- Chelsea Manning was not picked on or harassed because of her gender or identity; she was not bullied because she was small or appeared easily overpowered or dominated. No, Chelsea Manning was ostracized. Because some unknown in her character prevented her from ever truly entering into that covenant of self-sacrifice upon which collective group defense depends, she could not ever satisfactorily contribute to the welfare of the group. In a social schema where the defense of the group becomes the perpetual rationale for why the group should even continue existing, Chelsea Manning either could not or would not sacrifice enough of herself to inspire loyalty among comrades. Soldiers usually adopt these values in reaction to physical and emotional stressors, to the demands of group accountability, and to their dependency on the group for survival. For that reason, by the end of Basic Combat Training most grudges have been put aside, and any rivalries have abated; this happens exactly because Soldiers have by then learned those lessons in loyalty and self-sacrifice. Everybody learns those lessons.
Everybody except …
What absolute nonsense. It's just an elaborate exercise in straw Manning -- if the intelligence community and military establishment can make it about the person, they don't have to get into the far stickier "shining a light on war crimes vs. keeping them secret" thing. He takes one aspect of the defense argument, that Manning was ostracized in the military, acts like that was Manning's entire reason for doing what she did, and then says that's bullshit. "Felonious" is a word that has no business in this sentence. But again, it's a meaningless argument. He cops out by saying that the idea that "everyone" was this alpha male type is wrong. That's fine, but even if that's true, how does that refute Manning's assertions? Notice too how he fails to mention that higher ups in the military said Manning shouldn't have been sent to Iraq (from the Guardian link Huwieler himself posted). Moreover, he's failed to address any other possible motivations, such as the ones actually espoused by Manning: Which was confirmed by a psychiatrist who evaluated Manning during the court martial: But again, that would require the government to justify its secrecy and the underlying actions, which is much harder. It's far easier to write a hit piece on the person's character (that she's transgender makes that even easier). That way they can take advantage of the "ick" factor in so many people's minds too. Plus you get plenty of those sweet, sweet page views.What is not accurate is the false and felonious image of the U.S. military on which the defense of her conduct has been, at its root, predicated: that somehow everyone in her formative years in the military was practically part of a tribe of 6’2”, overly-aggressive Alpha males pumping testosterone out their pores who ganged up on the smallest in the group and tore her apart out of hyper-machismo intolerance...
These documents were important because they relate to two connected counter-insurgency conflicts in real-time from the ground. Humanity has never had this complete and detailed a record of what modern warfare actually looks like. Once you realize that the co-ordinates represent a real place where people live that the dates happened in our recent history; that the numbers are actually human lives—with all the love, hope, dreams, hatred, fear, and nightmares that come with them—then it's difficult to ever forget how important these documents are.
Well, Pfc Manning was under the impression that his leaked information was going to really change how the world views the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and future wars, actually. This was an attempt to crowdsource an analysis of the war, and it was his opinion that if ... through crowdsourcing, enough analysis was done on these documents, which he felt to be very important, that it would lead to a greater good ... that society as a whole would come to the conclusion that the war wasn't worth it ... that really no wars are worth it.
He leaked some important information that the public should probably have the right to know. This doesn't void what the author is pointing out. The author is saying, "I recognize this soldier was a bad soldier and its because she's a bad soldier that she decided to leak this information." In reality, Manning most likely leaked all this shit as a sort of tantrum/fuck-the-man maneuver. It just happened to be very valuable to the public. In other words is it still a strawman if it's true and critical to an objective view of the argument?
That's begging the question. The author has 0 proof that his depiction of Manning's time in basic is accurate, and 0 proof that her treatment was the reason for the leak. On the contrary, there is specific evidence that it was not the reason for Manning's actions. Claims from a random internet person with an interest in making good with the intelligence/military establishment are not enough by themselves.In other words is it still a strawman if it's true and critical to an objective view of the argument?
I hear ya, thanks for the explanation. I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed. The fact that these people I've spoken to, and myself, assumed anyway that this is the kind of soldier Manning was based on our own experiences, is certainly a logical error in itself. There is no evidence that she truly was this way. But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning. Being in the Army comes with complaining about insane shit that goes on in the Army a helluva lot more than a civilian complains about the Army. If there was some other shit going on, I'm inclined to believe that this author would probably say so.
But that's my point: saying that the link is consistent with your own and others' preconceived ideas doesn't magically make it accurate. This is a textbook example of the kind of "post-truth" rhetoric that is flying around these days. The same is true about this. Two baseless sets of assumptions don't suddenly become supported once there's enough of them.I believe what the author is saying because the description of Manning fits spot-on with a handful of drop-outs and still-stragglers from Basic, and based on conversations with a few of my classmates that have were active duty and deployed solidifying my understanding that this description of Manning is exactly what they would've assumed.
But the same way I assumed that all the horrible shit Manning leaked was going on anyway, it would be mind-blowing to me if this person's account was not the spot-on truth about Manning.
To be clear, I know, I was stressing that they're baseless assumptions. I am illogicaly choosing to believe them due to a set of red flags on a checklist of experience.
There are very few ways to get rid of someone who is shitty on the team. Unless they fuck up, all you can do is aggressively ostracize them until they choose to leave, or do something just stupid enough to prompt action from higher. There are plenty of people in the Army who fit the description you quoted in the annotation. They just haven't fucked up big-time enough to get booted. Chelsea was just one soldier who fucked up so badly it made the news. Edit: Of course 99% of people come into Basic as complete fuck-ups but the whole damn point is that you break a bit of a sweat and improve yourself.
man that comment section is awful. A few people there, however, ask a very good question - How was manning able to get past basic training without being booted? I've always assumed that Basic was a bit like the first weeks of a new job - If shit's not working out, they give you the heave-ho. At the very least at the end of Basic, isn't there some sort of "yeah, this person's performance is so bad we can't keep them"measure? I know the army's always desperate for more folks, but fuck.
Long story short it is phenomenal that she survived this long and should have been booted a long time ago. Basic is not that hard and AIT, which comes right after Basic, trains you for your job instead of continuing to weed out threats to the strength/capability of the team. By then you could be in the army for a year, or more. If you haven't gotten your shit together in a year, and you join your new unit clearly still a shitbag, your commanders will make sure to put you in the sort of situations that will cause you to screw up and allow them to boot you. Edit: I'm sorry for misgendering Manning, I make this mistake all the time with my transgender or otherwise not-what-I-am people and they yell at me for it all the time. I'm not a bigot or anything lmao
you fixed it - that's the important part.Edit: I'm sorry for misgendering Manning, I make this mistake all the time with my transgender or otherwise not-what-I-am people and they yell at me for it all the time. I'm not a bigot or anything lmao
Seriously though, it's a problem. Idk what's wrong with me, I feel the same respect towards someone who is trans as I do anyone else.
With most people I meet, it's because they're speaking too quickly, or without thought. Not that you are being thoughtless, just that you are going through the quickest possible brain pathways to get what you want to say out as fast as possible. One strat I've suggested to people that has been generally successful is to take 2 seconds and prepare yourself - "I know i'm going to be referring to this person. their new pronoun is "X", so I'll make sure to use it." - then go on with what you were about to say. A side benefit is it means you give your brain a second for sober second thought for the dumb thing you might have been about to say.
When my ex joined the first time he actually quit basic training just before finishing because he realized he didn't trust a single one of the people there with his life. He joined shortly after 9/11 and there was a lot of people impulsively joining without really thinking things through. He told me a story about how barely any of them could figure out how to put their sleeping bag together so he sat there putting his together over and over again to show them. A higher up even mentioned to him that this was unusual and he was sorry he got stuck with such a shit group. He ended up joining again later for something else and that seems to have gone better.
The article addressed that, sort of, with this: "In 2007, the U.S. Army was habitually failing to meet its monthly recruiting goals; the application standards relaxed and a great cross-section of humanity ended up reporting for duty that warm October at Fort Leonard Wood."
Indeed - I saw that part. It still surprises me that they would allow someone like Manning to progress past basic. I was under the impression that if you don't do things right, the army just makes you keep doing them until you DO do them right. The whole tenacity, never give up thing.
Very informative post.Much thanks again. Really Cool. i follow you now
Valid question! It's a hit piece. For me, character assassination requires evidence to the positive, not the negative.