Slandering Veterans – USA Gov Policy

Hollywood continues to insult veterans. A review of the television season just ended provides a number of examples.

The series “Designated Survivor” presents a prime example. A group consisting of (surprise!) military veterans and Second Amendment types are revealed to be the perpetrators of a crime in which almost the entire body of U.S. elected officials were assassinated while attending a State of the Union address.

This lunatic-fringe series is not alone. The latest “24” reboot characterizes veterans as burned-out psychotics. Newsbusters notes that 24 “caricatures [veterans,] shows every single vet on the show as broken in some way. Even in small scenes, such as when we see a group of homeless veterans hanging out under an overpass, complete with garbage drum fire…The liberal critics have already expressed displeasure that the bad guys are radical Islamists. Funny, though, there haven’t been any objections to how our military veteran heroes are portrayed. Hollywood and its critics are so predictable. They don’t want to insult the radicals in the Muslim world but it’s no problem to slam the good guys.”

None of this new, nor is it restricted to Hollywood. Slandering America’s veterans has been an obsession, amounting to a mental disorder, on the part of Progressives and the Left for far too long. Under Barack Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, U.S. veterans returning from Iraq were labelled as more of a security threat than Islamic terrorists. By the way, Janet Napolitano is currently the head of Berkley College. In her new role, she has refused to take steps to confront left-wing terrorists who have committed acts of violence and intimidation against those who merely seek to invite non-progressive speakers on campus. The College Fix notes that “500 University of California alumni joined over twenty organizations in requesting that UC President Janet Napolitano ‘adopt a number of measures to rein in anti-Semitic acts against students…’” Despite her tolerance of anti-Semitism, and DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison’s history of anti-Semitism, there are no TV scripts casting them as villains.

Erectile Dysfunction is a symptom of deeprootsmag.org levitra online australia impotency. Ordering from an online viagra online france http://deeprootsmag.org/2014/12/19/real-christmas-miracle/ pharmacy is simpler than you believe. A number of drugs have been known to overcrowd the market that claim to offer satisfactory results for this problem. levitra fast delivery It is easier to prevent diabetes if diagnosed early and hence, if you suspect that you have substance abuse problem, consult uk generic cialis your doctor. Defamatory portrayals of veterans cause real harm. A Breitbart study explains that “…images matter, especially when veterans try to find employment after coming back home. Last year, the Center for a New American Security surveyed 69 companies on why (or why not) they hire veterans. Not surprisingly, more than half said negative stereotypes gleaned from media and popular culture made them wary of bringing veterans aboard…”

A Los Angeles Times article notes that “Studies show that the public can have skewed views of veterans based on what’s seen in film or on television, said Chris Marvin, executive director of Got Your 6, [a group dedicated to helping veterans.] Dave Philipps, writing in the The New York Times in 2015, relays how veteran activist Chris Marvin worries that “We believe that the way veterans are portrayed on the screen is the way the will be thought of in the living room and the way they will be treated in the community.”

The reality is that Hollywood’s moguls ignore reality, about veterans as well as anyone or any group who doesn’t share their progressive politics. They refuse to back off their politically-correct and reality-challenged view of the world. It isn’t veterans who are rioting on city streets or college campuses—it’s the professional (and frequently paid) radicals and misinformed and inaccurately educated college leftists who engage in storm-trooper tactics. It isn’t the NRA or the American Legion that seeks to censor, through violence or intimidation, anyone they disagree with. It’s the Progressives that own that monopoly.

The defamatory portrayals of veterans, while giving a free pass to Islamic extremists, totalitarian leftists, and the drug cartels who entered the nation during the Obama open-border era, is reprehensible.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.