Blogcritics: Comments on Military Action, Casualties and Blogging

Comment by MCH

Fri, 7 Jan 2005 17:21:44 EST

"Army Sgt. Frank T. Carvill, 51, was killed on June 4 (with four others) when his convoy was attacked by improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades in Baghdad. Carvill, of Carlstadt, NJ, was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 112th Field Artillery." (from the "Honor the Fallen" website, militarycity.com) The 51-year old Carvill, with pure motives, paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. A lifelong Democrat, he enlisted in the National Guards in 1984 at the age of 31. Frank, who received the Robert F. Kennedy Award in high school for his work on social issues, was a voracious reader and enjoyed politics, Greenwich Village jazz clubs, St. Patrick's Day Parades, snow-skiing and kayaking. Sgt. Carvill "supported the war in Afghansitan but thought it was a mistake for the United States to invade Iraq." (Rutgers Alumni website) On the day he was scheduled to return stateside for leave, he relinquished his plane seat to another soldier with a family emergency. Frank was killed later that day. Sgt. Carvill is survived by his mother, Mary; his sister, Peggy; his brother, Dan; and his longtime girlfriend, Monlisa Forde. The "Friends of Frank Carvill" foundation has been established to collect funds for the many civic organizations that Frank worked with throughout his life. Donations may be sent to Peggy Carvill-Ligouri, 98 S. Glenn Rd., Kinnelon, NJ, 07405. "Some gave all...all gave some" (VVA slogan) - MCH, Vietnam era vet

Comment by RJ

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:37:46 EDT

SFC: Please feel free to ignore this is you like, but I'm curious: Is there a major difference in feeling between that of Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds "on the street"? It sure seems, from the news, that Sunnis hate us, Shia are mixed, and Kurds are happy with us. Is that an accurate assessment, in general? Thank you for your service, RJ

Comment by Corinna Hasofferett

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 21:34:59 EDT

SFC Ski: 1. It took the mother in Michael Moore's film several months to grasp reality. 2. It takes soldiers a much longer time. No USA soldier was killed in action for the liberation of the Russians, Roumanians, etc. An intelligent USA leadership could have helped the same dynamics over there as well. 3. If your job was to liberate the Iraqi people, your job should have been declared finished, once it was begun, the day Saddam Hussein was captured. 4. Many of us here in Israel have hoped that since we cannot solve the conflict between us, USA will be our mediator. But how can a country and leadership exercising occupation, help terminate Occupation elsewhere? There are so many excellent Iranian bloggers I've come to read and converse with. Does this delete Iran from Bush's "have to" list? David Flanagan, Eric: There are so many excellent Iranian bloggers I've come to read and converse with. Does this delete Iran from Bush's "have to" list?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 16:08:43 EDT

response here

Comment by Phillip Winn

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:18:17 EDT

BCB (#11) The fact that people can use Blogcritics.org to complain about the war strikes me as an important indicator of our freedom here, so why should Iraq be different? I understand why the coalition shut down Sadr's newspaper, for example, but it sent the wrong message. Despite the fact that it is now open to continue to "incite violence," I'm glad that they have the freedom to speak their minds. Freedom is important in and of itself, is it not? Is it important for us only, or for only some of us?

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 14:39:21 EDT

David Flanagan mentions an outbreak of blogging by Iraqis as a positive sign of political progress in Iraq. This is odd. And in his example of the freedom of Iraqi blogging, it's filled with nothing but Iraqis who think Bush majorly fucked up. Any comments on that from anybody on either blog? Not so far. (let's rejoice that they can now speak freely! We just aren't going to listen...)

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:42:17 EDT

Thnaks very much for your perspective SFC SKI, I am humbled to hear it.

Comment by SFC SKI

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 13:21:06 EDT

I am sure that no matter the war, the number of casualties has always been hurtful to the survivors, and I am very sure that very few people in past wars refused to grieve for those killed by saying "They died for a good cause". Having been in Iraq, I can only say I was prepared to give my life if need be, and I am very glad that I did not have to. 2 things hurt those in uniform more than anything the enemty can do to us; the idea that the politicians will spend our lives for no tangible gain of stability and the end of the conflict, and the idea that the American public will not allow us to finish what needs to be correctly finished. Most of you here are not involved in the war in Iraq or Afghanistan in any direct way, you only know what you read in the papers, and many of you have made your decisions long before the 900th casualty was announced. Talk to real Soldiers and Marines, groundpounders, likely you will recieve a variety of opinion, but few will tell you the cause is lost, or it wasn't worth the attempt. Personally, I am glad to be away from the heat, the barren wastes, the poverty, the danger, but I believe it had to be done, and I will go back again next year when it is time, because I believe in seeing this mission through to completion. I hope those of you who will throw out casualty figures will be equally vocal in pressuring your representatives to fully supporting the Veteran's Administration when the time comes, there will be a lot of veterans who will need a lot of help.

Comment by Hal Pawluk

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:58:50 EDT

Eric: "I would say 900 American casualties in over a year is within the bounds of acceptability IF OUR LONG-TERM GOALS ARE EVENTUALLY MET." MEM: I heartily second that. Cheers, Eric! There were more than 900 casualties: There were 900 lives lost, around 20,000 injured soldiers taken out of the country, and thousands upon thousands of Iraqi's killed, uncounted numbers injured. But I guess it's different when it's not your own life. Personally, I see nothing to cheer about.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:49:59 EDT

no one put much stock in it, not a surprise

Comment by boomcrashbaby

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 11:13:08 EDT

Eric, your instapundit link about WMD found has an update on it, that Reuters, the American and Iraqi government are all denying it's validity.

Comment by Mark Edward Manning

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:39:40 EDT

I do hope, and I've felt scared at times that this war could go horribly wrong - BUT that's second to what I feel and have always felt since the war began: that we are doing the right thing. WMDs or no WMDs, that is irrelevant; we freed a long-suffering people. As far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters. The people out there complaining, "we were lied to!" are very petty in my opinion. Being anti-war in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq (and not forgetting Bosnia), it's irresponsible and ignores the reality of the world we're living in. In fact, it would be great if we could intervene in the Sudan, but of course, we can't as our military is stretched to the limit and even if it wasn't, it would be looked upon by the whole world as yet another imperialist, aggressive war motivated by greed and racism.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 10:04:29 EDT

Thanks MEM, let us hope we are on the right path

Comment by Mark Edward Manning

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:57:32 EDT

Eric: "I would say 900 American casualties in over a year is within the bounds of acceptability IF OUR LONG-TERM GOALS ARE EVENTUALLY MET." I heartily second that. Cheers, Eric!

Comment by Eric Olsen

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:50:48 EDT

Inevitably with relative freedom comes security issues

Comment by Shark

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:35:25 EDT

Maybe Iraqi conversations have turned to 'blogging' because they can't leave the house.