I am not a hawk, and never have been. I hated to see us involved in two wars, one of which was totally unnecessary. I am an advocate of diplomacy and never even considered joining the military.
However, as much as I despise war, I feel a great deal of respect and gratitude toward those who serve to defend this country. That is why I found the recent media coverage surrounding President Obama’s recent prisoner exchange so revolting.
In my opinion, the exchange was unwise, regardless of the history or character of the soldier we were getting back. I believe the lives we will lose because of the trade outweigh any single life recovered, not to mention the value we place on any American they can take alive from now on. Some people feel differently and that’s OK.
What is not OK is the tack the media has taken. As reports have come forward from many of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s platoon members that he deserted and perhaps conspired with the enemy, the media, The New York Times in particular, has come forward to try to discredit these soldiers. Obviously, the worse the exchange looks, the more that reflects poorly on Obama.
It is sickeningly clear that most of those in the media feel it is their duty to protect the president’s image. What is even more sickening is that The New York Times would attack the credibility and character of our troops on the front lines, saying they were described as “raggedy” in the opening of their piece, and showing photos of soldiers wearing T-shirts and bandannas.
These are photos of men surviving extreme conditions in any way possible. I guess temperatures never get to 120 degrees in the offices of the cushy high-rises where NYT writers work. To sacrifice and put their lives on the line as these soldiers have, only to be attacked by one of their county’s prominent newspapers, is disgusting. This is not the country in which I grew up.