'Good Kills'

The New York Times Magazine ^ | 04/20/03 | PETER MAASS

[blu]

MM, I will assume you mis-read my post. I love the Marines (I told my husband that they rig up like one big walking, shooting Swiss Army knife!) I know they were just doing their job.

Too bad I'm a woman, "You sir, are an ass!" is a classy put-down. You should stick the "You sir," in front of the ass part! No harm, no foul.

[Rudder]

This is the same Peter Maas who wrote The Taking of Pellam 123?

[dighton]

John Godey wrote The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. The late Peter Maas (one S) wrote Serpico, The Valachi Papers, King of the Gypsies, and others. This article is by Peter Maa-double S.

[Movemout]

I did misread it. My profuse apologies are tendered.

[fourdeuce82d]

Actually, I felt it was a pretty sympathetic article, especially from the NYT-

What the civilians probably saw in front of them was an open road; no American military vehicles had yet been able to cross the disabled bridge. In the chaos, the civilians were driving toward a battalion of marines who had just lost two of their own in battle that morning and had been told that suicide bombers were heading their way.

I'm one hundred percent behind the war, and the folks fighting it. But these young guys are not omniscient- it is possible that this time they goofed; in hindsight they themselves may think so. Maybe not- I wasn't there.

The marines did what they thought was necessary at the time, and the iraqi forces contributed to the deaths of their own people. I think the author did a pretty good job explaining what was going on, and why the marines shot when they did.

[appeal2]

What a novel concept. People get killed in war.

[AFPhys]

I would say that this is a very good article except for three things, rather important:

• The headline
• He ought to have said at the starting paragraphs: "The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. This is the story of the Marines ..."
• That being stated, a reminder of the reason for the need to be in this, admittedly horrible, business to begin with.

[aculeus]

The annoying undertone: "I, Peter Maass, am morally above the Marines, the generals, the politicians, and my readers."

" ... and I know my editors feel the same way."

[AFPhys]

The people responsible for these deaths are Saddams regime. This is the very reason that it is a violation of the Geneva Convention for military soldiers to dress up as civilians. These people CHOSE to use their own civilians as human shields ...

Very good point to remind us all of.

[AFPhys]

I agree with you that this was a pretty good article, given my three objections in post 25.

[Gritty]

''It's over for us when the last guy who wants to fight for Saddam has flies crawling across his eyeballs. Then we go home...." Lt/Col Bryan McCoy(USMC)

You just have to love a guy like this!

He and his men didn't spend a lot of time hand-wringing like the author, nor did they have the luxury.

[300winmag]

I agree with you that this was a pretty good article, given my three objections in post 25.

Headlines are usually chosen/written by an editor back home. That may explain one of your quite valid observations.

Consider the intended readership of this article. It's intended for liberals in general, and New York City liberals in particular. Every sentence is an eye-opening revelation for them, and usually not a pleasant one.

NYC liberals live in their own private universe. The government does everything, and is the answer to everything. Whatever the police can't stop, you can always sue over. Better yet, you know the judge, or someone high up in City Hall, since you're a big contributor. The New York Times writes for people like that, and their counterparts in DC.

Outside of NYC, things often get settled with guns. Especially if the bad guys have all the guns. The workings of weapons and their effects are totally alien to them, as are the workings of the good and bad men who use them.

This article is a glimpse not of "flyover country", but "flyover world" for people whose universe consists of the NYC liberal plantation. I know a New York City liberal who actually believes there is an "unspoken agreement" that the Bill of Rights doesn't quite apply within the city limits as it does elsewhere. "You can't expect to be able to speak your mind so freely with so many people around." "You can't own a gun here because there are so many people around that you couldn't shoot it anyway." (As if people in Smalltown, USA casually fire their weapons down Main Street all the time, rather than going to a range, or the woods.)

If you live in the Red Zone, this article is telling a story that most people already have a good grasp of. If you're in the Blue Zone, especially New York City, it's a look outside their comfy liberal universe to where bad things can really happen.

[Joee]

Good thought! Now you have raised my doubts?