The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel recently ran a notable series of dispatches from Afghanistan called “A Father’s Journey; Searching For Answers In Afghanistan.” The series is written by managing editor George Stanley, who was embedded at Bagram Air Field in the northern province of Parwan where his son, Spc. Nick Stanley, is serving his second tour of duty.
“Not all parents can visit their soldier during a war but I could, because of my job, with permission from my son and his commander,” Stanley writes.
The series is a hybrid of reportage and personal essay written in plainspoken language that comes together to strike a chord that the best newspaper columnists achieve — both deeply personal and widely universal at the same time.
It brings to mind another compelling personal essay that takes place at the intersection of the military and the Fourth Estate, written by soldier-turned-journalist-turned-soldier again, Matt Mabe, and published earlier this year in CJR’s June/July issue.
Stanley writes with the poignancy and eye for detail that only someone very close to a story could tease out. Writing about his son’s decision to enlist:
He even liked the smell of the Army - “it kind of has its own smell, like hunting gear after spending all spring and summer in the basement.”
Sparkling prose aside, the story got me thinking about the major disconnect between the average American and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s hard to walk down the street in most places in this country and know that America is at war; we are largely insulated from its effects and during these eight years we have never, as a society, been asked to pitch in and sacrifice as part a civilian war effort.
Some believe that the years-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will not end until there is a draft and the cost of war becomes all too familiar.
Short of a draft – the more we average citizens are forced to brush up against the realities and consequences of the wars we wage overseas, the better. Though most people know someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan these days, Stanley’s series made me wonder how many journalists out there are actually related to active duty soldiers. I’m guessing not many.
As Stanley writes about his son, “His is the story I know.”
Good for him for telling it. You don’t have to be related to a soldier and you don’t have to travel to Bagram Air Field, but in a time of impersonal warfare, here’s to more journalists doing the same - taking the leap, putting themselves out there and telling the stories they know about the people close to them.





This line of discussion brings up a related thought. A lot of America is disconnected to the military period. Ending the draft substantially reduced the numbers of Americans who either served or knew someone who served in the military. This has led to a lack of knowledge about the role of the military in our life and the service as a national institution. The biggest disconnect, cited by veterans groups, is in Congress where there are now many less military veterans as members than in past years. This goes for the field of journalism as well. My biased advice for media outlets as both a military veteran and a journalist is hire a vet! That is, of course, when media outlets begin hiring once again.
Posted by Richard Smith on Thu 7 Jan 2010 at 01:35 PM
I am glad to see the pendulum finally swing the other way from the bias sparked by the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Serving in Vietnam put my journalistic career on hold for about five years in the early 1970s. What stuns me about journalists today is not just their lack of knowledge about the US military but also their lack of enterprise when it comes to covering stories. They can't seem to even get basic facts such as rank and chain of command right. This is not hard and can be looked up on the internet. Hiring and training a few veterans would be a good start and perhaps give meaning to that rote phrase "thank you for your service".
Posted by Francis Hamit on Sat 9 Jan 2010 at 12:45 AM
Stanley, unfortiunately, lost all sense of perspective and objectivity after spending time with his son's unit, and the final installment in his series is little more than cheerleading for escalating the war, calling for the US to send more troops so his son's friends will not have "died in vain." He's the managing editor, so the series ran on the front page, but it should have been back in the commentary section.
Posted by xoff on Sun 10 Jan 2010 at 12:53 PM
The problem with this series, besides the so-so reporting and lack of any sort of objective analysis, is that Stanley is a staunch conservative whose paper didn't bother asking tough questions in the first 7 to 8 years into the war, but now that a democratic president is in office, he wants "answers." In the first piece of the series he implies that soldiers died because Obama took some time to decide what the best course of action is. What about the lack of strategy under the previous administration, an administration that launched the conflict?
This series smacks of exploitation (of his son), offers little valuable insight, and is a cheap ploy to sell papers in my humble opinion.
Posted by Ldog on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 04:48 PM