Ralph Peters is less than impressed (to put it gently) with the New York Times and its apparent war against veterans:

in the Middle Ages, lepers had to carry bells on pain of death to warn the uninfected they were coming. One suspects that the Times would like our military veterans to do the same.

The purpose of Sunday's instantly notorious feature "alerting" the American people that our Iraq and Afghanistan vets are all potential murderers when they move in next door was to mark those defenders of freedom as "unclean" - as the new lepers who can't be trusted amid uninfected Americans.

Anyone want to make book on whether there's anything resembling even a recognition of how egregious this was (forget about an actual apology) from the "public editor"?

Hmm, if this is about the violent crime rates, I thought it was just the opposite: that the veterans have problems and it should be noted and perhaps something should be done.
That they should be not just discarded after their military service but there could be some help in getting back to ordinary life.

I haven't read the original article though. I also don't know do the guys (and girls) already come from such social classes where crime is more common and thus the army just doesn't change that. I don't really know.

I already saw on Usenet the claim that 121 murders over 7 years committed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans represents 1/6 of the overall murder rate in that age category. I'd like to see the specific numbers, though.

I haven't read the original article though. I also don't know do the guys (and girls) already come from such social classes where crime is more common and thus the army just doesn't change that. I don't really know.

Posted by mz at January 18, 2008 06:46 AM

You need to read both of Ralph Peter's articles on this subject as well. The original Times article used news reports for statistical analysis. The only thing it proved was that violent crimes by military personnel were reported more often since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq started, than before it.

Actual statistics via DOJ (at least according to Peters and some other journalists) indicate that the crime rate for returning soldiers is lower than the national average, when adjusted for gender.

That's why the article is so critical of the Times. The NYT did an unfounded hatchet job on the returning vets, trying to capitalize and reinforce the myth that war torn soldiers are nothing but drooling, mad, violent animals.

It's absolutley disgusting, and Peters has called them on it.

I also don't know do the guys (and girls) already come from such social classes where crime is more common and thus the army just doesn't change that.

mz,
we have the best educated, most economically homogeneous military that we've ever had. It seems unlikely that given those known and well documented factors, that these people ALSO come from lives of a crime ridden background. The "fact" that GWB is fighting the war with kids from the "lower" classes, who could find no other career was also started by the NYT if memory serves.

I question these numbers because I have no idea what the number of murders was in the military before this current fracas started. Not that it excuses the violence, but what is the instance of infidelity in these cases. That seemed to be a great deal of the problems when I was a squid. Wife mad at husband because he strayed while away from home or wife strayed when he was gone. Either way, somebody often wound up injured during the ensuing fight. Again it's proven that infidelity is higher among families where one spouse has a high risk job. As is alcoholism. How often does an alcohol problem coincide with this violence?

My personal experience from the late '70s and early 80's was that although crime around the military bases / families was low, it was often violent. It's a stress filled life style.

I'd also like to see someone compare the violent crime rate of veterans and service members compared to civilian high stress jobs. Do soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines kill more people, or get drunk and beat their spouses more than cops, firemen or air traffic controllers?

I already saw on Usenet the claim that 121 murders over 7 years committed by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans represents 1/6 of the overall murder rate in that age category. I'd like to see the specific numbers, though.

Actual statistics via DOJ (at least according to Peters and some other journalists) indicate that the crime rate for returning soldiers is lower than the national average, when adjusted for gender.

Hmmm, like the Duke Lacrosse team story, this sounds like another instance where "the narrative is right but the facts are wrong."

The Press seems to be hung up on telling us their "narrative" rather than the facts. No wonder why public opinion of the Press is so poor.

I haven't read the original article though.

Of course not, mz. They want to warn you away from it. The article is here.

In any case this pales in comparison with the number of people the Clintons have killed. why not a story about that, with real investigative journalism. I'm sure Rand for example would provide pro bono advice on how to proceed, in addition to access to his treasure trove of secret information on the despicable pair.

The NYTimes is an Old Grey Lady with terminal cancer.

They want to warn you away from it.

What mental deficiency caused you to type that?

I see Jim jumping in to defend the intolerant hate-speech from the NYT.

The senile and demented grey lady.

mz,
Although combat veterans do suffer disproportionately from post traumatic stress disorder, and do sometimes need treatment for it, veterans, including combat veterans, have proportionately fewer mental problems overall than the general population, commit fewer crimes, including murder, as a proportion of the general population and have fewer problems with joblessness, alcohol and drug abuse and homelessness. These facts have been established in numerous studies.
As a veteran it was my impression that soldiers do not tend to come from especially "violent" backgrounds or have any greater tendencies toward violence than anybody else. Indeed, people with those kinds of problems do not take well to the discipline necessary in military life and thus tend to get screened out in the recruiting process or during basic training. The Times is merely showing, once again, its unfortunate penchant for not letting the facts get in the way of the story.

he real question Should be
"Do Combat veterans from Iraq/Afghanistan commit
disproportionately more crime then non-combat veterans."

everything else is irrelevant.

We have lots of data from the 1990's and 1980's,
we now have 5 years of Data from the Bush Wars

Every study from every previous war in various countries has come out with a similar result - The crime rate in veterans is similar (generally lower) than the matching socio-economic groups in civilian life. Similarly mental illness - the last is surprising because of the PTSD phenomenon, but this is also true.

The image of the nutjob gun waving trip wire vet living in the woods muttering is simply not factual.

There really should be a Pulitzer Booby Prize.