In yesterday’s New York Times the op-ed page printed letters from readers reacting to the story. Some excerpts:
Citing the reporting done by “a platoon of Times reporters” the Wall Street Journal published this commentary in which it took issue with the Times’ statistical approach:
Your article about veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who have committed or been charged with murder perpetuates the myth about crazed war veterans. You note that in researching “homicides involving all active-duty military personnel and new veterans for the six years” after the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, there have been 349 cases. There are more than 1.4 million Americans on active duty. Philadelphia, a city with a similar population, alone had 392 murders in 2007. As a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I find articles like yours do a disservice to America’s combat veterans by shaping a public perception that they are damaged people, prone to violence.
The New York Post’s Ralph Peters launched an intense attack against the Times and crunched his own set of murder statistics. He begins his editorial by accusing the Times of publishing this story because there are no new “atrocities” being committed in Iraq to write about. He later observes:
So, where are the defenders of the article? There doesn’t seem to be many, or at least they’re not making their presence known as much as the detractors. Over at the media blog FishbowlNY a poll of its readers found 63 percent thought the article was fair. Those writing of the article in the NYT’s op-ed section who do not criticize the story seem to focus more on highlighting the affects of PTSD - rather than the specifics of the article itself. At least people are talking…no matter what side of the story you fall on.
