Right after he quits repeating the “Mexican drug cartels are buying all their weapons on the US civilian market” lie.
.
doubleplusundead on June 27, 2009 at 10:39 AM

.

I second that!

Early on I hit Yon’s tip jar on a regular basis.   But, no more!
.

…true war correspondents are the “special forces.” How many true war correspondents have been produced in this generation? The number must be limited to the dozens.

I spent more time with U.S. troops in Iraq than any correspondent…

I have showed up at the front gates of U.S. or British bases, the soldiers tend to be astounded…- Yon

“I”, “I”, “I”, Sorry, but IMO this is just more of Yon’s latest me me me style of writing. Can’t imagine Earnie Pyle or others like him hyping themselves as the “special forces”, while their Wars still raged on. IMO, to that generation of war correspondants, the warfighter rightly remained the focus. As Earnie Pyle wrote:

Their life consisted wholly and solely of war, for they were and always had been front-line infantrymen. They survived because the fates were kind to them, certainly — but also because they had become hard and immensely wise in animal-like ways of self-preservation. – Pyle

Yes, in time, the story of this wars scribe’s should be told and their “special”ness where appropriate, so noted. However, for Yon to again start sprinkling holy water over himself now, is at best tacky. Again, after reading Yon’s new stuff, I leave with a sense that here’s a great guy, burdened with an overactive EGO, which produces an overhyped opinion of himself.

“Let’s Roll”

Also, don’t forget to hit Michael’s tip jar while you’re there, because all of his reporting is reader-supported. Michael is a true free-lancer, and one of the best war correspondents we have.

Right after he quits repeating the “Mexican drug cartels are buying all their weapons on the US civilian market” lie.

Michael is a true free-lancer, and one of the best war correspondents we have.

Ditto! I’ve donated before, need to again…this is a very good man doing very hard work. He is a true treasure.

From the point of view of the kidnappers/terrorists, why did they keep it silent? Doesn’t the terror and payment of ransom depend upon the event being public?

I know these questions have been asked before. But something about this story isn’t clear to me. How would publicizing his capture affect whether or not the Taliban murdered him, unless the Taliban demanded silence, and if that case, why?

Also, don’t forget to hit Michael’s tip jar while you’re there, because all of his reporting is reader-supported. Michael is a true free-lancer, and one of the best war correspondents we have.

Indeed.

katy on June 27, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Dittos. Michael Yon is a great American journalist.

Also, don’t forget to hit Michael’s tip jar while you’re there, because all of his reporting is reader-supported. Michael is a true free-lancer, and one of the best war correspondents we have.

Indeed.

That the New York Times gave special treatment to one of its own is a fact. That the U.S. military does the same is a fact. Maybe it’s human nature.

What a strange bit of equivocation that was.

That the New York Times gave special treatment to one of its own is a fact. That the U.S. military does the same is a fact. Maybe it’s human nature.

I suppose that’s technically true. But it’s silly to try and equate these. The military and the NYT both give “special treatment” to kidnappers who target their own; but the kind of treatment each gives is the exact OPPOSITE.

If you want to claim that both are “human nature”, well I suppose that would be OK too. But that means you’re using two separate definitions for the word “human.”