COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

Slate editor Jacob Weisberg demonstrates that the 4th estate is capable, once in a great while, of a glimmer of self-awareness - he recognizes the deep, yawning cultural divide between the warrior and civilian class. In his essay, "Rough Draft," (The third Slate article with that title in three years), Weisberg writes:

In the upscale sectors of American society, there remains a primal antipathy to military culture, which has only been heightened by revelations about torture at Abu Ghraib and ongoing discrimination against gay people in the armed forces. The real "two Americas" are not rich versus poor or religious versus secular but military versus civilian.

His observation is correct, though I think his view is colored by Manhattan/media glasses. For example, there are plenty of upscale people in Dallas, Omaha, Billings, and Nashville who harbor no such antipathy. Indeed, many business and community leaders and opinion makers in these cities themselves have military experience. Weisberg doesn't speak for the "upscale." He only thinks he does. In reality, he speaks for high-gloss coastal media - and however well-meaning, indirectly establishes its inflated sense of self-importance.

I have a couple of other problems with the piece:

Finally, the young men who might be called do not want to contemplate having to kill, die, or be maimed in a war that inspires little idealism.

Man, Weisberg needs to get out more. One read through the milblogs, or a sharp-eared walk through the billeting area of any effective unit in Iraq would establish the existence - underneath the usual soldier's gripes and complaints and concerns of home - of a strong undercurrent of idealism - a sizeable contingent of soldiers who do believe that the US is genuinely doing good work, is genuinely promoting the interests of freedom and democracy. Money and neccessity might motivate the first combat tour. It does not motivate the second and third. It does not bring retention rates to an all-time high. The only thing that does, in the face of real bullets, are the twin engines of unit cameraderie and esprit de corps and a cause perceived in the ranks as just.

This idealism is also reflected in the pool of new recruits joining my own unit, who are themselves responding not just to new recruiting incentives, but also to the new marketing slogan I see on National Guard recruiting posters: "Defend Freedom."

When I speak with these terrific new soldiers, they want to be up to the challenge of doing exactly that.

Just because Weisberg, as a product of coastal media culture, doesn't respond to any ideals that don't involve freedom of the press doesn't mean what we're doing in Iraq inspires little idealism. It just means that Weisberg is, again, confusing the moral sense of a nation with the stunted moral sense of the professional cynics currently infesting our national media.

Once again, young people without good opportunities in life are handling the fighting and dying for those with better things to do—only this time, there is not even a pretense of shared responsibility for defending the country.

What a snobbish, elitist, condescending, and out-of-touch thing to say.

Some of my troops come from rough backgrounds, sure. Others are suburban white boys. One of my E-4s has two college degrees. I went to the Tank Commander's Course alongside a Staff Sergeant with a PhD in economics. One of my specialists in Iraq ran his own engineering firm. One of my Pfc's runs his own contracting company and pulls in 6 figures per year, easily. My battalion maintenance chief made close to six figures when he deployed to Iraq. Another E-4 I served with in Iraq, a veteran of both the Canadian and U.S. armies, ran his own computer networking firm stateside when he was deployed, earning near six figures.

These are all just off the top of my head, and all excluding the officers.

Some of these soldiers are screamingly intelligent - and many of them can sharpshoot me to death on almost any subject (except, thankfully, convoy operations and training doctrine. I still have them there!) Many of them could be doing anything they wanted. They chose the challenge of the profession of arms - not because they were limited, but because they were called to service.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney react angrily to any suggestion that a draft might be needed, because they know that the prospect of conscription would make their decision to invade Iraq even more unpopular. Having lived through Vietnam and shirked the draft themselves, they understand that if people anywhere near their own station in life were forced to fight, any remaining support for wars of arguable necessity would dry up and blow away.

Right. The President, a former Air Force officer and fighter pilot with years of commissioned service, "shirked the draft."

The argument could possibly be made regarding Cheney (though I'm curious to see if Weisberg ever made the same observation regarding Clinton). But when Weisberg conjures this tired canard to smear Bush with, he reveals himself to be either stupid about the military, or an incredibly sloppy thinker, who's allowed himself to be steeped so long in the cesspool of cynicism we call the national media that he can no longer reliably examine his own reflexive assumptions.

Splash, out

Jason