previous post next post  

Winter Soldier II, IVAW's attempt to reprise Senator Kerry's political debut...

By The Armorer on March 14, 2008 | | Comments (16)

I've been so busy the last few weeks, I'd completely forgotten the Iraq Veteran's Against the War (IVAW) upcoming "Winter Soldier II"

I first discussed Winter Soldier II this last January.

And, promptly forgot about it. Fuzzybear Lioness hasn't. She sent me a note:



In a nutshell, IVAW's description of "Winter Soldier II" has gone from "Iraq's version of Winter Soldier--same script, different country" (war crimes, it's the politicians' fault, etc) to a cross between an academic seminar on the veteran experience and a TINS exercise. Today they make no mention of the first iteration, though remnants of their original affiliation with it remained on their site as few as TWO days ago (though it had been toned WAYYYYY down).

I like my take on it: Wolves in Sheepdog clothing.

#@$%^Y^%#@#%$!

#@$%^Y^%#@#%$! indeed.

Heh. Wolves in Sheepdog Clothing. I like that. Though I'm sure there will be many well-intentioned people present - the change in their posted rhetoric would indicate they took some flak they probably weren't expecting. Or perhaps it will just be this generation's CW4(Ret)Bill T's telling stories that start out "This is no shiite..."

Or, it could be something else. Something along the lines of what Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation found the chance to chat with Senator Kerry about - the original Winter Soldier.

Heh. Senator Kerry. A man for all seasons, or whatever he needs to be on any given day, anyway.

Hosting provided by FotoTime

Share This Article:

Categories:

16 Comments

By Trias on March 14, 2008 8:17 AM
I think they changed the wording for marketing purposes. Some of the old statements were too wobbly to be publicly presented to vets IMO, even those opposed to this war; especially the negativity given the recent successes. I don't understand what the problem with this event is apart from it not having the pro-war pov.
 
By Carrie on March 14, 2008 8:46 AM
Trias, I'm not sure there is such a thing as "pro war" amongst the military. Pro mission maybe...
 
By FbL on March 14, 2008 8:55 AM
Trias, if I didn't know you, I'd be saying, "You can't possibly be serious!!!" In a nutshell (as much as I can pull things together on five hours of sleep): Winter Soldier the first time around was found upon subsequent investigation to be shot full of people "testifying" to atrocities who hadn't even served in a combat zone!!! It was pivotal in dunning an entire generation of veterans. For IVAW to have so closely aligned their current event with that unspeakable $%&#@(* speaks volumes as to their intentions, affiliations and desires. I'm glad they've watered down their statements about what they apparently expect Winter Soldier II to be, but that doesn't change who they are. Maybe in Canada you aren't aware of the true history of the anti-Vietnam-war movement in the U.S. and organizations like VVAW. There were toxic, absolutely toxic. Just read the "Wolves in Sheepdog Clothing" link (and the additional links embedded there), and you'll understand why supporters of the military are so incensed by this. Please.
 
By FbL on March 14, 2008 8:58 AM
Though I'm sure there will be many well-intentioned people present I agree. Those aren't the people my rage is directed against, though I am saddened to see them used like this.
 
By kat-missouri on March 14, 2008 9:09 AM
And, I might add to FbL's comments that even these guys at IVAW have hitched their wagon to some modern day morons whose stories are so incredulous that the media eats them up and the the blogs go to town and discover the truth. Jesse MacBeth and Jim Massey are two that rings off the top of my head. Jesse MacBeth had barely survived 44 days in the military, was never deployed to anywhere and then went around claiming he was SF. Dude weighed like 110 sopping wet, couldn't wear his uniform right and wore his beret on the wrong side, for starters. And Massey told so many embellishments, it was nearly insane. He was there alright and so were 5 embedded reporters and how many marines who all said his stories were either lies or embellishments. The guy was suffering from PTSD as far as I could tell and now he's stuck with his BS and we are too. Which tells me that what we're going to get out of this whole event is some more BS artists that the media will suck up to and regurgitate their garbage while we have to go around and prove them wrong instead of some people doing their jobs in journalism and corroborating any stories. But, they don't. Why? Because what these people tell the media and many others is what they want to hear, what they want to confirm their own ignorance of the military and the people who join. It has the unfortunate tendency to spread into the general public like an ugly virus because of that and we will have to keep fighting it. Just once, I'd love to see the media interview one of these morons and have them say: "yeah, I was in. I didn't even fire my gun. I just hated the officers, hated authority, hated structure, should never have joined and really, really believe that peace is the answer." At least they'd have some credibility.
 
By kat-missouri on March 14, 2008 9:33 AM
Read the Vets for Freedom Blog for more explanations: Winter Soldier I and II Vets for Freedom: IVAW Credibility and Verification (lack there of) As they say "Peace Out"
 
By Kevin on March 14, 2008 10:31 AM
Notice the placement of Sen. Kerrys index finger on his shotgun.... Or is that just his best "Rambo" photo op pose to prove to gun owners that he's just like us? Guess he didn't learn gun etiquette during his harrowing times in Vietnam. Too busy being traumatized by the 'atrocities' occurring all around him. Guess he didn't feel the need to intervene to stop them... Until he had the stage in D.C. Poseur.
 
By fdcol63 on March 14, 2008 11:06 AM
Sure, some of these individuals are genuinely good people, genuine pacifists doing nothing more than expressing their opinions and hopes for a better, more peaceful world. But make no mistake ..... many, especially among the leadership, are truly evil people actively supporting our enemies by exploiting the few genuinely good people among them. Wolves, indeed.
 
By Bingo on March 14, 2008 12:44 PM
If you've been "out-of-the-loop" since January, perhaps you also missed this remarkable article by Scott Swett on the discovery of Army CID documents that put the lie to the VVAW fraud-fest of '71... http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5AA13DC0-481C-46BC-AF88-D5FE933B3216 See also Mr. Swett's followup article today... http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=5D74268B-C69A-47A9-A037-EE17D3C29E1E
 
By Trias on March 14, 2008 6:46 PM
I understand and agree with what you mean Carrie but Carrie when war is the mission pro war is the result of being pro mission. Yes, I am serious. I didn't understand why, i partially understand now thanks to you and some other links. Honestly you don't know me FbL and that's OK. I am Australian BTW. I have read more links yours and the Iraq vets for Freedom and other info. Looks like much is related to the original Winter Soldier of Vietnam. I don't know how much of the original was truth or lie but it is interesting on both sides. At one level it looks like Kerry told quite a fib and it cost him Presidency possibly. At another the Army investigated much of the claims but it was entirely without any strength to discredit the claims. I couldn't find info to support that the ones that made claims hadn't been at a war zone. If you have a link that would be great. The bigger problem was probably the balance of views. People turning what this Winter Soldier was into believing this was the the norm in Vietnam and probably this will happen again with the new version. Or so the organisers may hope. The other views of soldiers not really seen because they don't speak and no one is listening anyway? The positive news and the many good and bad days spent there by veterans but no war crime or media point of interest to speak of. But much of this is reaction to fermented problems. Here's a few I think are part of it The poor after service support which fuels considerable anger and disappointment with the military and government with vets. And other anger sources. Anger enough to speak about things they fear the repercussions of or to embellish or to lie outright. Covering up and minimising real problems. Covering something up like My Lai sounds good but the consequence of an exposed coverup is an enormous public perception of there being many similar events that exist but are unknown. Coverups fuel conspiracy theories very much so. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars also have aspects of this. I think the lack of consequence to those involved with the prison abuse is a good example of that. My point here is by not facing the small number of real problems maturely the military is giving the public good excuses to believe there's lots more bad things happening. Running a war with weak civilian support. People are far more willing to believe what fits in their worldview so if a citizen is already opposed to the war these things like Winter Soldier can be taken onboard with very little questioning. The point in these three is that Winter Soldier took advantage of deeper problems none of which the military or government have adequately faced. While Winter Soldier might have been pivotal in dunning (I had to look up and twist the dictionary meaning of that one) the Vietnam vets, the real culpability lies with each person that actually did the dunning. At the end of the day though US soldiers are fighting for the US which allows freedoms to do things like Winter Soldier. However what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Attacking this event is OK too. If the organisers met with various dubious groups like had happened in the original Winter Soldier that can be very telling. So too can things like this; In their website they have a link to "truth in recruiting" I think truth in recruiting might be a real issue. But you know when you click on the link it's not about trying to improve truth at all. In fact their stated aim is to shutdown recruitment not improve the truth level. To do so they use deceit via the 'befriend' a recruiter program. This essentially wastes recruiter time by tangling them up in false leads. This last double deceit is the fat straw that sold me out of the intentions of Winter Soldier II.
 
By Carrie on March 15, 2008 7:43 AM
Trias, "pro-war" is a term most often used by loony lefties and Code Pinkos. For me, it's a thumb in the eye. I am a Marine wife and Marine mom. I am most definitely NOT Pro-War but I do support the troops And their mission. I would rather us not be at war but we are. Semantics but there you are.
 
By Sly2017 on March 15, 2008 11:13 AM
"I think the lack of consequence to those involved with the prison abuse is a good example of that." I'm curious, just what punishment exactly, beyond the scope of the courts martial, prison time (that *Federal* prison they are in, btw, is USP Leavenworth, KS look it up, it isn't a *pretty* place to serve time), dishonorable discharges and complete ruin of their personal and professional lives, do you think should have been levelled upon those who committed the Abu Graib crimes? And how does that punishment equate to what you term "lack of consequence"? If you think that the military doesn't live in the shadow of Vietnam - especially after having heard it basically from Day 1 of the Iraqi war - and incidents such as My Lai, if you think that it doesn't sit in the back of the judges minds when they mete out their judgement, then you are sadly mistaken. And I must disagree on the semantic issue of "pro-war". It's not just that it's a term used by the Leftists such as Code Pink, et al, that is offensive. It is the term itself. It is a derogatory term invoking connotations of blood lust and a desire to kill for killing's sake. And it's an insult to the 99% of servicemen and women who honorably serve for our country.
 
By Carrie on March 15, 2008 11:55 AM
Point taken, Sly, regarding my use of the word "semantics" And agreed with.
 
By Eric Chen on March 15, 2008 10:55 PM
My take: this is where we'll see how the military-press relationship, particularly the 'embed' program, in this war will pay off. No doubt, mistakes and unforeseen circumstances happen in war. Brutal things happen, particularly when fighting an enemy who inflicts atrocities and uses tactics to compel our troops into ugly incidents and packages it all as propaganda. The first challenge is to verify, the second is to place the accurate information in context. The anti-war groups are seeking to impose their context. The media that has embedded with our military over there, hopefully, will be experienced enough and called upon to judge the accounts they hear and place them in a fair context that's independent of the anti-war frame. They can also ask non-IVAW vets to evaluate, but that's probably expecting too much.
 
By John Cunningham on March 16, 2008 4:56 AM
When I first saw the pictures of abu grab I thought I was looking at pictures from either a Madonna or Brittany Spears concert. No one's pro-war they're pro-reality. If you watch those in these vietnam veterans against the war wannabees, check out the stuttering and stammering like they're looking for words. If you're telling the truth you do it with a lifelike style. If you're not lying you don't have to remember anything.
 
By Trias on March 16, 2008 5:55 AM
Sly2017, to be exact;
courts martial,
I do not believe all participants underwent this process, including those identified as being involved. I see a court martial as a judicial process determining punishment not punishment itself. Is this incorrect?
prison time
Not all of those few charged have been convicted and gone to prison. Prison sentences are few in number and generally light even before good behavior and other credit.
(that *Federal* prison they are in, btw, is USP Leavenworth, KS look it up, it isn't a *pretty* place to serve time),
It is not clear to me that all convicted go to Federal prison much less the one you specify. It is claimed by military sources this prison is male only and thus at least one of the convicted (a female) is unlikely to be there. It is also my belief that this prison is considerably better run and pleasant than Abu Graib was. It is also downgrading to a medium security prison.
dishonorable discharges and complete ruin of their personal and professional lives,
There were indeed several dishonorable discharges although most discharges were given as bad conduct discharges. And there were several demotions and pay reduction/revocation and some fines. Personal and professional life ruin can be a consequence of being caught for any crime. It is not a form of deliberated punishment.
do you think should have been leveled upon those who committed the Abu Ghraib crimes?
I personally believe the sentences should have been heavier (max was 10 years, min no time served) and more numerous (12 or so got some kind of conviction), especially up the chain of command. I believe there should also have been convictions for the murders at that prison.
And how does that punishment equate to what you term "lack of consequence"?
To be certain there was consequence but I characterise it as lenient and limited when compared with the crimes committed. I can't say i understand it but I will accept the 'prowar' point of view you present. Is pro-victory the preferred term?
 
© 2008 John Donovan
All rights reserved.