And I do appreciate the link. My response is that the “culture” you ask about has more to do with our misguided patriarchal society in general than it does the military. I can only tell you from my own experience. I went into the Navy after Tailhook and and they beat into us every day that sexual harassment would not be tolerated. I swear to you that I felt more pressure to treat women on equal grounds then, as I have any time since the military.

Not to mention people from different races. The culture of diversity in the military outshines so many industries. How many occupations do you know as diverse as the military?

I can only speak for my personal experience in the Navy, and the ships I was on. I do not for a moment doubt the stories of the women in the article. No matter how you slice it, we have a long way to go.

But I wasn’t sure, and then I read paul.clines’s post, and realized it wasn’t just me who felt uncomfortable. Then I listened to the interview again, and heard what he said and, didn’t like it still. But all the while I knew deep down that I probably wasn’t getting the full picture on the man or his true sentiment. So I felt I had to at least respond to the words he said…but thank you for reeling me in.

Yet, what I think set me off on my tangent is a kernel of something a little deeper than the specific words of Mr. Coover. From the countless discussions I’ve had with military members, and in a broader sense, conservatives. I’ve come to a general conclusion that the animosity they feel towards liberals comes from as much the condescension they sense, as the policy they disagree with. Personally, I now see the condescending bias in the media they bitch about. Unfortunately, Fox news is the out of proportion response to that bias. And thus the cycle happens: Condescension = reactionist…(or visa versa).

Our old friend, Allison, from the old days of ROS, used to say: attack the idea, not the person. Mr. Coover was attacking the person (vis-à-vis the military members) as opposed to the idea (tangible arguments against torture) – or specific people who have that idea (there are almost 3 million people in the military).

What a great arsenal Mr. Coover has in is intellectual handbag. For a man that is so well read I guess at any point in any argument he can go the well of “they are just not literary enough.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson said: “Character is higher than Intellect.” Hurley, I can tell you first hand that I met as many men and women of high – or higher – character as I’ve met in the realms of Harvard Square – where I live.

I define elitism as thinking that intellect is higher than character.

Just because some insecure frat boy was commander and chief for the last 8 years does not mean the people he was commanding are lacking. It means that are Constitution says that civilians oversea the military. Consequently, civilians are the one “without an adequate sense of the actual stakes involved,” as you wrote.

I have a feeling that what we are discussing here is a consequence of the limitations of language. I have no doubt that the net result of Mr. Coover’s contribution to the greater good is massive. And a few unclear words spoken in a joint interview coveys nothing about the actual man.

But it was fun to have the discussion nevertheless.

All the best, Hurley. Until next time.

Yours,

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/04/30-1

What “culture” breeds this sort of thing?

No animus in my response, Nother. In a better world, which Chris might just shift into being, you’d do a show on the subject.

Best.

Thank you for that.

I would like to piggyback on paul.cline’s comment.

I’m not sure if Mr. Coover misspoke, but to say that the officers ext. are not taught the literary history and “their history is military history, and their notion is simply a kind of blunt tactic and often involves just understanding their weaponry.” He goes on to imply (it seems) that these guys are not thinking about “moral behavior or conscious.” They “have never been schooled in this.”

All I can say is I was totally put off, this is the kind of generalizing and dismissiveness that is not only elitist but incendiary.

Mr. Coover – Bill Clinton has a more nuanced view of the torture issue, does this make him less educated?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9HnoRgRIwg

The Jack Bauer question can be dismissed but it is not going away. President Clinton’s take on it is the best one I’ve heard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvoFmvcV1ug
Torture is against the law, but if that CIA/military/FBI officer is confronted with a Jack Bauer moment, (and herein lies the nuance) it is up to the CIA officer to make that personal decision and deal with the consequences, “and I think the consequences will be imposed based on what turns out to be the truth.”

I felt the need to respond to Robert Coover’s comment about the education of military members.

It is just false that soldiers are not educated about ethics, history, and the political causes of conflict. Just like all large groups, different individuals will have different levels of expertise based on their talents, experience, interests, and responsibilities. To impugn an entire group based on an unconsidered stereotype smacks of bigotry.

Please consider interviewing a diverse group of soldiers and get a sense of what they bring to their duties.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Paul Cline