Letters to home?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A series of letters to hometown newspapers, purportedly written by U.S. soldiers in Iraq, contain identical language, according to the Gannett News Service. The letters praise the U.S. effort to rebuild the war-torn Mideast nation.

 

Gannett said it had turned up 11 identical letters from soldiers serving in Iraq with the 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Airborne Infantry Regiment. Six of the soldiers contacted by Gannett said they knew of the letters and agreed with their substance, but hadn't written them.

 

But another letter, purportedly written by a GI hospitalized for wounds suffered in a grenade attack, came as a surprise to Pfc. Nick Deaconson of Beckley, W.Va., according to his dad.

 

The soldier received a congratulatory phone call from his father, Timothy, for getting the letter published in the local newspaper.

 

"When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said: 'What letter?'" Timothy Deaconson told Gannett. "This is just not his (writing) style."

 

An Army spokesman contacted by Gannett said he had been told the letter was written by a soldier, though he did not know the identity of the author.

 

"When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," said Sgt. Todd Oliver of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. "Someone, somewhere along the way, took it upon themselves to mail it to the various editors of newspapers across the country."

 

Another purported letter writer contacted by Gannett, Sgt. Shawn Grueser of Poca, W.Va., said he spoken to a military public affairs officer about the situation in Iraq for what he believed was a press release to be sent to his local newspaper.

 

Grueser said that while he shared the viewpoint expressed in the letter, he was uncomfortable with the fact that the letter did not contain his own words.

"It makes it look like you cheated on a test, and everybody got the same grade," Grueser told Gannett.

 

The five-paragraph letter praises the U.S. effort in Iraq. For example, letters supposedly written by different soldiers showed up the Tulare (Calif.) Advance-Register and the Boston Globe within two days of each other last month. Here's how the letters describe - in identical language - the situation in Kirkuk, Iraq:

 

"Kirkuk is a hot and dusty city of just over a million people. The majority of the city has welcomed our presence with open arms. After nearly five months here, the people still come running from their homes, in the 110-degree heat, waving to us as our troops drive by on daily patrols of the city. Children smile and run up to shake hands, and in broken English, shout, 'Thank you, mister.'"

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/13/...ain577716.shtml

[Vyce 0]

OMG CONSPIRACY~!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

More like OMG PROPAGANDA~!

[Firestarter 0]

I agree with Jobber. If this sort of thing is going on with institutional sanction (which I doubt more because I don't want to believe it than because I have anything concrete to go on) it is indeed propaganda, and shameful propaganda at that. You don't put words into service members' mouths. You don't fake letters to their homes. That's bullshit. We don't need to do that and we absolutely shouldn't do that under any circumstances whatsoever.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Update on all this:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Wor..._letters-1.html

 

In an e-mail to ABCNEWS today, the commander of the battalion, Lt. Col. Dominic Caraccilo, said the "letter-writing initiative" was all his idea.

 

Caraccilo said he circulated the form letter to his soldiers to give them "an opportunity to let their respective hometowns know what they are accomplishing here in Kirkuk. As you might expect, they are working at an extremely fast pace and getting the good news back home is not always easy. We thought it would be a good idea to encapsulate what we as a battalion have accomplished since arriving Iraq and share that pride with people back home."

 

Caraccilo wrote that his staff drafted the letter, he edited it and reviewed it and then offered it to the soldiers. "Every soldier who signed that letter did so after a careful read," he said. "Some, who could find the time, decided to send their own versions, while others chose not to take part in the initiative."

 

Caraccilo was unapologetic, saying that the letter "perfectly reflects what each of these brave soldiers has and continues to accomplish on the ground."

 

"With the current and ongoing media focus on casualties and terrorist attacks, we thought it equally important to share with the American public, and especially the folks from our soldier's hometowns, the good news associated with our work in Kirkuk," Caraccilo added.

 

I guess I could faintly understand pre-manufactured letters being sent home with a soldiers' approval (although we had enough time to write real letters in past wars, so.. ) but sending these to various newspapers was certainly more of a propaganda move and it bit him in the ass, like you expect it would.

[Justice 0]

So wait, if all the soldiers read and approved of the letter that was sent in their name, does that mean this isn't OMG PROPAGANDA~!?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Read my edit.

[Justice 0]

Your edit wasn't up at the time, but it really doesn't make a case for Propaganda anyways since they all believe that. It's not something being falsely manufactured by the Government or the US Army, so where is the Propaganda portion? All they tried to do is suggest that the US government sent those out to try and cover up low troop morale in Iraq. And you say the soldier is guilty of propaganda here?

 

Secondly, what's your point on the "Other wars people had time to write letters"? Are you trying to suggest some there or is that just filler? Not meaning to offend you here, just wondering.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I'm not saying this was a move by the Pentagon for progaganda. Hardly, as we've found out.

 

I'm saying sending dozens of identical letters to various newspapers around the country is a propaganda move, albeit not one sent down from the home office.

 

It's premanufactured. It isn't what it's claiming to be. If they want to put that in a newspaper, they should buy advertising space. If they want papers to print soldiers' letters, they should at least be honest letters from the people who's name is signed at the bottom.

[Justice 0]

It's premanufactured. It isn't what it's claiming to be. If they want to put that in a newspaper, they should buy advertising space. If they want papers to print soldiers' letters, they should at least be honest letters from the people who's name is signed at the bottom.

That doesn't matter as the soldiers whose names are on it looked over it carefully and approved of the sentiments portrayed. Whether they are exactly their own words or not doesn't matter if they saw the letter, thought it correctly gave their own feelings, and gave him permission to put their name on it. Propaganda would be taking their opinions and soundbites out of context to deliberately mislead the public from what they are really trying to say. That's much different than this because they all approved of it as an accurate description of their own feelings.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

...the soldiers whose names are on it looked over it carefully...

 

Where does it say that?

 

It says they were given a form letter and signed it.

[Justice 0]

...the soldiers whose names are on it looked over it carefully...

 

Where does it say that?

 

It says they were given a form letter and signed it.

Caraccilo wrote that his staff drafted the letter, he edited it and reviewed it and then offered it to the soldiers. "Every soldier who signed that letter did so after a careful read," he said. "Some, who could find the time, decided to send their own versions, while others chose not to take part in the initiative."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That doesn't matter as the soldiers whose names are on it looked over it carefully and approved of the sentiments portrayed.

Another purported letter writer contacted by Gannett, Sgt. Shawn Grueser of Poca, W.Va., said he spoken to a military public affairs officer about the situation in Iraq for what he believed was a press release to be sent to his local newspaper.

 

Propaganda would be taking their opinions and soundbites out of context to deliberately mislead the public from what they are really trying to say.

 

"When he asked other soldiers in his unit to sign it, they did," said Sgt. Todd Oliver of the 173rd Airborne Brigade. "Someone, somewhere along the way, took it upon themselves to mail it to the various editors of newspapers across the country."

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Amazing that I can't fix the above post because when I do there's a TON of HTML code in there. Guess I broke the board or something.

[Justice 0]

Uh, yeah, I can't even quote it. And again, there's no falsifying in the document. How are printing the letters taking soundbites and things out of context when it's their actual opinions?

 

On that first statement you quoted under mine, what exactly are you trying to say there? I'm slightly confused at this.

 

Edit: I found a bit more complete passage of what you were trying to find, and again, that's not really propaganda-ish. Again, Propaganda is about deception and misleading people, and the opinions shown in the letters were still the correct ones. Either you dispute this or you have no case for your argument.

Edited October 14, 2003 by Powerplay

[Highland 0]

Is something like this even new? Whether or not it's propaganda, I'm sure similar letters have been sent and published in previous wars by many sides. I'm only guessing, but it would make sense in order to keep homeland morale up.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

How are printing the letters taking soundbites and things out of context when it's their actual opinions?

But it's still just putting words in their mouth. Even if it's approved words, it's words drafted up by someone's superior which got handed down and asked guys currently fighting for their life "Hey, we're sending this around. Can I put your name on it?"

 

It's essentially advertising. These recitings of firsthand experiences are not true. Again, if they want to attatch names and pictures of smiling soldiers to a manufactured message and put that in the newspaper, they should buy advertising space in those papers. That's what it's there for.

 

The guy responsible for this says everyone "gave it a careful read", but one of the guys who signed it was told it was a newspaper PR. Wasn't told it would be sent home and claimed to be from him. Pardon me for having my doubts.

[Justice 0]

How are printing the letters taking soundbites and things out of context when it's their actual opinions?

But it's still just putting words in their mouth. Even if it's approved words, it's words drafted up by someone's superior which got handed down and asked guys currently fighting for their life "Hey, we're sending this around. Can I put your name on it?"

Bullshit. THEY AGREED TO IT. This was not them just signing this thing away, they all made sure to look over it carefully and say "Yes" or "No". Whether or not they wrote them means shit if they endorse that as their opinion. That's like saying petitions don't really represent their signees because it's not their opinion in their own written words. If they signed off on this, they approved, making it their own words even if they didn't write it themselves.

 

Secondly, you act as though these guys were in a combat situation when they were asked this or that they were not able to actually look at what they were putting their name on or they weren't in the proper state of mind to actually approve of this thing. They all got a look at it, they weren't required to sign one, and some even wrote letters of their own. Please don't make it look as though they were just told to sign it and move on because that doesn't seem to be the case here.

 

It's essentially advertising. These recitings of firsthand experiences are not true. Again, if they want to attatch names and pictures of smiling soldiers to a manufactured message and put that in the newspaper, they should buy advertising space in those papers. That's what it's there for.

 

Bitch bitch bitch... There is no wrong in this, no matter how much you try to find it. What's the difference if it gets printed in the paper? Maybe the experiences are slightly different here and there but largely the same. If someone didn't have one of those experiences, he shouldn't have signed up and that's the soldier's fault for falsifying events, not the Army.

 

The guy responsible for this says everyone "gave it a careful read", but one of the guys who signed it was told it was a newspaper PR. Wasn't told it would be sent home and claimed to be from him. Pardon me for having my doubts.

 

Wow, so one guy might have been misinformed. OMG PROPAGANDA!&@#!*@#&*()!@#&!@*() Christ, the man himself says he even agreed with the thoughts in it, and hey it did get into a newspaper. Sorry if they put his name on it, but he says it didn't misrepresent him, so it didn't lie or deceive or mislead anyone about his opinion there. Have your doubts, but since all those questioned agree with the letter sent, but I think I trust our soldiers to be able to read a 5 Paragraph letter, understand the intent, and decide whether they can agree with it or not. But hey, maybe I'm overestimating their intelligence in that area.