Honor, Don't Exploit, Our Military Wounded

As has been infrequently reported, as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan progressed, a number of members of our military became somewhat dismayed and disturbed by the almost complete lack of positive coverage printed or aired by the U.S. media.

Now, over five years into those conflicts, they have come to accept the sad reality that for much of our media, their decisive victories against the enemy, their critically important intelligence intercepts, their comrades lost in-the-line-of-fire protecting Iraqi and Afghani civilians, and the growing trust they have painstakingly cultivated with those civilian populations, has been deemed “non-newsworthy” by their own press corps. They don’t like it, but realize that the ethics, judgment, and bias of some in the media, is beyond their control.

That said, there is one element of these conflicts that Pentagon leadership wishes the media would do a better job of covering in a more positive manner. That being the exceptional medical and psychological care being offered to our “Wounded Warriors.”

In two separate meetings at the Pentagon with some of that leadership, I learned of their growing frustration with the lack of coverage of a success story that not only brings great credit to our military doctors and nurses, but can positively impact the entire spectrum of U.S. civilian health care.

In a recent speech on the subject, Secretary of Defense, Robert M. Gates, said, “…the conflict we are in is the longest America has waged with an all-volunteer force since the Revolutionary war…when a young American steps forward of his own free will to serve, he or she does so with the expectation that they and their families will be properly taken care of should something happen on the battlefield. After the wars themselves, I have no higher priority.”

Other than those on the fringe-left, I know of no person who does not believe Mr. Gates to be his own man. From his lengthy career with the Central Intelligence Agency, to his service in the Air Force, to his service with the National Security Council, to his stint as Director of Central Intelligence, to his recent sacking of the Air Force’s top military and civilian leaders for nuclear “mix-ups,” Gates has proven himself a man who places integrity and the good of the nation before partisanship.

In February of 2007, soon after Mr. Gates became Secretary of Defense, the Washington Post broke the Walter Reed Army Medical Center “neglect scandal.” While most of the story dealt with deficiencies in non-medical care for wounded warriors, Gates and his team still took immediate action. Nothing was swept under the rug, people were disciplined or fired, and an unprecedented partnership between the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs was created to ensure the situation was never replicated.

Predictably, much of the media only focused on the negative, used the story as a club to beat on the despised Bush Administration, and in the process, adversely affected the morale of highly competent and dedicated military doctors and nurses. Almost all of the positives that resulted from this story ended up on the cutting room floor.

One of those positives being the Commission created by President Bush to “Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors.” A Commission headed up by former Clinton Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, and my old boss, former Senator Bob Dole. A Commission, that, working in hand in hand with DoD and Veteran’s Affairs, has already improved an impressive military health care system.

At the beginning of these conflicts, and when I was still working for Senator Dole, I had the opportunity to join him on couple of very emotional visits to Walter Reed. While seeing none of the problems outlined by the Washington Post, I did have the honor to speak with a number of our wounded warriors. To a person, they all said they just wanted to get better so they could rejoin their comrades in combat. It’s a type of character, determination and loyalty you will be hard-pressed to find in any other profession.

Years ago, many of the wounds these soldiers suffered, would have been fatal. Today, because of improvements in armor protection, battlefield medicine and the care they receive in our military hospitals, many of these young men and women not only survived, but did return to combat and their comrades. Even, I’m told, amazingly, but not surprising when you meet these remarkable young men and women, a number of amputees.

The Pentagon has a tremendous story to tell with regard to the progress being made in the treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), psychological health, and personal and professional accountability. So far, they have virtually no takers.

Predictably, much of the media only focused on the negative, used the story as a club to beat on the despised Bush Administration, and in the process, adversely affected the morale of highly competent and dedicated military doctors and nurses. Almost all of the positives that resulted from this story ended up on the cutting room floor.

Back in the founding era, nobody would have expected a newspaper to be objective - Hamilton and Jefferson sponsored newspapers in which to wage their partisan battles with each other, for example - and that is only the best-know example of the open tendentiousness of the papers of the day.
The difference between that open, free-fire-zone political milieu and our own frustration with the "bias" in "the media" is not that news ever was apolitical in some golden age but that - with the advent of the Associated Press - the news became far more political than it had been. Without the telegraph and the AP, "newspapers" weren't actually in the "news" business as we have known it all our lives. "Newspapers" were typically weeklies, not dailies, because they didn't have the AP newswire to provide coverage of distant affairs which was any more timely than you might have gotten by hanging out in town talking to travelers.
The consequence of the AP has been to unify the newspapers (and now broadcast news as well) around the idea that we should trust reporters from all over the country and even the world because journalists are objective. The idea that today's news is crucial but yesterday's news is "yesterday's news" is embedded in the business model of journalism as we, and our parents and grandparents, have always known it. And yet if it actually were true that the news was becoming more crucial every day that would imply that we were in an accelerating crisis which would inevitably overwhelm our institutions in short order. The very fact that they are unified around the idea of the trustworthiness and significance of "the news" is, in and of itself, the defining bias of journalism. It is a bias against conservatism - a radical bias. And the claim that expression of that bias is "objectivity" is the strongest bias of all. It is a, if not the, Big Lie.
The Associated Press is a monopoly, ruled by the Supreme Court in 1945 to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. In 1945 it was undoubtedly difficult to visualize a world without the Associated Press - and thus without any system of timely reporting from all points of the nation and the world. With the Internet of today, that question could look quite different if SCOTUS were presented with a case which outlined the scope of the impact of the AP monopoly on the country. Because the bias of the AP is worth ten points to radicals in any election. With its quick reporting of victories in states for Gore and its slow reporting of victories in states for Bush - including the notorious wrong call of Florida for Gore before all Florida polls were even closed - AP journalism very nearly turned the 2000 election for Gore. I would argue that no Democratic president since Johnson could have won without the aid of the tendentious monopoly known as the Associated Press. And that is not to mention the effect on Congress and the Senate and - through the Senate, on the Supreme Court.
The Associated Press has lately threatened lawsuits against bloggers who quote the AP too much. And yet that monopoly assays to define the public discourse. Given that it is an established fact that the AP is a monopoly, there just has to be a way to sue their socks off.
The Right to Know

This article is complete BS. First, contrary to his snide remarks, the situation at Walter Reed was serious and outraegous. For him to dismiss it as he does is the real disservice. One gets the feeling that if it were up to him the story never would have seen the light of day. Second all sorts of articles have been posted with regards to our wounded troops and the care that they receive. However they’re usually attacked on FR for being “anti-war.” Bush bots associate stories relating to the difficulties of wounded vets to some sort of subtle anti war propoganda. So if he wants to blame anyone, blame the Presiden’ts cheerleaders for shouting down such news.

Walter Reed should have been squared away sooner. More importantly, the surge should have been done sooner. And some people said so, in both cases. But there is a reason why those people were not influential enough, soon enough, and we both know why that was so - it was the "stopped clock syndrome." We had so many people shouting so many fatuous criticisms at the administration that we didn't hear sufficiently clearly the criticisms which were actually valid.
The difficulty we face is not that those with beefs against the administration cannot speak out, the problem is that Big Journalism amplifies any and all criticism of the administration with such high gain that we perforce turn down our hearing aids - with the result that the overall volume at which we heard legitimate complaints was lower than it should have been.
Obama may choose to define "patriotism" in terms of how loudly he or his acolytes criticize Republicans. I define patriotism in terms of good will toward the country and the people who get things done for all of us. And those are opposites - even when some criticism or another actually is justified.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.