To prevent what exactly? I have seen nothing in this article that I would consider deplorable or outside the parameters of normal. Each soldier in this place would have to be taken on a case by case basis. If some of these soldiers have a legitimate complaint or injury, I certainly hope they will get their due but without more knowledge...
You realize how easy it is to skew an article the way you want? Here's an example:
Lockerbie bomber rushed to hospital- a Free Republic exclusive
Now, I wrote that article. All the accounts are factual. But I did intentionally skew the article through wording to carry the impact I wanted it to carry. This is journalism 101. This is exactly how they operate. I could take any conversation between you and your best friend and make it seem like you had been feuding with him for years and get many readers to dislike either you or him simply through the use of words. Now you ask me any question about why I worded this or that the way I did in that article (which is still a legitimate news account) and I will tell you why I did and I think the answers would surprise you. I wrote nothing that was not factual. My intent was sensation but not to mislead.
And I am a relative amateur. I could've written this particular story to make you believe these soldiers were toughing it out with typical American heartiness or to make you believe they were on the brink of disaster. You have to question these types of articles. You have to. The reporter had an agenda. He showed you what he wanted to show you. He sculpted the reality you live in to fit the one he wanted you to live in. The question is why and to what end?