.

An examination of cases of fatal domestic violence and child abuse indicate wartime pressures have complicated the Pentagon’s efforts to change the current system.
February 15, 2008



In More Cases, Combat Trauma Is Taking the Stand
By DEBORAH SONTAG and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

Prosecutors, judges and juries are increasingly prodded to assess the role of combat trauma in crimes by veterans.
January 27, 2008



Across America, Deadly Echoes of Foreign Battles
By DEBORAH SONTAG and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

The Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war.
January 13, 2008
Read full post with comments