The New York Times, on January 2, 2009, published a sympathetic article on returning military men gone violent. The article, “A Focus on Violence by Returning G.I.’s,” is sure to inflame feminists and domestic violence victim’s advocates.
Is the NYT coddling killers and domestic violence perpetrators? No. They are reporting on an Army program that is trying to find out why mentally stable young men come back from combat all messed up.
The analytics in the Army program are dry statistical measurements of the psychological well being of soldiers before and after one, two, or more tours of duty. The mind-crushing Iraq war has provided them with more data on this subject than has ever been available in the history of man.
The sensational cases are profiled, such as John Needham, a 200 pound soldier who killed his 98 pound girlfriend in a fit of domestic violence rage. According to Needham’s father, something was deeply wrong. The crime is inexcusable.
But neither the Times nor the Army makes excuses. Instead, they are looking for data. Where did the Army fail Needham? How many more soldiers are out there like Needham? Can they predict when a soldier will fail based on the psychological profiles?
The Army’s studies of domestic violence and violent crimes before and after deployment should not be targeted as reasons that all military men are violent. That fallacious argument depends on a military soldier’s training to unquestioningly follow orders and kill the enemy.
The argument is misandrist and bogus because most soldiers do not succumb to violent crimes or domestic violence upon return from duty.
Incidence rates increase after deployment. The Army knows this and, with several high-ranking Generals who have lost son’s to suicide and jail for violent crimes, is very interested in finding out why.
The New York Times article is fair in that it does not desensitize the reader to the gravity of the problem. And, it tries to examine the methodology the Army is using. It is too early to tell, but perhaps, the Army’s methodology can somehow be used in the general population.
The Times article is in stark contrast to the bigoted articles in the Hawaii Advertiser masquerading as domestic violence awareness. While the NYT draws the ire of the fringe, the HA’s Rob Perez pushes the buttons of hatred in the general public. See my article of December 19, 2008, “The Gospel of Perez.”
Perez’s irresponsible journalism leads many readers to comment with vitriol against men, boys, sons, and fathers. The vitriol does not help the general public to understand domestic violence. Instead, he helps escalate the very thing that he wants people to be aware of.
Domestic violence can be reduced. We all want that.
But both men and women must learn to treat each other with respect. Families need help to stay together because inside families who understand basic principles of respect and democracy, far less domestic violence occurs.
Legislators and Judges need to understand that the family is the foundation of democracy. Our country, that we live in and we love, needs to free itself of the grasp of the animals in the DV Industry who are perpetuating domestic violence.
To find out more about domestic violence and the DV Industry, visit my web site at http://www.mywiferanoffwithourkids.com/.
