Another Deserter Story

I guess it's the month for deserter stories; today the Times has a story on soldiers using ever more creative methods to get out of their service obligation. What's interesting is that while the article goes into their reasons at great length (while offering no judgments whatsoever) the reporter merely mentions once that:

Word of such cases spread among soldiers. Some reacted with disgust, accusing their colleagues of cowardice: how could they let down other soldiers in a time of war, when, unlike the draftees of the Vietnam War, they had all volunteered? Others, though, say the cases made them think more about their ambivalence.

Yet there's no real equal discussion of those attitudes, no quotes from soldiers about to deploy or returning from deployment, and no quotes from military spokesmen (beyond statements regarding trendlines.) The only "voices" regarding the validity of attempting to evade an obligation, or of the humanity of the war, are those of the deserters themselves.

If there's no judgment, but still only one side offered, how does that work out?

Someone here, either an editor or the reporter, made an explicit choice, because it's pretty much my impression, and I do think I'm right about this, that when you ask military folks how they feel about deserters, (caution: a touch of harsh language) they aren't too shy about offering up an opinion. In general. Most of the time.

Comments

[Brian]

This seems like standard NYT fare. The volumes of ink that have been spilt on the difference between an all-volunteer force and draftees just does not seem to sink in to the NYT editors. Volunteers at one point in time said they wanted to be there - it is a social contract. "Some" reacted with disgust? How about the "vast majority" reacted with disgust? How about "95%" reacted with disgust? By not fulfilling thier oath and vow, deserters deserve very little respect. Unfortunately, I think this type of story goes with Rantingprof's assessment of the restraunt story - if the polls don't support your position, find a couple of non-representative people to mouth the words for you. The very fact that the word "Vietnam" comes up shows the initial bias. Let's put it this way: the majority of those serving in Iraq were not born until after the Vietnam war. The vast majority (98%) of citizens serving in the military came in AFTER the Vietnam war. So, by even inserting it, the editors/reporter state that they are actually playing to the Boomers, and not to the soliders generation. The volunteer force is a professional group of citizens - not draftees. I find it stunning that the NYT editors continue to push this meme.

[George]

File this under "who cares". The NYT is just doing its Times Thingy. Anyway, dog bites man is a non-story.

[dauber]

The reason its worth caring about, remember, is the number of people who read the Times (including all those journalists out there) who don't know anything about the military.