Posted on 02/01/2007 6:11:57 AM PST by yoe
...is that a reporter might say what he actually thinks before an editor catches up with him and makes him stop. A case in point: William Arkin writes on "national and homeland security" for the Washington Post. Yesterday morning, in his blog titled (Early Warning) on the Post's website, Arkin wrote a post that has to be read to be believed. Titled "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People," the post comments on an NBC program in which soldiers expressed dismay at the lack of support for their mission manifested by some people back home. Arkin appears to take the position that the U.S. military is not worthy of the nation that it protects. Some highlights:
"These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect. Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order."
Arkin's indulgence, for one, is apparently stretched pretty thin. One thing I don't understand, though. If Abu Ghraib and Haditha were the result neither of "bad apples" nor of a "command order," what did cause them? Is Arkin suggesting that they manifest an inherent or widespread depravity among the troops? If not that, then what is his point?
"So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?"
Yes, I think that's a fair characterization of what our soldiers have in mind when they ask for our support. I'd be curious to know, too, what Arkin has in mind when he refers to "obscene amenities." Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan--how cushy can you get?
If you can understand this next paragraph, you're smarter than I am:
"I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people."
I have absolutely no idea what Arkin is talking about here. Who are the "Hoover's" and "Nixon's"? And why doesn't someone who writes for the Washington Post know the elementary rules of grammar and punctuation?
Finally, the climax:
"But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work."
In other words, I guess, "screw them." I still don't get it, though: what is the "price we pay" for having a volunteer army? The fact that soldiers are disappointed if the folks back home don't support their mission? Wow, that's a heavy price all right!
Arkin's conclusion:
"I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them."
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one."
Actually, I've seen nothing to indicate that our volunteer soldiers and Marines are "young and naive." I would guess that the average newspaper reporter is quite a bit more naive than the average soldier. And the "lack of progress" may be Arkin's opinion, but it is not the assessment of a large majority of the soldiers whose views I've seen expressed.
Then there is Arkin's final, puzzling reference to the fact that we have a volunteer army. America doesn't need a draft, he says--that's for sure!--but "we'd be having a different discussion if we had one." Maybe those editors have some value after all, since there is hardly a clear and coherent paragraph in Arkin's rant. As best I can understand him, though, Arkin regrets the fact that we don't have a draft, because if we did, instead of having motivated soldiers who are committed to completing their mission successfully, we'd have draftees who want to get out of Iraq and therefore are glad to hear that people back home oppose their mission.
Arkin considers it an "ugly" thing when a soldier says that critics of the war "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." I think the real ugliness lies much closer to home.
UPDATE: (Hugh Hewitt) has more on Arkin's history here. (Michelle M.) has a roundup here.
MORE Chris Muir weighs in this morning; click to enlarge:
This guy Arkin is profoundly Stupid, even more so because he puts his thoughts on paper.
The troops deserve our undying respect and support because they are putting their very Lives on the line to protect the ungrateful and treasonous morons like arkin.
This article is a good example of aid and support for the enemy.
People like Arkin may begin to understand the threat to our country when the Musllim terrorists blow up a few American Cities with Nuclear Bombs as the terrorists and their leaders promise to do.
At that time he may develop a higher regard for the Brave troops protecting his butt, if he's not already Fried to a
Crisp.
Smokes them out every time.
This activist at the WaPo should get the Axis Sally award.
Arkin appears to take the position that the U.S. military is not worthy of the nation that it protects. Some highlights:"These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect. Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order."
[snip]
"But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work."
Liberalism is indeed a Mental Disorder!
Still waiting for the Left to denounce the warcrimes of the "insurgent" terrorists (many of whom are not even Iraqi).
Also waiting for the Left to denouce the actions of the riotous "protesting" anarchists.
Nope, all they can do is Blame America.
But, of course, such sentiments as expressed on his 'own time' would NEVER color his coverage of the war, now, would it....?
IIRC, Arkin IS the same LAme Times columnist who said that we were overreacting to 9/11.
"REMF"
I note the article at Hugh Hewitt's update sez he spent 4 years in the army, 1974-1978, in intelligence of some sort. Any way to verify what he actually did? Possible wannabe who lied about his service or what he did in the service?
His incoherent writing style tells me he wasn't very good at it.
Also, Ffrom his diatribe it's most likely he has the similar mindset to Sen. John Kerry.
Eh, my bad. Right newspaper, but the columnist was David Bell.
Traitors all think alike. You're right. I wear it as a badge of honor to be chosen by them as one of their enemies. bttt
This week the NYT called out a reporter covering the War for expressing support for the "Surge".
Previously a member of Greenpeace, also. Lotta crap on him when googled.
Still waiting for the Left to denounce the warcrimes of the "insurgent" terrorists (many of whom are not even Iraqi).
Don't hold your breath. Remember being a leftist means never having to say you're sorry....or wrong.
Link? Thank you.
“The inability to distinguish between what is real and what is imaginary. Psychosis is a term used to describe a severe mental illness. Psychotics are characterized by a variety of symptoms that most people consider abnormal. These include experiencing delusions, such as the notion that one is being persecuted or conspired against. Psychotics may see things which don't actually exist and hear Voices (i.e. God) when no one is around. They often exhibit compulsive, irrational, ritualized behavior, esp. when such behavior serves no purpose or is even harmful or disruptive to those around them. They show no concern for others but may exhibit total self-centered behavior. Includes sociopathy, schizophrenia.”
DSM-IV
“…and that’s MISTER Dickhead to you, sailor!”
Link? Thank you
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24221_NYT_Rebukes_Reporter_for_Thinking_US_Can_Win&only
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.