On Monday we took a look at the fallout over a New York Times article looking at recent war veterans who have committed murder. Some critics said this article perpetuated the myth of "wacko" veterans returning from war. Additionally, a lack of comparison to murder rates among the civilian population was said to unfairly highlight the 121 veterans mentioned in the article. At the time of my last post most of the criticism seemed to be stemming from the online community.  By today, however, we've seen this wave of thought reach the mainstream press. 

In yesterday's New York Times the op-ed page printed letters from readers reacting to the story. Some excerpts:

CON:

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.

PRO:

It was simply not manly to seek psychiatric help during and after Vietnam. In my own case, I suffered for some 40 years. After all the nightmares, sleepwalking, waking myself up with my own screams and causing my near relatives anxiety and fear, a police officer introduced me to a talk group of Vietnam veterans at the local V.A. hospital...You are never the same when you return from combat. The American people must therefore be absolutely sure of the engaged war because of the terrible things war does to the psyches of those soldiers. It may be worth it, but only if the objectives of the war are worth it...Deep down, those images and sounds never go away. I am happy that today the military has recognized the humanity and manhood of those who seek help.

The Times didn't try to establish a causal relationship between war service and homicide. It didn't even try to establish a correlation. The 7,000-word article contained no statistics on the size of the veteran population, or on the prevalence of homicide either in the general population or among young men, who are disproportionately represented among active-duty and recently discharged service members...the Times hasn't necessarily proved that the stereotype is true -- only that it is a stereotype.

A very conservative estimate of how many different service members have passed through Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait since 2003 is 350,000 (and no, that's not double-counting those with repeated tours of duty).  Now consider the Justice Department's numbers for murders committed by all Americans aged 18 to 34 - the key group for our men and women in uniform. To match the homicide rate of their peers, our troops would've had to come home and commit about 150 murders a year, for a total of 700 to 750 murders between 2003 and the end of 2007.

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.