Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Peters Vs. The Pentagon
A rare day when Ralph Peters commends the "other" paper in town:
This is why I have a great deal of respect for Peters. I don't always agree with him, but he's truly a writer of integrity who calls it as he sees it.
|
EVEN The New York Times gets it right once in a while. On Sunday, the Times published a lead article about a genuine military-related scandal: propagandizing on TV by retired military officers who take defense-contractor blood money or toe the Pentagon party line.Well, Eisenhower called it the "military-industrial complex" for a reason.
The sole fault I can find with the piece is that the rogues' gallery of faces on the front page failed to distinguish between the good, the bad and the ugly - between genuine men of conscience, and scoundrels who'd sell their underage daughters for three cents on the dollar.
The article described - accurately - how many retired-military talking heads conceal business ties to the defense industry, or are willing to parrot Pentagon agitprop in return for the illusion of privileged access.
(For the record, I take no defense-industry payola - I'd rather empty cesspools with a straw - and I'm proud to have been unwelcome in the Rumsfeld-era Pentagon.)
Officers who trade on their former service and knowingly deceive the American people to increase their chances of winning defense contracts for the firms they represent disgrace the uniforms they wore. Period.
This is why I have a great deal of respect for Peters. I don't always agree with him, but he's truly a writer of integrity who calls it as he sees it.
Labels: contractors, Pentagon, Ralph Peters, retired military
Friday, March 30, 2007
Truth on Tillman
We talked about this sometime back. Earlier this week, the Pentagon announced that several officers were "responsible" for not being straightforward earlier on the circumstances ("friendly fire") of NFL player-turned-Army Ranger Pat Tillman.
Well, even with that explanation, there is now apparently further clarification.
One week after Tillman's death, a major-general (thorougly modern?) wrote the White House to give the president a heads-up on what actually happened. Yet, the military establishment at large allowed the false story to spread -- and continued to delude the family.
The family's anger is understandable -- though their calling it a "conspiracy" and suggesting an intent to kill Tillman goes too far.
The circumstances of Tillman's death in no way undercuts the material sacrifice he made giving up the comfort and relative safety of being an NFL player to join the military and go off to war. In doing that, he was a hero. Allowing that story to be told is good enough.
There was no need to try and make the truth "better."
In any event, after three years, the Tillman family would do well to let the matter, like Pat himself, rest at last.
|
Well, even with that explanation, there is now apparently further clarification.
One week after Tillman's death, a major-general (thorougly modern?) wrote the White House to give the president a heads-up on what actually happened. Yet, the military establishment at large allowed the false story to spread -- and continued to delude the family.
The family's anger is understandable -- though their calling it a "conspiracy" and suggesting an intent to kill Tillman goes too far.
The circumstances of Tillman's death in no way undercuts the material sacrifice he made giving up the comfort and relative safety of being an NFL player to join the military and go off to war. In doing that, he was a hero. Allowing that story to be told is good enough.
There was no need to try and make the truth "better."
In any event, after three years, the Tillman family would do well to let the matter, like Pat himself, rest at last.
Labels: NFL, Pat Tillman, Pentagon
