Looping the Hen

To be honest, I had to read many pages before I finally hit the red zone, as early on his partisanship was camouflaged. For example:

In the striptease of saloon conversation, I gave him the OK to let it all hang out. He told me how much he loved his country and how proud he was to serve. Then, leaning forward with the menace of a guy that's at least 220 and built like a vending machine said sternly, "But that doesn't mean I support this administration. That doesn't mean that I'm in favor of what they are doing."

Ok, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but I do understand that even folks in the military don't always approve of the administration's actions, even though the majority support them. However, that paragraph to me screams 'fiction'. Flowery rhetoric followed by a minority opinion expressed as if the author were expressing his own sentiments. His next few paragraphs reinforce this notion:

Then his face fell as he explained how much respect he had for the people in combat, the soldiers that were serving in the line of fire.

So I asked the question.
"How do you feel about a guy like me who never did serve?"

Without a beat, he pinned me with a stare said flatly, "Well, to be honest, I kind of resent that."

Without anger and with very few words, he told me what I already knew - I'm a coward. The only thing that makes this weight a little lighter is that I live in a country of cowards. Being a coward in America is like wearing black clothes at a Nine Inch Nails concert - it's not just a fashion statement, it's a uniform

Umm, really? I'd like to speak with this soldier, because he expresses opinions I have never heard in all the conversations I have ever had with folks in the military (Including 2 brothers, myself, my father, grandfather), and all the reading I have done about them, which in the last 3 years has been considerable. In 1000 anecdotes, letters, stories relayed by folks in the military, I have never once seen any member imply that those at home are cowards. Does it mean that in this case, talking to this writer, it didn't happen? No, of course not, he may be speaking to Pablo Paredes or one of the very few like him. But color me skeptical.

Anyhoo, by this point I'm not sure what the article is trying to say. We're all cowards? Okay, let's tell the folks on Flight 93 that. Tell the tens of thousands of folks who showed up to help in New Orleans that. I believe most people have it in them to be heroes, and in Dave's words, to run up the stairs of a burning building while everyone else is running down. What it seems like Dave would have us to believe is that anyone who doesn't join the military must be a coward, in a country of cowards. Sounds nihilistic to me, and is essentially the same as the chickenhawk theory that only those who have served can speak. It is funny that it is George Bush who actually has given our military the chance to be heroes, to rescue people from tyranny, to 'run up the stairs of a burning building.' In fact, a whole country of burning buildings, human-eating woodchippers, mass graves and rapists. Dave continues on in this vein:

Worst of all, like all the Emo kids who think acting deep means that you actually have anything inside your hollow pubescent chest, the modern American coward thinks they've got it all figured out. They don't call it cowardice; they call it the "American Dream." And only Americans seem to mix up that this dream is just the fantasy of becoming rich and famous. The American Dream is the hallucination of ultimate leisure, of fast cars, early tee times and hot wives spread out across lush backyard BBQs from sea to shining sea.

Really? Striving for the American Dream is now the ultimate expression of cowardice? Wow. So let me ask, if that soldier above wanted to live the American Dream described by Dave a few paragraphs down, would that make him a coward too? I don't know about Dave, but my American Dream, and most of my family and friends' American Dreams have, well, nothing to do with being rich or famous. Sure, that's anecdotal at best, but the author of the article provides no support for his assertion either. My American Dream is to have no debt, a wife, kids, some friends, poker every Friday night, and sex three times a week. And to retire with all my loved ones living within 10 miles from me. I don't know of but a handful of people who long to be rich and famous to the extent they call it their American Dream.

The author continues to blather on for a while about how we are all cowards replacing courage with fey patriotism and some other nonsense. It seems to me that there are more words in the article showing disdain toward the average guy (and not so average guy, as we learn that Lance Armstrong isn't a hero either, just " some super freaky human like the Flash or Wolverine,") than it does exploring what I think is supposed to be the point of the article. I thought he said he was doing an article on the military, but maybe I misread that line.

Finally, we do find some meat in the article, and it seems the author does have some talent for reviewing games.

The second most interesting thing about the game is that it's fun. This is interesting because we assume that the government can't do anything right - at least not as well as the private enterprise of the free market. So, people are surprised to find that AA is good enough that you'd actually think about spending a few bucks to buy a copy. Which leads us to the most interesting thing about the America's Army game: It's free. ...

For example, characters in the game say things like "Range walk," which presumably is something real drill instructors yell at real recruits. If you do stupid things like say, shoot your commanding officer, you'll loose rank and even end up in the brig. (Which is probably something more squad-based online games should consider.)

There is some more good stuff in there worth reading, but it doesn't last even a full page, before we get hit by another rhetorical smart-bomb:

Thanks to a war that nobody really wants to be in, but no one seems to have the slightest idea how to get out of, the Army is missing its recruitment goals by hundreds of thousands of enlistees a year. Politics aside, the arsenal of democracy is running out of floor staff. McDonald's has less trouble staffing the fry station than the Army has putting butts in state-of-the-art combat vehicles.

Hmm...does he read the same source documents the rest of us do? The US Army releases its recruiting figures regularly, and they appear in a number of places:

September’s recruitment numbers for the Army components could indicate a stronger fiscal year in 2006 in terms of overall recruitment. Actual recruitment numbers in 2005 fell slightly short of projected enlistments for all three Army components.

• The active-duty Army gained 8,710 new Soldiers into its ranks in September, exceeding that month’s goal of 8,365 by 345. Fiscal year 2005 active-duty Army recruitment goals stood at 92 percent complete, with 73,373 new Soldiers joining the force. The mission goal was to recruit 80,000.
• The Army Reserve accessed 2,208 Soldiers into its ranks during September, exceeding its goal by 190 Soldiers. At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Reserves Army accessed 23,859 Soldiers, 84 percent of its mission goal of 28,485.
• The Army National Guard gained 6,048 Soldiers in September, 98 percent of its monthly goal of 6,148. A total of 50,219 Soldiers joined the Guard’s ranks by the end of the fiscal year, 80 percent of its recruitment goal of 63,002.

The size of the active-duty Army has increased by 13,000 Soldiers since Sept. 11, 2001. The number of active-duty Soldiers is approximately 492,600. The Army Reserve end-of-year strength was roughly 189,000 Soldiers, and the National Guard’s forces numbered about 333,200.

I'm guessing Dave wouldn't want facts getting in the way of a good narrative. The Army isn't even looking for hundreds of thousands enlistees in a year (well, close, at 171k or so). For 2005, reenlistment goals were actually at 108% of goal, a strong indicator of just how much support there is in the military for 'a war that nobody really wants to be in.' Even initial enlistment was off only around 15%, or around 24,000 men, a huge difference from Dave's fantasy. If you count the additional recruitment from reenlistment, it is a total recruiting shortfall of 18,000 or so. I would venture that the additional 6,000 reenlisting soldiers also carry a ton of additional value over raw recruits due to their experience.

We go on to hear Dave drop other hard-left talking points, such as 'Bush was not democratically elected, he's a confused dog owner,' and other asshattery, including a swipe at the Governator.

So I am still wondering, what was the point of the article? Was it to truly provide us a view into the Army's marketing campaign, centerpieced by America's Army? Or was he looking for an editorial soapbox? You can decide for yourselves, but I'll put my vote on the latter.

Okay, that was too long, me and my cowardly dreams are off to watch Smallville!