|
August 28, 2005
Can't get no f---ing respect!
Tom Lasseter's reports from Iraq are frequently spiced with Vietnam references, and he really can't be accused of making this stuff up -- because he uses direct quotes from the soldiers themselves. From today's Inquirer: "I don't think of this in terms of winning," said Col. Stephen Davis, who commands a task force of about 5,000 Marines in an area of 24,000 square miles in the western portion of Anbar.Later, he quotes Marine Major Nicholas Visconti: "If it were just killing people that would win this, it'd be easy," said Marine Maj. Nicholas Visconti, 35, of Brookfield, Conn., who served in southern Iraq in 2003. "It's just like in Vietnam. They won a long, protracted fight that the American public did not have the stomach for... . Killing people is not the answer; rebuilding the cities is."They (I assume "they" means the Communists) won? Yes, but that was only after they'd lost the "long, protracted" part of the fight. America had beaten them into signing the Paris Peace accord, and only years after America had pulled out (and Congress refused to support the government of South Vietnam) did the enemy win. At that point it wasn't a long protracted fight; the Communists went in virtually unopposed. Assuming Major Visconti is quoted correctly (something I have no way of knowing), I'd wonder where he's getting his history lessons. Major Visconti is quoted again along with Marine Captain James Haunty in an accompanying piece titled "Inability to pin down foe severely stresses troops": "I tell the guys not to lose their humanity over here, because it's easy to do," said Marine Capt. James Haunty, 27, of Columbus, Ohio. "I tell them not to turn into Col. Kurtz."Wow. Apocalypse Now? (As I pointed out previously, Tom Lasseter's last piece seemed to be itching for that "love the smell of Napalm in the morning" quote.) Still, as apocalyptic war quotes go, the above isn't bad: I'll put the gun in his mouth and kill him myself. Hey, the whole world is watching! It might be, but what I want to know is why the whole world doesn't get to see the same Lasseter piece in its entirety. (At least, not if the whole world consists of Philadelphia.) The Yahoo version of the above story is except for the title, word for word the same, but the following additional paragraphs (in bold text) are added: "It's a lot like it was in Vietnam, when the VC's (Viet Cong) would come out and pretend to be your friends," said Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Vidler, 23, of Syracuse, N.Y. "You're fighting an enemy on his home ground and you don't know who's who." Here's the heavily redacted Inquirer version: Marine Lance Cpl. Jared Vidler, 23, of Syracuse, N.Y., said: "It's a lot like it was in Vietnam, when the VCs [Viet Cong] would come out and pretend to be your friends. You're fighting an enemy on his home ground, and you don't know who's who."The only explanation for this editorial censorship is that the story might have been seen as inconsistent with the accompanying front page piece, which uses the term "mujahedeen" in a much more respectful manner: Instead of referring to the enemy derisively as "terrorists" - as they used to - Marines and soldiers now give the insurgents a measure of respect by calling them "mujahideen," an Arabic term meaning "holy warrior" that became popular during the Afghan guerrilla campaign against the Soviet Union.Why, that's so respectful-sounding it's almost PC! I can see why the "f---ing muj" reference was omitted from the other story. I wonder what else is being omitted. Certainly, nothing about Vietnam. Lasseter clinches both versions of his story with an artfully quoted rhetorical question drawn from another soldier: "There's been reports of a .50 [caliber] sniper rifle out there. Maybe they called this in just to get us out here and take a shot. A .50-cal would go straight through our [body armor] plates," Coffey said, looking at the buildings across the river. "Why do I feel like I'm in a... Vietnam movie?"Considering the attention the antiwar people are getting, I should ask the same question. MORE: Michael Yon, also on the ground with U.S. forces, calls terrorists "terrorists," and explains why. MORE: Charles Johnson looks at this Lasseter story (which is the same as today's front page Inquirer Story), and the Vietnam meme, and characterizes Lasseter thusly: the courageous “guerilla fighters” have a staunch ally in Tom Lasseter of Knight RidderWas I being too kind? Thanks to LGF, once again I see that the Inky is redacting the Lasseter story (or else Lasseter is issuing different versions): Here's the Wichita Eagle version: "If it were just killing people that would win this, it'd be easy," said Marine Maj. Nicholas Visconti, 35, of Brookfield, Conn., who served in southern Iraq in 2003. "It's just like in Vietnam. They won a long, protracted fight that the American public did not have the stomach for... . Killing people is not the answer; rebuilding the cities is." And here's the Inquirer again: "If it were just killing people that would win this, it'd be easy," said Marine Maj. Nicholas Visconti, 35, of Brookfield, Conn., who served in southern Iraq in 2003. "But look at Vietnam. We killed millions, and they kept coming. It's a war of attrition. They're not trying to win. It's just like in Vietnam. They won a long, protracted fight that the American public did not have the stomach for. ... Killing people is not the answer; rebuilding the cities is.""They" does mean the Communists; it wasn't clear until now. Might it be worth asking Nicholas Visconti exactly what he meant?
Lasseter also doesn't paint the troops as the kind of heroic, larger-than-life action figures that make the fighting keyboarders drool with barely suppressed homoerotic envy. (Via James Wolcott.)What I'd like to know is what, precisely, does "homoerotic envy" have to do with war? Does he mean to suggest that "fighting keyboarders" (presumably this means war supporters who blog) are envious of the warriors because of unfulfilled homosexual attractions? If so, then what has envy to do with it? I mean, it might be possible for a male blogger to be in an envious homosexual rage because someone he's attracted to is in combat, but I think it's a bit of a stretch. If the assertion is that there's a "barely suppressed" attraction to the soldiers, how does Billmon know that? How is Lasseter avoiding an appeal to "homoerotic" elements? And who is writing these homoerotic war pieces? (Believe me, I know homoeroticism when I see it -- barely suppressed or not -- and I haven't seen it in war coverage anywhere.) If there's something homoerotic about combat, it's not spelled out just what that would be, either. (I'm barely able to suppress my suspicions that someone is projecting.) All in all, homoeroticism avoidance seems like a very odd thing to praise Lasseter for. posted by Eric on 08.28.05 at 08:20 AM
Comments
The style of that name. Haldeman. Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · August 28, 2005 10:13 PM If you were going to make up names you couldn't make up a better name, could you? (Especially if you had Watergate-On-The-Brain Syndrome.) You're right; Haldeman is an interesting coincidence. And so is "Nicholas Visconti" -- also a New York Fire Commissioner. But there is a Marine of the same name -- reactivated in February and sent to Iraq. Might even be the same guy -- I found a picture of him with other Marines holding an "F.D.N.Y." flag. Tantalizing, but coincidental, unless we want to open a tin foil investigation. Eric Scheie · August 29, 2005 07:18 AM "Thanks to LGF, once again I see that the Inky is redacting the Lasseter story (or else Lasseter is issuing different versions)"
You see, papers have these things called editors, and different papers have different editors, who make their own decisions about what stories to run and how much space to give each story. Other editors, called copy editors, are responsible for cutting stories to make them fit the space available. Reporters, on the other hand, have NOTHING to do with what "version" of their story runs in what papers. Except maybe in the la la land of the right-wing imagination. If you want to read the full text of all of Lasseter's stories, check out the Knight Ridder home page: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12486277.htm Does that help? P.S. I would have expected that someone who calls his blog "Classical Values," and decorates it with the beautiful male face of a marble faun, would understand the homoerotic overtones of much of what passes for conservative war commentary. Maybe you should check out the action on a few Greek urns.
Billmon · August 29, 2005 11:51 AM Phraseology such as "other than what your genocidal pals at Little Green Fascists tell you" is ad hominem in nature and I think it displays rudeness to another blogger who isn't here to defend himself. But I do appreciate your taking the time to read the latter part of my post -- even though I didn't update with the LGF reference until late last night. While I appreciate your explanation of editorial decisions, I'm more interested by Lasseter's contradictions than the mechanics of how they were edited. No marble faun up there -- it's simply a bust of Antinous (Emperor Hadrian's lover). While I have discussed Pan, it was in the context of nature's god, not war. And yes, the Greek urns and plates are homoerotic. I've seen some of them. In all honesty, I don't think they're very informative on modern "conservative war commentary." Eric Scheie · August 29, 2005 12:17 PM |
|
December 2006
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2006
November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Holiday Blogging
The right to be irrational? I'm cool with the passion fashion Climate change meltdown at the polls? If you're wrong, then so is God? Have a nice day, asshole! Scarlet "R"? Consuming power while empowering consumption Shrinking is growth! My dirty thoughts
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Haldeman. That's an excellent name.