Between yesterday's Bleat and Buzz today I think I'm starting to notice an angry pattern. I hope the next entry doesn't contain the phrase, "What's next?" anywhere in the text at least.

Always seemed to me that you'd expect military stuff at a military air show. If the concern is that you went to see cool airplanes, not go through simulations of killing people, well...what do you think the airplanes were made to do? Intimindate the savages with the thunderclaps of the gods?

Jacob

To be acceptable in VGs and movies doesn't the terrorist group have to made up of a diverse group of thugs with a slight leaning toward Aryan types (see Die Hard series).

(They often do this with gangs in movies too. They seem to forget that a huge part of gang and terrorist politics is their identity as a group.)

A politically correct simulator should have an international cartel of oil men or diamond men made up of upper class Europeans and/or North Americans who are really behind the group of "terrorist." The terrorist themselves can be made up of whatever group is not getting good press at the moment, Myanmar or Zimbabwean thugs will do.

OK, the kids aren't riding in a real tank. I've done it, been at the mission control desk at the Safeguard ABM missle radar site, got a army reserve general to turn white in a helicopter by asking if they could tilt the machine to about 35 degrees so I could get a bit of film through the open gunner's door.

fortunately for my jumpy innards and anybody around me, only done it as a reporter in a previous life. I am blessed that I didn't have to do it in combat circumstances. and I thank all those who made it possible for me to work from a chair, not a foxhole, or a subjugated prisoner's cell.

but come, now, you expect maybe an army PR booth to NOT show the interesting parts? please take the protest down the street, somebody is snarling at those dang kids for walking on the grass again.

the day "love that terrorist!" is in the center of an army PR booth is the day we've completely, irrevocably lost.

you don't like it, don't go in. used to be, freedom was explained like this... "A person has the right to swing their fists all they want. Until they get too close to somebody else's nose." you also have the freedom to not go there, and not see the fist swing.

This probably just means those concerned don't quite feel the community would be behind them if they protested what they really WANT to protest, which is the presence of military recruiters, and probably the very militaristic notion of an air show. Wait till next year.

I hope the simulation is truly realistic. If it is, then after the simulated NGO staffers are rescued, they'll tell the simulated CNN crew that our military had squandered a golden opportunity for peace and understanding.

I don't think the issue is that anyone is saying we should "love that terrorist." The real issue is the ongoing question of what exactly a terrorist is. No one questions that Al Queda is a terrorist organization. The problem comes when "enemy combatants" are held as military hostages for years without a hearing and money and lives are squandered by our leaders fighting "the war on terror" on the wrong fronts. The very phrase "war on terror" has come into question for being inadequately defined, and I think therein lies your controversy about the depiction of "terrorists" in a simulation.

Good points neoalec (honest, no sarcasm meant, lots of thing are either poorly understood or inadequately explained in the GWOT).

If you go to the Army site for the Virtual Army Experience (VAE), you will see "terrorist" is not used. The hostiles are referred to as a "genocidal faction" (think Tears of the Sun). I wonder who introduced the word "terrorist" in the article?

Let's make it simple and just call them the guys shooting at us or threatening the lives of the NGO workers and the people they are there to help. No one can argue with that. Life is too short or can become too short if you take the time to determine their motivations for shooting at you.

VAE

That would be the city that rejected having a retired Navy cruiser moored at a dock as a tourist attraction, wouldn't it?

Nor was this some decision by an obscure council, as I recall. The ship was given a resounding ix-nay by voters in an election.

I would guess that the citizens of Duluth think that their freedoms are guaranteed by the UN, and that they don't need war things there.

". . .money and lives are squandered by our leaders fighting "the war on terror" on the wrong fronts. . ."

And what would the right fronts be?

Right now, Iraq should not be the primary front. I think most people on all sides of the argument agree that we are not fighting a conventional war. That's why I think the old methods of troops on the ground and the concept of enemy combatants are an outdated way of approaching the problem. Counter-terrorism should be based on internationally-gathered intelligence and troop deployments should be small and specific. I don't know much about the military, but that is my opinion.

bgbear> That's a good point. Thanks for looking that up. I think that (so far at least) video games made by the military as recruitment tools have been generally poorly received, so I'm not sure if the development of these games are the best use of resources. Perhaps people are upset about that. Or else it's just the general distrust parents have of using video games as recruitment tools, and you can't blame them. I wonder if it would be as controversial if the army had kids playing Call of Duty 4 instead of the military's own combat simulation.

The mooring of the Navy cruiser was rejected by the citizens of Duluth because the ship would have been expensive to maintain and had no connection to the city.

The people that want to boycott this air show because of a video game, sound just like the same people that called all of us Vietnam Vets, "baby killers".

I think the problem the hawks (chicken or otherwise) have with the "doves" is the inability to determine any particular peacenik's motivation.

Do they oppose all war on principal? Are they against this war, i.e. "Bush's War." Do they just not want their kids to grow up to be cowboys? Are they brilliant like Obama and have the clairvoyance to see exactly how Iraq was going to turn out?

No matter how you feel about or rationally analyze Iraq or the GWOT, it is inconceivable or unrealistic to many that we could survive as a nation without an adequate and well trained military. Recruitment is part of the success of an all voluntary army.

Mrs. Naar-Obed, from what I read of her, is a genuine pacifist. I have to accept her at her word that no situation justifies war. She sounds brave, she has been to Iraq several times. Without sarcasm I have to say to her "good luck with that."

A handful of peace activists recently complained about the Virtual Army Experience tent at Summerfest in Milwaukee, so Summerfest management buckled and closed down the display. However, thousands of locals promptly let it be known the activists did not speak for them, so management relented (albeit with a lot of lame spinning as to their rationale for shutting down the VAE). There's some coverage at Charlie Sykes' blog. I've heard that there was also a Grand Theft Auto booth somewhere on site that did not attract the attention of the peace activists.

Don't bash Duluth too badly just because of this. The last time the Duluth Air Show was held, a couple of years ago, the protestors greeted all of the aviation fans as well. If the protestors did not complain about this display, they would find something else to complain about during the show, such as "it is a warm day in Duluth. Must be global warming." The same protests meet all large aviation shows around the country. My advice is to go the airshow, which is one of the best in the Midwest, and just do your own protest by shaking your head at them when you walk by them. They are not really protesting the show at all, but watching just out the gates for free. They really aren't worth our time to give them any attention. Now if you want to complain, I would really like to start a thread about $5 for a glass of lemonade at most air shows. That is something I could really protest about.

Of course we need a military, but there is still the question of how far recruitment should go. Naturally many oppose the draft, and our troops are stretched too thin right now, but when the Army starts recruiting children using games... There is a fine line to walk between simple incentives for joining and deceptive advertising and/or pandering. A lot of kids are pretty impressionable, so you can see why parents might have a problem with it. A lot of people don't agree with what the military is doing right now, not that they have anything against the soldiers themselves, but that's why some resent being enticed to join, especially if they've already made up their mind that they don't want to.

My mom is completely opposed to me or any of my brothers ever joining the military. Of course I have the freedom to make decisions for myself, but she has made herself clear that she is not okay with it. Some parents completely opposed to the idea of sending their kids to war. Not having to fight is a luxury that some have right now in this country, but ideally it is a right that everyone should one day have.

neoalec: but when the Army starts recruiting children using games...

They aren't recruiting "children with this game". One must be 17 or older in order to try the simulator, with proper ID. (Yes, I know, 17 is not technically an adult yet.) So, they aren't letting 10-yr-old kids into it. I don't see anything wrong with the simulator, especially since it is age-restricted.

Also, the participants are debriefed afterwards to discuss what they saw, what the proper action was, etc. I think it's a good thing to show possible recruits what they are potentially getting into by joining the military.

And frankly, Grand Theft Auto is much worse, IMO.

This is why we need to reinstate involuntary enlistment. Then we won't have to worry about fancy ways of getting people to sign up. After all, we are living in an era of persistent warfare, or "The Long War," as some say.

It seems obvious that the protesters own offspring are not going to participate or get recruited and people like neoalec's mom who disapprove have children who will abide by mom or are wise and old enough to make an intelligent choice.

Who are they protecting? The dumb kids? Poor kids? Certainly not their gifted young ones. This reminds me of the entry in "stuff white people like" blog about knowing what's best for poor people:

poorpeople

This is similar to some feminist who cannot understand that a woman could have made a fully rational and informed decision to be part of the porn industry.

I guess mean people think: "if you do not agree with me you are either stupid or evil or both"

and, the nice people think: "if you did not make the same decision as me, you are either uneducated, unaware, or misinformed you poor thing"

As Mark Steyn pointed out some years ago, lefties always claim that whatever war we are fighting is the wrong war. It's not that we're against all wars -- Heavens no! It's just that we should be fighting those guys over there instead these guys over here.

Feh. As neoalec makes clear, his mommy is against her kids joining the military, period. So her opposition to this war is just a fig leaf to cover her antipathy toward America. In truth, she -- like Cindy Sheehan -- does not believe this country is worth fighting for. And as neoalec makes clear, he believes that soldiers should have the right to sit out any war they aren't in the mood to fight, which is a fine way of losing your hard-won liberties.

But whatever you do, don't question their patriotism!

I'll let neoalec defend himself (and his mother) he is quite capable.

I just want to say that many moms just don't want to see their kids killed. I know it is irrational after all most moms let their kids drive, however, for some moms it is simply this emotional fear of death and there is no political motivation or lack of patriotism involved.

My mom did not want me to be a soldier, a teacher, or a lawyer. Oh, well two out of three ain't bad.

Some of us are just disgusted with the state of the world in general and simply choose not to participate, to just hide under the covers, so to speak. It's apathy toward the negative aspects of humanity I suppose. Some people believe in protecting the country with force and are willing to put their lives on the line for that and money to pay for college (although we could definitely reward our soldiers better with money to attend a state school of their choosing and better healthcare when they return) while others elect not to do it because they feel it's not worth it (or don't have to because they have enough money).

My stance personally is that if no country had a military, we wouldn't need one either. I realize this is blind idealism and not realistic, but that's the choice I make because I don't want my life to be violent and I prefer living in a more civilized world. We all create our own world based on our circumstances and the people and things we choose to fill our lives with. I realize this is a luxury we have in this country, and despite my pacifist sentiments, I don't take that for granted. I admire my mom greatly for having the courage to stand up for peace in a time when war-mongering has been in vogue. She stands up for her beliefs just like everyone has a right to in this country.

I'm not condoning the protests in Duluth. I was just trying to explain what I think people are upset about. I do think the Army should get out of the video games business, but it seems logical that they would be recruiting at an air show and I don't see much sense in being outraged about it.

We have an all day Fourth Fest and also a National Guard unit training with Strykers and due for Iraq soon. They brought a Stryker to the Fest...I assume with permission of the volunteers that run the day. We had the routine small number of protesters who didn't seem to think that the military might have something to do with our Independence or some such nonsense.

Yes, some folks are willing to luxuriate in the freedom provided by others while simultaneously disparaging the means by which this freedom was won and is maintained. You are correct that such narcissism and head-in-the-sand thinking is a luxury available to spoiled citizens of a well-protected and prosperous society -- But it's nothing to be proud of. If you are so intent on showing your pacifist bona fides, why not move someplace where you can be more in touch with the violent realities of life and then let us know how that works out for you.

Americans who are against the war in Iraq (or any war, for that matter) are not less patriotic (or more naive, or more cowardly, or anti-American etc.) than their fellow citizens who are pro-war. There are many in the military who are critical of the way in which the current war is being waged. For example, the Army has just released an official history of the year and a half following the overthrow of Saddam. The 700 page analysis faults leaders (military and civilian) for lack of post-war planning, among other things. Going back to the war in Vietnam, many of JFK's & LBJ's "the best and brightest" (McGeorge Bundy and Robert MacNamara, for instance) expressed doubts as to whether the war was worth waging, or whether we could achieve victory.

It is ridiculous to question the patriotism of someone who loves his country but who rationally believes that a particular conflict or military operation is wrong or strategically unsound. (Many supporters of the current wars were deeply opposed to our military interventions in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Haiti because we had no national interest in those places.) But if you had actually read the posts here, you would see that this is not the issue being discussed.

Rather, what we are talking about is abject antipathy toward America and profound loathing of the U.S. military that both precedes and transcends the current conflicts and is so ingrained that the adherents are opposed even to military recruitment efforts. This is a much, much bigger issue than mere opposition to the Iraq war.

btgiv1,

It seems to me, from the comments I have read here, that many are assuming that anyone opposed to, or protesting war, is unpatriotic.

I am against the war in Iraq, and certainly do not hold an "abject antipathy toward America" (I love my country) or a "profound loathing of the U.S. military" (I work for the U.S. Army).

sonny,

Well, then you are obviously not the sort of person these comments (or at least mine) are directed toward.

If you go back to Lileks' post that headlines this thread, you will note that it dealt with peacenik types who were mortally offended by an Army recruitment booth at an air show. These are the same sorts of folks who are offended by ROTC programs or military recruitment of any kind. Surely you agree that this is way, way beyond merely opposing the Iraq war.

Even knee-jerk peaceniks can still love the U.S.A. I don't agree with them, but I hesitate to label them as unpatriotic. After all, the right to protest is part of the great American tradition.