Shock of War Comes Home to 20-Somethings

[TheCops]

please only people in their 20's reply.

is there anything to this article or is it BS? do you feel the war hit your generation in a unique way?

By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer

CHICAGO - For 20-somethings, this is their war now — the first they've experienced as adults, the one in which they are major players.

Graphic images from Iraq (news - web sites) are being circulated on their medium, the Internet, riveting a generation sometimes criticized for being disengaged. And many of those images involve people their age, among them 26-year-old Nick Berg, whose horrific death was captured on video — as well as young American soldiers mugging for the camera alongside naked, hooded Iraqi prisoners.

"It's the first time we can't just point a finger at a leader and say 'You did this wrong' and instead have to say 'We're doing this wrong,'" says Sarah McAuley, a 24-year-old who lives in San Francisco. "The people shown abusing Iraqi prisoners are me, or at least not as distinguishable from me as some."

McAuley saw the first photos showing abuse of Iraqi prisoners on a TV at her gym. Soon after, she fired off an entry for her Web log, describing how she felt "sad, ashamed and disappointed."

The searing images have had that effect on many Americans. But some experts believe they will have particular influence on this generation and its view of the war.

"Words have a power to affect your mind and to get your brain waves going," says Matthew Felling, the 30-year-old spokesman for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington-based media watchdog. "But an image — and a visceral one at that — tugs at your heart. And that is the language that Generation X and Y speak more than any other age groups."

Increasingly, the Web has played a big part in that.

Internet company Terra Lycos reported that, for the first time since it started, searches for prisoner abuse images last week propelled the war in Iraq to the top of its "Top 10 Search Term" list. Earlier this week, the company said interest shifted notably to Berg, whose captors posted the video of his slaying on the Web.

An entry posted on the Web site Live Journal about the first prison abuse photos also has drawn more than 1,200 responses in recent days — many of them from young people.

"I think a lot of the reaction, particularly among kids, is a struggling to understand these horrors and put them in context," says Ryan Brenizer, a 25-year-old New Yorker who regularly posts his thoughts on Live Journal. "I got into political discussions online largely because it was fun, but none of this is fun or about entertainment — it's about grappling with an often scary, changing world."

Then there's the speed with which these war images are being circulated, says Abe Peck, a journalism professor at Northwestern University.

"It's this media stream that 20-somethings and certainly 'teen-somethings' live in — and that just accelerates everything," he says.

Access to such technology makes the Vietnam conflict — dubbed the nation's first "living room war" due to greater access to TV images — seem like the Dark Ages. Now it's instant war, in real time.

"It's coffins at Dover," Felling says. "It's Fallujah, bodies dangling. It's a snapshot of Pat Tillman (the 27-year-old former NFL player killed in Afghanistan (news - web sites)).

"It just builds a momentum of its own."

Erin Bechill, a 22-year-old Chicagoan, thinks that's true.

She remembers walking with a good friend recently and passing newspaper boxes filled with images of the Iraqi prison photos. And though their political views differed — she's more conservative, while he's more left-leaning — they agreed about the photos' meaning.

"We both saw them as a sign that this war has reached a tipping point," Bechill says. "It's time to bring our troops home."

Despite all the attention these latest war images are getting, there remain a few who still don't follow the war much.

"To me, the war is just kind of like another show on television," says Chris Urban, a 28-year-old from St. Louis who works in magazine distribution. "I try to check in on it a couple times a week. But it doesn't have much bearing on my life."

And as awful as they are, he says he's not shocked by these latest war images.

"It's part of war," he says, adding that there are plenty of other atrocities that never get this kind of attention because there are no photos or video.

Still others, including 24-year-old Brette Peyton in Dallas, have felt overwhelmed by images that are all too real.

"I feel like I can't even turn on the TV or look at a newspaper without seeing them — and I don't want to see them anymore," says Peyton, who's the daughter of a retired Army officer.

At the same time, she feels like it's her generation's responsibility — now more than ever — to keep informed on the war so young people can be "better voters and leaders."

Otherwise, she says, "we will be ill-prepared to handle our country when its future rests in our hands."

___

On the Net: http://www.livejournal.com

___

Martha Irvine is a national writer specializing in coverage of people in their 20s and younger. She can be reached at mirvine(at)ap.org

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... on_s_war_1

[Tyranny]

I feel it has. A lot of us were too young to remember the details of desert storm to the grand scale that this conflict has been.

So in a way, for us 20-somethings, this is our first real taste of war. Largely because of the internet, as that article stated. I'm sure people in their late 20s remember DS a little more then I do, but not like this.

I'm just surprised at how many whiney little bitches are in my generation

[Vindicator]

I'm just surprised at how many whiney little bitches are in my generation

Word. Its especially bad around here, living in a college town.

The war is pretty real for me since my older brother is in Fallujah right now. Fortunately, he's been able to call every other week or so via satellite phone. At one time he thought he would make a career out of the Marines but his time in Iraq has made him reconsider his line of work.

And yeah, what Tyranny said.

[Top Wop]

Yes, but like the previous reply's im a bit annoyed and shocked at the whiners.

[Kyouryuu]

What Bin Laden did hit me more than the war itself does. I think when the towers fell, my generation came to that revelation that there is a tremendous evil in this world. And that there exist a people so depraved and violent that they enjoy creating mass death and harm to innocents. In other words, Bin Laden is Satan incarnate.

The war itself didn't strike me uniquely, except in the clumsy way I think it has been handled. In the first Desert Storm under Bush Sr., we had upwards of 500,000 soldiers involved. It was a swift rebuttal of Hussein's ambitions and it worked. A similar deal happened under Kosovo with Clinton, a large NATO force suffered virtually no casualties and captured Milosevic. But in Bush's war, an occupation that is fundamentally far more complex than Desert Storm, we have a fraction of that 500,000 (250,000 a generous estimate, 125,000 a low estimate). A few Generals suggested that, in the beginning, we needed far more troops and this is a sentiment I concur with. We needed a very large attack force to secure those borders and prevent these foreign insurgents from getting into the country and wrecking havoc. Swift, brutal campaigns work.

Sorry, I guess that drove a little off-topic.

[Krom]

I agree with Kyouryuu, the war in Iraq lacks the "shock" beyond the PR BS early in the war. 9/11 is the real wakeup call to this generation not the war in Iraq.

[Edit: Frankly, I find the "shock of war" coming from Iraq angle insulting. I am also embarrassed by these whiney fools and the fact that they fall for such stupid political propaganda.]

[Tyranny]

w3rd sol, krom.

[Lothar]

What Bin Laden did hit me more than the war itself does.

Agreed 100%. Challenger is probably the first national tragedy most of us remember (mostly only in a fuzzy way), and we'd seen very few large-scale tragedies (accidental or intentional) between that and 9/11. I know I didn't really understand what it meant when Communism fell. No national-scale tragedy or war had really impacted my life before 9/11.

The war itself hasn't really touched me much. It was the spark -- 9/11 -- that touched me. The war in Afghanistan, and later Iraq, is simply the expected response. Though I have been touched by how few legitimate criticisms there have been -- for Abu Grhaib to be the only incident that legitimately reflects poorly on the US army is pretty astonishing.

The war itself didn't strike me uniquely, except in the clumsy way I think it has been handled.

"More troops" was not the problem in this war -- the actual military combat against other military units went as smoothly as Iraq I. Remember that Iraq's military didn't change much or acquire much technology over 12 years. 500K troops was an overwhelming force in Iraq I, and 200K troops with better technology was an overwhelming force in Iraq II. What benefit would 300K more troops have had?

In both Afghanistan and Iraq II, there were cries of "quagmire" when the US military advances stopped, and then a week or two later the resistance crumbled and the US military rolled right into the capital, and the enemy armies disbanded (Al Sadr's group isn't an army -- it's an entirely different type of fighting force.) So I would disagree with your suggestion that the war should have started with more troops -- the troops that were there at the start of the war did exactly what they were expected to: they rolled into Baghdad with very few casualties. Another 300K troops would not have sped up the invasion -- they'd just have cost more and made people yell "occupation" louder.

Now, there probably should have been a better plan in place for what to do when the war ended -- there are things we should've done a year ago that we are just getting around to now, because of poor choices by certain administrators in Iraq and certain government officials. But I don't think "more troops" was the problem -- the problem was "not putting aid and power into the hands of Iraqis quickly and consistantly, so that they could begin to rebuild their country." The problem in Iraq is still not a lack of troops -- the forces the US has over there right now could probably take on the entire rest of the Middle East's armies (not counting Israel) without too many casualties. We might need a few more Special Ops units, but definitely not more regular troops. The problem is that not all of the Iraqis in all of the parts of the country have yet been given everything they need to really get involved in rebuilding. In many areas, they have (you can read a lot of the blogs that detail the progress on things like clean water, schools, and hospitals in Iraq) but in some they're still a bit short.

I guess the war did touch me some -- it got me (a pacifist) discussing military strategy ;)

But to return to the original point: the war isn't really emotional for me. Casualties have been low, and the military has conducted itself in a civil way aside from a few isolated incidents, and Iraq is quickly becoming a threat to the rest of the Middle East in a good way (it used to be a threat to them in a bad way). But 9/11 was emotional and touching for me.

[Kyouryuu]

"More troops" was not the problem in this war [...] What benefit would 300K more troops have had? [...] the troops that were there at the start of the war did exactly what they were expected to: they rolled into Baghdad with very few casualties. Another 300K troops would not have sped up the invasion -- they'd just have cost more and made people yell "occupation" louder.

My point is that having 300K additional troops lends itself toward the whole "shock and awe" ideal we were going for. Like it or not, we have a lot of insurgents in Iraq. A great number of them are foreign fighters, not domestic. Having an additional 300K troops would have:

- Helped us better seal the borders to prevent foreign fighters from getting into Iraq to cause trouble.

- Make cowardly elements of the insurgency back off or be trampled by a vastly superior and overwhelming force. In other words, make the odds so unfavorable that even a sheep would think twice about attacking us.

- Better track down and eliminate the last members of the current resistance and nab Al-Sadr, Al-Zarkowi, and others like them.

You may disagree. I just don't think 300K more soldiers would have hurt our cause over there. Rather, I think it would have saved numerous lives by intimidating the enemy.

the problem was "not putting aid and power into the hands of Iraqis quickly and consistantly, so that they could begin to rebuild their country."

Which was actually the second part of my previous post that I didn't post because it was delving off-topic. Bush's June deadline for handing off power to the Iraqi people was misguided, in my opinion. Not because it was too soon as some liberals would assert, but because it is so late. I'm a fan of democracy and voting and all and I know this is why Bush set the deadline as he did, but in the interest of preserving stability, it should have been imperative to have a government ready to go in Iraq right after Hussein was ousted. Even if we placed a "dummy" government the Iraqi people could vote over at a later point in time, we absolutely needed something resembling a functional government months ago. It's not the most elegant option, granted, but some government is better than no government.

[roid]

do you feel the war hit your generation in a unique way?

i'm 22 (.5 ), and not american

weeeeell. perhaps it hit at a time when people my age were becomming more and more cynical and untrusting of "the powers that be". for me anyway, 9/11 and the unrelated iraq thingo that's going on now, it all came at a time when i was in the middle of comming to terms with "the kinks in the system we live in".

i was begining to see everything in a political and marketable light, from what i'd been reading on the internet. and so that's how i saw the current unfolding events. it wouldn't surprise me if other people my age were going along the same path, thanks to the internet.

i defintely don't think talking about politics is "FUN" like that guy in the article states, i think it's "important".

to get deeper: from where i sit, i'm quite apathetic wondering if any action i do could possibly have any DENT of influence on the world's events. and basically because i see the main problem being that people are stupid, i try to educate people where i can so they become hype tools of war and politics, and i feel good about that.

so that's how i see the iraq war. i see it as politics, and the only way to get anywhere is to make sure people are educated. it's no wonder so many young people are part of the protests eh. but to compare it to vietnam, i think back in the vietnam days civilians were less AFRAID of the powers that be, so they were more ready to vandalise and get arrested etc. but nowdays kids are a lot less ready to put themselves in harms way, probabaly partially because they feel increasingly like such an insignificant, powerless number on a list (the scary amount of power that powerful people weild is a commonly brought out issue in current movies etc). partially because they didn't grow up in the school of hard knocks like previous generations.

[Birdseye]

"Like it or not, we have a lot of insurgents in Iraq. A great number of them are foreign fighters, not domestic"
-Kyo

Based on what statistic?

[kurupt]

i'm a 20something, and the only reaction i had to that article was a simple grunt.

[Zuruck]

Kyouryuu....you don't think the amount of power we have over there now intimidates them? I think it does. Intimidation only goes so far in that part of the world, those people aren't intimidated by much. How can they be, they live in violence. They are born into it, that is all they know. Bloodshed and more bloodshed.

As a 20-something, I have to say now I finally understand the sentiment in the air about Vietnam. That, and this war, were not about liberating people, about helping the greater good of humanity. They were / are about money. Pure and simple, the Middle East contains the juice that America needs to succeed. We have to make sure that pipeline is always running and that the wrong people aren't in power in the wrong places. Saddam has been a liability for almost 30 years and only in the last two is has escalated to the point where he had to be removed. Former Pres Johnson's private stock holdings in defense contractors are certainly something to think about. The WH wants to make sure nobody calls this a modern era Vietnam but if you break it down completely, they are identical.

1. We're trying to stop something we don't want spread. In this case, radical Islam. Other case, Communism.

2. There is a sharp dividing of the country. Protests were massive throughout the country and the world, yet there is still a good minority that approve of the actions.

3. There is no end. You can defeat an enemy but not an idea. Terrorism and communism would always be there. Al Qaeda and the sorts are not afraid of dying, they've lost so many members but still they plod along. Catching Osama would be nice, but it would not stop the continual fight. Killing Ho Chi Minh would have been nice, but would it have stopped anyone then? Probably not.

So to answer your question Meatbags, being young enough and old enough to realize what is going on affects me in only one way. I'm disgusted to know exactly what my government cares about. I don't believe a single word either ones tells me at their big fundraisers. They tell us what we want to be told, not the truth. Kerry says he's against the war and that 800 soldiers have now died, but it's not like he would pull them out. Bush lands on an aircraft carrier with a taxpayer banner saying Mission Accomplished. I always knew the government lied about everything, I now know to what extent they will. And it's sickening. We should throw them into Abu Ghraib for awhile and see how they like it.

[Kyouryuu]

"Like it or not, we have a lot of insurgents in Iraq. A great number of them are foreign fighters, not domestic"
-Kyo

Based on what statistic?

A "great number" does not imply that foreigners outweight the domestic fighters. It implies more than a handful of radicals. How many varies.

A senior administration official told Fox News that U.S. intelligence is still trying to put together who these foreign fighters are and who is recruiting them.

But the official said the numbers range from "at least 1,000 to as high as 3,000."

The official did say flatly that "recruiting is going on to bring jihadists to Iraq." But the official said there is no clear information on who is doing the recruiting â?? whether it is regime supporters in Iraq, or whether it is Al Qaeda elements or those linked with them.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Thursday that U.S. officials have had "recent" talks with Syria about clamping down on its borders. It's well known that many foreign fighters have entered Iraq through that country.

"As of, what, two weeks ago, when we were talking about this we were making the point, repeatedly, to the Syrians," Boucher said.


"We have made clear all along that the presence of foreign fighters in Iraq was dangerous, that the ability of people to get across borders, whether with or without the consent of government, was one of the problems and a problem that we wanted to deal with."

To counter this problem, Boucher noted that U.S.-led forces are helping to rebuild the Iraqi border patrol and boost police forces. The coalition is also working diplomatically with neighboring countries to track down terrorists and discourage them from going to Iraq, Boucher said.

Depending on who you ask though, the results are different.

In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey has said foreigners account for just 1 percent or so of guerrillas. Of 8,000 guerrilla suspects jailed across Iraq, only 127 hold foreign passports, the U.S. military said. (...) In March, Dempsey called the idea that foreign fighters were flooding Iraq "a misconception."

But before you yell "A-HA, the smoking gun!"...

Foreigners are present, and have had a greater impact on the insurrection than their numbers would suggest, Dempsey and others have said.

And Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt suggests that foreign fighters and terrorists were "driving a wedge" between Fallujah's residents and the Americans.

Quantity or quality? Who knows? But it is fair to assert that the number is more than a few. And if mob mentality tells us anything, sometimes it only takes a handful of people to incite a riot. The Administration has recently played down the presence of foreign fighters, choosing instead to focus on Al-Zarqawi and that whackjob Al-Sadr.

[Tyranny]

I had this whole long ass thing written up but I just realized it doesn't really matter in the long run what I say, so I'll summarize.

Z....

[Mobius]

The "wake up call" should be answered, but by listening to the message that was delivered on 9/11. The message was this: "USA foreign policy can no longer continue in the same manner as it has in the past. To correctly proceed, othe country must examine the mistakes which have been repeatedly made, and endeavour wherever possible to avoid repeating the same mistakes."

Yes, 9/11 was a despicable attack, and one which was internationally condemned. On that day the world mourned for the loss of the USA and her people. On that day we ALL felt we were Americans, regardless of where we lived or were raised.

And yet, the underlying reason for the attacks has not been mitigated. If anything, the USA is now in MORE danger rather than less. While the world was solidly, unanimously and completely behind the USA subsequent to 9/11, Dubya and his evil cronies have, in 3 short years managed to turn almost the entire world against them.

This has been no mean feat! It has taken stupidity, arrogance, TWO unilateral wars, 600+ dead american soldiers and much else to divide the world once again.

History may decide Dubya was right, but in the mean time, he has done no favours for the American people, nor won any kind of war against terrorism.

A thinking person would automatically assume the correct way to deal with terrorists is to remove the reason for the terrorism. However, this would entail questioning the entire "World's Policeman" foreign policy which the USA has been addicted to for 50 years now.

[bash]

Mobius, you are not a 20-something nor are you American, so this thread is not for you.

[Kyouryuu]

Alright, before I give the PWNED to Mobi...

A thinking person would automatically assume the correct way to deal with terrorists is to remove the reason for the terrorism.

And what was the "reason for terrorism," pray tell? Was it because they didn't like our buildings? That they didn't like our success? That they didn't like us? And how do you "remove" those reasons?

[Tyranny]

uh...we're way passed the point of changing foreign policies to alleviate the problem here. There is no magic wand that will make the islamic extremists feel "better" about the US, the west or non-islamic countries in general. The rest of the world would like to keep their heads in a hole in the ground hoping against hope that this problem will "just go away".

I've said it before, but it needs saying again. The world has done that for far too long. It's one of the reasons why this mess has been allowed to escalate where it has for the last decade. The problem will not go away, it's time take care of business whether YOU, or any other country likes it or not.

oh, and it would have been nice if you had respected the whole point of this thread instead of trolling yet another topic. Mobitroll strikes again...

[roid]

come on Kyouryuu, don't joke around.

[Will Robinson]

Mobius, take your last post and start a new thread with it because I'd love to take it point by point and show you just how wrong you are! Your first two sentences alone requires you change your name to Ossama be Mobius