A Calmer Look At Arkin's Piece

Arkin posted another item which may have been taken down. But it should be available here. The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out

Allah has audio of Arkin being coddled by Alan Colmes.

Michelle has comments and additional links here.

Update: It seems Arkin claims to be an activist with a habit of leaking secrets.

I was writing a hopefully more reflective reaction piece last night - see below.

The fundamental flaw with Arkin's position is that the troops are under the command of a twice democratically elected civilian leader using his constitutional authority to wage a formally declared war. So, despite Arkin's right to say what he will, any notion that the troops are not entitled to our support is logically wrong. We have bound them by oath and law to perform precisely as they are performing. Consequently, for the government and the population to deny them our support is a civil betrayal of the first order and a gross moral failing. One could equate it to any number of instances where a person or group in authority commands someone to do his or her bidding, then cuts them off at the knees behind their back.

A day later and still, as a blogger, presumably several dollars short of what the Washington Post's William M. Arkin is paid to write items like this, let's take a calmer look at what, if any, truths Arkin might have revealed. I mention dollars only because it goes to one of Arkin's points:

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.

Two thoughts - if being paid makes one a mercenary, than Arkin himself is most certainly a rung or more below the many military bloggers who, while often experts, write mostly out of passion, not for pay. Ironic that in this day of new media Arkin would be throwing the M word around. Along with that, Arkin and the WaPo by default, can no longer claim the dubious defense of supporting the troops, while opposing the war.

A mercenary is a soldier who fights, or engages in warfare primarily for money, usually with little regard for ideological, national or political considerations. However, when the term is used to refer to a soldier in a regular national army, it is usually considered an insult, epithet or pejorative.

Consequently, while Arkin was writing this: We just don't see very man "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon..., Arkin was, in fact, doing that very thing - calling them unpatriotic, with no regard for anything other than an ounce of gold.

Unfortunately, that's some uninformed mercenary the WaPo employs. Perhaps the so-called expert was unaware that just days before someone did indeed spit at, if not on, a now handicapped veteran of Iraq. And how did the Left respond? By suggesting he was crying wolf, of course. Strike two against the we oppose the war, but not the troops defense. Just how far are Arkin and his kind from spitting on veterans at airports and pronouncing them baby-killers - after all, Arkin has now already called them rapists and murderers.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform....

What a quaint way of showing his and the WaPo's support for the troops.

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

A decent wage? I thought it was their last alternative at any type of job? One wonders, would Arkin like to trade his compensation for that of the average Joe in military gear? And how is it we support their families? Do we bring out a magic wand and say, no worries - Father, Husband, Mother, Brother, Sister gone forever ... all's well, here's a ceremonial flag upon which to dry your tears. Yes, no doubt the families of those criminal losers are overjoyed at receiving America's cornucopia of support.

Well, we do give them artificial limbs if their own disappear and try to treat them and their families for any number of psychological maladies which have been shown to plague those who have lived through war. It might not rank up there with what an Arkin might receive when he dashes off to some Beltway shrink for a little post traumatic hand wringing over a missed deadline, but at least it's something. I'll give him that.

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.

Frustration? Whose frustration? I'd argue that it's Arkin's frustration that he takes out in his ugly and disdainful post. A twice constitutionally elected President is carrying out his duty as he sees fit. The proud men and women serving under him in the military are doing the very same thing. It simply just isn't what Arkin wants. So he feels himself entitled to cast any number of gross aspersions while collecting an ounce of gold for the measure - are we really to believe there is anything at all noble going on with Arkin here?

Certainly there's nothing democratic about it. Perhaps it's Arkin and his brothers-not-in-arms who are really dreaming of storming the gate, they obviously haven't been elected through it. Were that true, Ned Lamont would be in the Senate and Joe Lieberman would be searching for a job less meaningful, perhaps writing for the Washington Post.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform.

It does? One can only speculate as to where Arkin plucked that unsightly piece of would be wisdom. Perhaps he hasn't been paying attention to the growth of new media while the value and readership of outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post has been in decline. Clearly it's the Arkins of the world America has pondered, only to conclude they don't owe them very much, if anything at all. The reality behind Arkin's piece is that, without the so many protests going on around the blogs, it would be like more and more of old media, mostly overlooked.

At least Arkin does actually give us one bit of genuine wisdom upon which to conclude.

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks....

That's correct. Contrary to a now refuted poll only touching a minuscule segment of the subscribed readership of the Military Times, the majority of troops in theater believe in their cause and believe it can be won. Someone should tell that to the increasingly cowardly Congress contemplating depriving them of the very men and resources they require and want. And to a Congressman and woman they should be compelled to speak to it the next time they claim they oppose the war but support the troops.

If nothing else comes from Arkin's piece we can at least now stop kidding ourselves and admit that Arkin, his fellow Leftists and a sad portion of an increasingly next election-minded Congress do not.

Comments

[boohoo]

The next time I meet a soldier, I'll give him a crying towel.

[Dan Riehl]

You could try it, but I bet he'd kick your sad ass, if he could distinguish it from your head.

[Theresa, MSgt (ret), USAF]

Well said Dan. And thanks.

[Todd]

Wow, what crap. What kind of job gives you the time to come up with such nonsense?

Anyway, you might recall that the troops go where the military sends them. They don't get to choose and if they are told that its time to go, then off they go. Their opinions dont matter any more than anyone else's. Bush's little adventure has failed and its time to pull out.

[Purple Avenger]

"Their opinions dont matter any more than anyone else's."

So you disavow the whole chickenhawk argument then Todd? Outstanding!

[Cindi]

WOW Todd, your support of our troops is outstanding! Not. When was the last time you spoke with a real hero?

[Bill Faith]

I don't seem to have your ability to look at this calmly yet. I guess when you don't have what it takes to be a real man all that's left is to try to drag down those who do. It's beginning to smell way to much like the '60s again.

I excerpted and linked at It's called Cojones Envy. (Multiple updates)-- http://www.smalltownveteran.net/bills_bites/2007/02/its_called_gona.html

Bill Faith
Proud Viet Nam Vet

[w3]

"Your little adventure has failed and it's time to pull out." I bet you hear that alot, Todd.

[Todd]

Hey Bill, the 60's was 40 years ago. Get with the times. Geez, talk about holding on to the past...

[scarshapedstar]

I must have missed the election of Arkin as Official Mouthpiece Of The Left.

[91B30]

"I must have missed the election of Arkin as Official Mouthpiece Of The Left."

But you're all so quick to disavow him.

[scarshapedstar]

"But you're all so quick to disavow him."

Glennuendo (n.) - The act of drawing a darkly ominous inference from an opponent's failure to discuss a political issue. From Reynolds, Glenn.

Just say no to Glennuendo.

[91B30]

You are discussing the issue, and still no expression of scorn for Arkin. Lot's of scorn for Dan though-can't remember when he's ever had a moment of spleen like Arkin.