Letters from soldiers... or are they?

[svero]

I was reminded of the recent thread about a soldier who wrote a letter showing how things aint really so bad in Iraq, when I read this...

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml

excerpt...

"WASHINGTON -- Letters from hometown soldiers describing their successes rebuilding Iraq have been appearing in newspapers across the country as U.S. public opinion on the mission sours.
And all the letters are the same.

A Gannett News Service search found identical letters from different soldiers with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment, also known as "The Rock," in 11 newspapers, including Snohomish, Wash.

The Olympian received two identical letters signed by different hometown soldiers: Spc. Joshua Ackler and Spc. Alex Marois, who is now a sergeant. The paper declined to run either because of a policy not to publish form letters."

[armageddonman]

Looks like another "Lynch" to me.

[tamiO]

Dear Editor,
Oceania has *always* been at war with Eurasia. It's tough out here on the Malabar Front, but we all love Big Brother.

[arcticpenguin]

Sounds like atroturf (http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/PR.html) (i.e. phony grassroots campaign)

[shemp]

Typical idiots (the officers behind this, not the soldiers who signed). They're so dumb, they didn't seem to think anyone would be capable of finding similar letters in multiple newspapers. I guess they don't know about the internet.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by shemp
Typical idiots (the officers behind this, not the soldiers who signed). They're so dumb, they didn't seem to think anyone would be capable of finding similar letters in multiple newspapers. I guess they don't know about the internet.

What makes you think anyone in the military is even involved or that this is some sort of organized campaign? It looks more like the work of some individual loser to me. You are constructing a conspiracy theory without supporting evidence.

Your assumption ignores the large number of people in this country who may favor the war but have no integrity what so ever.

[Skeptic]

Instead of a "conspiracy" for a "phony" grass-root support for the war in Iraq, there are many, far more reasonable explanations.

For example: there are tens of thousands of soldiers in Iraq. No doubt, many of them send letters to newspapers about their experiences. Of all the letters, only a tiny fraction could possibly be published by newspapers, so there is a selection process. Which letter is likely to be chosen? Well, naturally, the letter that is written in a style the editors like--e.g., "journalese"-like language--and which tends to either agree with their views--e.g., supportive of the war--or to create interest by being contrary to "popular belief"--e.g., again, supportive of the war. It is no wonder that, given this selection process, such a letter is more likely to be published than an anti-war letter written in simple english.

Of course, this is just one possiblity. I'm not claiming it is the absolute truth--because I don't have any evidence (except for common sense) for it. But there are half a dozen alternative explanations, such as this one, that do not require any sort of "conspiracy". For instance, the non-soldierly "journalese" might easily be explained by the soldier deliberately writing in a style he knows is easier to get published; or simply by the fact that the writer has been a journalism major in college before joining the force, and thus is both more likely to write in this way and to send a letter to newpapers in the first place (perhaps he sent it to a buddy who now works at the paper, thus making more likely its publication)?

One of these explanations--or a combination of them--is most likely the reason for this letter, not a conspiracy of any sort. Remember, people--and this goes, of course, for most alleged "left-wing" conspiracies as well, e.g., the supposed "leftist control of the media"(TM)--never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by chance or stupidity, let alone by the normal course of events...

[svero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It is no wonder that, given this selection process, such a letter is more likely to be published than an anti-war letter written in simple english.


Huh? Ok a particular letter may get published more, but that's not the thing here. The same letter is claiming to have been written by a number of different soldiers. Same letter.. different signatures. Even if you said that some soldiers in Iraq decided to pool their efforts and write one letter they all agreed with and then send off a bunch with different signatures to their individual home towns it's still essentially dishonest because it portrays itself as something it isn't.

I guess we'll see soon enough in some sort of followup what the source of this is...

[shemp]

OK Skeptic, take a look at this page and tell me these two letters are a coincidence:

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20031011/frontpage/121390.shtml

The same letter arrived at 11 newspapers, all signed by soldiers from the same battalion. Some say they didn't actually sign it. Of course, all higher-ups claim no knowledge of anything related.

Isn't forging someone's signature a crime in the military? It sure is in civilian life.

The American military hierarchy is pathetic. Whether they are behind this or not isn't yet clear, but further investigation is warranted.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Doubt

What makes you think anyone in the military is even involved or that this is some sort of organized campaign? It looks more like the work of some individual loser to me. You are constructing a conspiracy theory without supporting evidence.

Your assumption ignores the large number of people in this country who may favor the war but have no integrity what so ever.
OK, it's some 'individual loser' who is not in the military but knows the names and home towns of troops stationed in Iraq. :rolleyes:

[tamiO]

From the article (my bold):

Sgt. Christopher Shelton, who signed a letter that ran in the Snohomish Herald, said Friday that his platoon sergeant had distributed the letter and asked soldiers for the names of their hometown newspapers. Soldiers were asked to sign the letter if they agreed with it, said Shelton, whose shoulder was wounded during an ambush earlier this year.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

OK, it's some 'individual loser' who is not in the military but knows the names and home towns of troops stationed in Iraq. :rolleyes:

Because newspapers often publish just that sort of information. The more rural the newspaper, the more likely it is to publish little things like who is deployed where and even when they get promoted.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by tamiO
From the article (my bold):



Okay, now that is evidence that I will accept.

Now the next step is for someone to follow this up the chain of command and see where it leads.

[Skeptic]

The same letter arrived at 11 newspapers, all signed by soldiers from the same battalion.

So? Here's a simple explanation: a few soldiers from the battalion got together, wrote the letter as a cooperative effort (which explains the "journalese", since letters written "by committee" tend to be far more bland and cliche'd in their style than individual letters, as everybody tries to "improve" the writing to something they all agree on) and then sent it to many newspapers, hoping that this increases the chance of it getting published at lest somewhere.

Some say they didn't actually sign it.

Again, this is rather typical of such "appeal letters by committee": "Well, Joe's on latrine-cleaning duty right now, but I'm his buddy; sure, I'll sign for him--I KNOW he would agree to what we're writing!". I suppose that this IS forgery, technically speaking--but it is extremely unlikely it will be prosecuted for anything, (and rightly so), since it was not done as part of a monetary fraud. It is not as if somebody forged a soldier's signature on a check or a request for transfer, for instance...

Of course, all higher-ups claim no knowledge of anything related.

So now the fact that they DENY knowledge is "evidence" that they HAVE knowledge? If they deny it, they're hiding their involvement, and if they admit it, of course they're involved? This is conspiratorial thinking.

Here is a revolutionary explanation for this: the "higher-ups" deny knowledge because they were not involved. Writing letters, and their content, is NOT an activity that soldiers need to report to their superiors, and they almost never do; in fact, it is one of the few private priviledges soldiers retain on active duty, and is jealously guarded as such. (If there are security violations or other breaches of military conduct in the letters, it would be the job of the army post office's censors to deal with it, not their commanding officer's duty).

Why WOULD the commanding officers know that the soldiers got together to write a letter to a newspaper? He is not more likely to know that than, say, to know that a few soldiers got together and shared the same bar of soap in the enlistedman's showers. Simply put, it's none of the CO's business.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Skeptic

So? Here's a simple explanation: a few soldiers from the battalion got together, wrote the letter as a cooperative effort (which explains the "journalese", since letters written "by committee" tend to be far more bland and cliche'd in their style than individual letters, as everybody tries to "improve" the writing to something they all agree on) and then sent it to many newspapers, hoping that this increases the chance of it getting published at lest somewhere.



Skeptic,

The problem here is that the letters only have individual names on them. If it was a group effort, and all those responsible but there names on it along with others who supported that position, then all would be well.

What we have here is someone or group composing a letter and only putting individual names on it as if it is the work of that individual. That is a bit dishonest. If the person does not know their name is being used, then I think we may have a crime.

But who is responsible? I do not think this was something organized by somebody of high rank.

[Cinorjer]

So? Here's a simple explanation: a few soldiers from the battalion got together, wrote the letter as a cooperative effort (which explains the "journalese", since letters written "by committee" tend to be far more bland and cliche'd in their style than individual letters, as everybody tries to "improve" the writing to something they all agree on) and then sent it to many newspapers, hoping that this increases the chance of it getting published at lest somewhere

No, this is a well organized mass-mailing that required coordination and research and was designed to deliberately deceive people into thinking each letter is a heartfelt personal message written by the signed soldier. It is, in fact, plagerism. The honest way to have done this would be to have the names of all the soldiers collectively on a statement, or to ask each one to write their own letter.

It is hard to believe that the chain of command was not aware of this, because of the paranoid concern going on about bad publicity after the White House threw a fit over some remarks by a few soldiers. The way the military does things, they would have issued orders that all correspondence with the news media must go through the proper channels. You can be certain that a similar effort with a critical viewpoint would have immediately been blocked.

[crackmonkey]

This is just plain embarrassing. If I were a Democrat eager to bash Bush, this could be great ammo. It's dishonest and underhanded, compelling troops to give lip service to the administration's political goals.
Regardless of who came up with the idea or why, this could prove to be painful, particularly so soon after the leak fiasco.
It seems lately that Bush has the reverse Midas touch - everything he touches turns to ****.

[subgenius]

Amy Connell, of Sharon, Mass., knew as soon as she received the letter from her son Adam that he did not write it. "He's 20 years old and I don't think his language or his writing ability would have entailed that kind of description," she said.

She was right. Her son didn't write the letter. In an e-mail to ABCNEWS today, the commander of the battalion, Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo, said the "letter-writing initiative" was all his idea.

Caraccilo said he circulated the form letter to his soldiers to give them "an opportunity to let their respective hometowns know what they are accomplishing here in Kirkuk. As you might expect, they are working at an extremely fast pace and getting the good news back home is not always easy. We thought it would be a good idea to encapsulate what we as a battalion have accomplished since arriving Iraq and share that pride with people back home."
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/World/iraq031013_letters-1.html

I wonder who "we" is.

[arcticpenguin]

They didn't refer to him as former Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo?

[Tricky]

There was a good editorial (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/editorial/2162063) in the local paper today about this. I would say that this episode was about as slimy as I have ever seen an administration act, but then I remember Iran-Contra.

Like Means, I believe that
... the hapless commander was merely responding to an administration policy that encourages propaganda and distortion to convince voters that the president knows best. , but I would hate to think that anyone directly ordered Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo to do this. That would mean that the administration is even more stupid than I ever conceived. How in the world did anyone think this wouldn't be uncovered? I can see the scene now,

"So you got time to write to a newspaper but not to me? What am I, chopped liver?"
"No, Ma! I didn't write to no newspaper. Between terrorists attacks, I ain't got time to write nuthin!"

Yeah, I hope this gets played up a lot during the coming campaign. Everybody needs to know that this is the most dishonest administration since... well... Reagan.

[subgenius]

Anyone bother to ask the commander who "we" is? The lack of follow up questions by the media is appalling.