The ultimate dream of modern civilians: send out the soldiers to destroy the enemy and demanding they come back as a grateful choir-boys. It is close to the dream of taking your children out to the children’s farm, greeting miss cow and miss piggy and then eating a hamburger in utter innocence.
A soldier has only two real enemies: the horrors of war abroad and the moral judgments at home (Captain Kurtz).

@ Jan

Please keep up your habit of posting the first comment. Many times you hit the nail on the head.

@Mieke
Thank you.
I am still looking for the book wherein I have read about the Flemish SS volunteers fighting among each other. The Flemish SS were the only ones who were not granted a command in their own language, due to their internal troubles. I have to find that book somewhere.
But I agree about the camaraderie after the war and the harsh times of the repression.

@ Jan

I really wasn't aware of that repution of flemish SS-soldiers during the war. So if you can provide me with the title of that book , I would be pleased. But I thought that once the flemish legion was installed the received their orders in dutch. Am I misinformed?

@Mieke
This is already an interesting article about Flemish shattered dreams:
http://www.verzet.org/content/view/352/36/
If I find the books I will send the information to you by mail.

Jan T

Didn’t Kurtz say: “It is judgment that is defeating us.” I’m not sure if your paraphrase of the words of Kurtz is correct. (Which doesn’t imply that there is anything wrong with the statement.) By the way Kurtz is a colonel.

@Jan

If you find the book about the flemish volunteers I am also interested to know the title. I have a large collection of books concerning WWI and dutch volunteers and some about the flemish (eg Remy Schrijnen, Last knight of Flanders).

@Arnon
Yes, Kurtz was a colonel, I was not careful. But I was paraphrasing his words spoken by Marlon Brando in the movie Apocalypse now. Therein ‘judgment’ becomes ‘moral judgment’ and this makes a lot more sense to me. You are right, in the book there is only ‘judgment’.

@Richard
I cannot find the book right now, but Oostfronters by Bruno De Wever (Lannoo 1984) is already very informative about those quarrels between Flemish volunteers.

Quality Journalism

What a nasty piece of suggestive, biased journalism the article (of which I read only the opening piece, from Sunday January 13, or article series, you refer to is.
Quoting from that opening piece 'The NYT has identified 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'. Is that a lot? How many soldiers have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan in the past six years? I don't know, but don't you think we must be talking about hundreds of thousands here? I can't recall the article mentioning this, but it would have put the 121 figure into perspective right away.
Secondly and more importantly; if there are no date about the homicide rate in a control group that did not go to war, a control group consisting of the same number of people,; mostly men, in most cases aged between 20 and 30, same socio-economic background, same racial mix, same unemployment percentage, then the 121 cases can not be presented as such a shocking fact. And definitely not with such a strong suggestion that war traumas brought these guys (and one woman) to their acts.
Things like poverty, seeing no way out of a situation of f.e. unemployment or a dead end job -and these circumstances are sad enough, obviously!- must play an important role here.
The fact that the defendants themselves claim war traumas when standing trial for homicide in itself doesn't say much; people claim all sorts of things when they're standing before a judge.
Did the NYT journalists take any of this into account?(or did they talk to one criminologist? they might have for today's article, they didn't do so for the first article in the series)
Hell no, we just throw it on the front page of the NYT, along with a collage of
mugshots of soldiers-turned-murderes and the more than suggestive headline 'Across America, Deadly Echos of Foreign Battles'.
And you call this an excellent series?!

Lying has a purpose, so it seems more clearly.
Just an hour ago I told someone I worked as a scientist in a lab of a company from Finland called Obern Biomedical Research. I studied bacteria, and wrote scientific reports about it. When we'd gathered 200 of those rapports we'd take them to a different level where they'd work it out in a proof.
The CEO of the firm, a German, would visit us in a week. Pretty Exciting!

Eva

Your outrage about Deborah Sontag’s article is more related to your own stiff convictions than to the actual article that is well-written, well-researched and insightful. Besides that Deborah Sontag writes with a lot of empathy.
Not only love is blind, ideology can be blind as well.

ergo: Being blind sometimes makes happy

Arnon

I am not saying anything about the quality of Deborah Solomon's writing an sich or about the level of empathy she has with her subjects, but there definitely (and probably deliberately) was a lack of research to put the facts presented in this article into perspective. Which makes it way more biased than what might be expected from a newspaper like the NYT.
Clearly when that bias is in line with your own ideology this is not so much of a problem for you. But if you look at things objectively you will have to admit; the link between having been in the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan and committing or being accused of homicide is not convincingly proven at all. Yet by publishing this article (13 January) on the front page the way it was it is presented like a news fact. That's a problem, at least for me it is.

Arnon

I am not saying anything about the quality of Deborah Solomon's writing an sich or about the level of empathy she has with her subjects, but there definitely (and probably deliberately) was a lack of research to put the facts presented in this article into perspective. Which makes it way more biased than what might be expected from a newspaper like the NYT.
Clearly when that bias is in line with your own ideology this is not so much of a problem for you. But if you look at things objectively you will have to admit; the link between having been in the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan and committing or being accused of homicide is not convincingly proven at all. Yet by publishing this article (13 January) on the front page the way it was it is presented like a news fact. That's a problem, at least for me it is.

Eva

You have a point. Yes, it’s impossible to proof that this man would not have killed the mother of his children, had he not have been to Iraq.
For all we know he might not have killed the mother of his children at all. Maybe he just claims that he killed her.
Yet it is proven that there is a link between have been in combat, whether it is Vietnam or Iraq, and committing violent acts after returning to society.
I don’t agree with your conclusion that he article is biased. Yes, the suggestion is there that there is a link between his experiences in Iraq and his deeds afterwards, but I would say that this suggestion is being made for good reasons. Mrs. Sontag is not jumping to conclusions. She is stating facts, and how she is presenting the facts is I would say fair.

@Arnon and @ Eva

Arnon, I suppose you meant "prove" instead of "proof".

Tu put things in (scientific) perspective, I quote the following:

"The Times didn't try to establish a causal relationship between war service and homicide. It didn't even try to establish a correlation. The 7,000-word article contained no statistics on the size of the veteran population, or on the prevalence of homicide either in the general population or among young men, who are disproportionately represented among active-duty and recently discharged service members.

Various commentators performed their own back-of-the-envelope calculations, including Ralph Peters of the New York Post, who estimates that if the Times figures are accurate, recent war vets are only about one-fifth as likely to be implicated in a homicide as the average 18- to 34-year-old.

The Times acknowledges that this is no scientific study. It says it probably undercounted the number of homicides by war veterans, since it based its count on news reports. It does claim to have found a large increase -- 89% -- in the number of homicides attributed to servicemen or recent vets since October 2001, compared with the previous six-year period."

If I'm not mistaken, that was the point Eva was trying to make. She's wright, of course!

Kristal

If my memory is correct Eva van Campen was suggesting that the article is not worth reading (“a nasty piece of suggestive biased journalism”).
Whereas I would say that a correct reading of the article by Mrs. Sontag will lead to other conclusions. The reader is aware that Mr. Walter Rollo Smith might have killed the mother of his children had he worked for Wal-Mart all these years instead of enlisting.
Nowhere does Mrs. Sontag claim that the war in Iraq or the policy of the US government were a contributing factor or the only contributing factor to this killing.
The article suggests that the medical care of veterans could be better, yes, but I’m sure that even the military would agree to this suggestion.
I wonder if you have read the article yourself But of course it is possible that in your book reading articles does not put things in the right scientific perspective.
Also I wonder if you are trying to say that PTSD is a myth.

arnon

Your memory is indeed fooling you, as that was not what Eva's complaint. Her complaint was the complete lack of putting things in perspective of the NYT.

Yes, I've read the article myself. I thought it is an excellent empathic piece of writing, if that's what you're asking.

No, I was not trying to say that PTSD is a myth. Where did you read that?

It strikes me again and again how difficult is seems to be for you to admit that you've made a mistake. It's common practice in science, you know. Instead you start shooting at something else (well, I have to admit that this kind of behaviour also occurs among scientists). Diletantism may be a great asset in literature and art in general, but a college education is of great help when doing philosophy and science. Maybe you can catch up one day.

Krista

Eva van Campen wrote, as you can see for yourself on this site, maybe you are too lazy to read all the comments properly) but I’ll quote once again: “What a nasty piece of suggestive, biased journalism the article (of which I read only the opening piece, from Sunday January 13, or article series, you refer to is.”
I’m not sure if this is a complaint; I would say it’s more than only a complaint; it is a straightforward dismissal, a kind of aggressive dismissal.
You should be aware that the text Mrs. van Campen quotes in her comment after that first sentence: “The NYT has identified 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,” has probably not been written by Deborah Sontag and should not be seen as part of Mrs. Sontag’s article, which Eva van Campen described, once again, as: “A nasty piece of suggestive, biased journalism.”
Yes, the introduction to the article could haven been phrased more carefully. Some editor at the NY Times could have done better work. Yes.
But my entry was not about the introduction to the article, but about the article itself.
The way you use the words “scientific” and “science” I would say is an attempt to cover up a lack of arguments or an attempt to make your aggression more presentable.
It is possible that the whole scientific question – if question is the right word in this context -- is just your weak spot; probably you need to prove that you are a scientist. Maybe you are not sure about this yourself.
You are welcome to post the following comment every day: “I, Krista Fredal, am a scientist, I approach things scientifically, I do scientific work, I do science. I’m a scientist.”
I really hope this will make you feel better.
Is there anything else I can do for you today?

Arnon

"But my entry was not about the introduction to the article, but about the article itself."
You're absolutely right about that.

I'm a rather lazy person, but I'm still trying to read most of the comments carefully. So I also read, in one of Eva's posts where she tries to clarify her point, the following:
"But if you look at things objectively you will have to admit; the link between having been in the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan and committing or being accused of homicide is not convincingly proven at all. Yet by publishing this article (13 January) on the front page the way it was it is presented like a news fact. That's a problem, at least for me it is. "
So apparently she is merely complaining about the lack of relevant background information by the redaction of the NY Times, not about the article itself.

Now, do you think there is a relevant causal connection between having been in the US army in Iraq or Afghanistan and committing or being accused of homicide, in the sense that those men or women kill more than average Americans of the same age and socio-economic background? And if you do, why do you think so?

By the way, I'm not a scientist, and I'm quite happy right now, so maybe except for answering my questions, there's not much you can do for me, thanks.

Krista

Fair enough: Eva van Campen was complaining about the introduction to the article. But then she should have phrased her criticism more carefully. As I already showed she was dismissing the article itself with a vengeance. And although I’m not the author of the article nor do I know Mrs. Sontag personally I found that aggression repulsive.
I’m not familiar with numbers and statistics in this regard. But having been to a war zone twice, and having talked with soldiers outside war zones (Kosovo, Gitmo) my gut feeling is that it’s probable that there is a connection between the experience of combat and violent behavior afterwards.
And I’m aware that an army is almost never an exact mirror of society. Certain groups are overrepresented. Again I’m not familiar with the exact numbers but it seems to me likely that economic perspectives are a reason to enlist.
Fair enough again, you are not a scientist. So what ghosts are you fighting?
Did I ever make the claim that this site was scientific -- did I ever call myself a scientist?
Your use of the word "science" is light-footed and groundless. It says more about you than about the small discussion I was having with Eva van Campen.

Arnon

I'm not fighting anything or anyone. I left the battlefield a long time ago. I was just trying to help.
II will not go into the homosexual connotation of the word 'light-footed', we've been there. Also this reaction tells more about me than about anything else.

Krista

A homosexual connotation to the word light-footed is new to me.
I’m not sure what you are trying to say.
But it’s relief that you don’t sprinkle your comments anymore with “science” and “scientific.”

arnon

"Light-footed" is slang for "homosexual". Well, I'm glad I made you happy.

Krista

I didn't know that and this particular slang has not made it yet to the dictionary.
But I trust your knowledge of slang.

slang

Actually, it has made its way to the dictionaries (I just copy this from an internet site):

" LIGHT IN THE LOAFERS - "light-footed - pertaining to a homosexual male. Cf. 'light' (sense 1). Light on his feet. (U.S. slang, 1900s.) light - 1. lewd; wanton (numerous writings attest since the 1300s)."
: From "Slang and Euphemism: A Dictionary of Oaths, Curses, Insults, Ethnic Slurs, Sexual Slang and Metaphor, Drug Talk, College Lingo and Related Matters" by Richard A. Spears (New American Library, Penguin Putnam, New York, Third Edition, 2001).

light in the loafers - or light on one's feet - (of men) effeminate or homosexual. 1967 DAS (Dictionary of American Speech)(Supp.) Lightfooted.Homosexual. Fairly common since c1955."
: From "Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, Volume 2, H-O, by J.E. Lighter, Random House, New York, 1997."

krista

Thanks. Will be moch more careful wile using th word light-footed.

Arnon

1) In one of your emails to Krista you say that 'she should be aware that the text Mrs van Campen quotes after that first sentence is probably not written by Deborah Sontag' and that it should not be seen as part of the article (but as part of the introduction). I just looked at the print edition of Sunday the 13th's NYT again and really, as far as I can see this sentence is part of the article. There doesn't appear to be an introduction, the article just starts at the frontpage . The only mistake I made was stating that the article was written by Deborah Solomon, another NYT contributor. Which is clearly not true; it's Deborah Sontag (and Lizette Alvarez).
But for the record; my criticism was about the entire article.
2) In two seperate posts you call both Krista and myself 'aggressive'. In the case of my allegedly very aggressive reaction you also find that aggression 'repulsive'.
As if you have never attacked a publication or a person with a vengeance, come on! Question: when is aggression repulsive? Is aggression more likely to be repulsive when it's a) coming from a woman or b) making a case for something that you don't agree with?
3) It's Ms . van Campen. And probably also Ms. Sontag for you, unless you happen to know that the woman is married. (or maybe you are assuming that with the incredible levels of empathy she possesses she probably must be!)
There was some correspondence about the Mrs. vs Ms. topic about your blog awhile ago and that was another case in which you seemed to have a little difficulty admitting you were wrong. Yes, in f.e. the Netherlands, France, Germany a woman 'of a certain age' automatically becomes 'mevrouw' or 'madame'. But here in the US, when you don't know a woman's marital status it's Ms. And some women have a preference for staying Ms. after they get married, because they don't think there marital status should be relevant in f.e. business correspondence. (a man is always 'Mr.' after all, married or not).
If you want you can check wikipedia on this, or take a look at what your beloved NYT does!

Eva van Campen

I have been taught that it is proper to refer to a woman over a certain age as “Mrs.” That is all I was saying a while ago while a small discussion was going on here about this topic. The idea that I refuse to admit that I was wrong – it seems to be a line you borrowed from my beloved Krista by the way – is another example of needless aggression. Anyhow if I offended you by referring to you as “Mrs.” I apologize. The fact that you are a woman does not matter and did not matter at all when I described your aggression as repulsive. For all I know you can be a man in disguise. You seemed to jump to conclusions not based on what is actually written but based on your own assumptions that sometimes do no bear any relation with facts. Did I ever in my discussion with you (or anywhere else) reveal myself as a misogynist? I don’t oppose aggression by definition, and I don’t oppose attacking articles (or books) with aggression, but in this particular case the attack was based on a biased and unjust (I would even say nasty) reading of the article. I don’t have Sunday’s newspaper anymore. But if you go to NYT online you will clearly see that the text you were so upet about is not part of the article. I would say that we should trust the online edition, since often mistakes being made in the physical newspaper are corrected online. Also by the way in the byline online only Deborah Sontag is mentioned.

I would stand by the Mss. until you know the marital status. That's how I'm thought.

Arnon

It's true; nowhere on your blog or in your comments to me or to others -to the extend that I read them- did you ever show signs of misogyny. That insinuation in my last comment was completely unjustified: sorry.

Eva

As a human being you are entitled to your portion of unjustified insinuations.