Arkin's Pulled Piece

The Arkin piece referenced here isn't opening. If it's gone - here it is.

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out
Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans and who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of Emails I've received, I've never written that soldiers should "shut up," quite whining, be spit upon, or that they have no right to an opinion.

I said I was bothered by the notion that "the troops" were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means - or the right - to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: evidently far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

What I've heard ever since my article "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People" was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.

I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "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?"

Thousands have written telling me to "shut up and quit whining," that the troops do support the American people - "with their lives."

I can't respond to everyone individually - keep the cards and letters coming though, I do read them - but I'll try to tease out of the comments some themes that confirm in my mind the difficult state that this impossible war has put us.

TR writes "you're an America hater and a friend of our enemies."

JS writes that "this country is in the fight of its life. Terrorists are attempting to establish a world-wide caliphate. And you tell us we DON'T need to stop them."

And adds MEJ: "Cowards like you guarantee that my grandchildren will be fighting a war someday because we of the generation were too cowardly and comfortable to be honest about the world around us."

These are opinions about the war in Iraq and the "war" against terrorism. They aren't facts. I understand people need to believe that the United States is engaged in a grand and noble mission to continue to support the deaths and sacrifices being made by American forces. Nonetheless, there is also an equally valid opinion that not only is the United States NOT involved in some fight for our lives in Iraq but that our military actions merely increases and complicates our insecurities tomorrow.

An army Major with the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad writes: "there is no way to accurately opine about the war unless you've been on the ground."

KJ (and many others) adds that I am just "sitting in the lap of luxury that is the United States."

Again, I understand the frustration of those in uniform and the supporters of the war. But these are not the only people who have a valid opinion, and there is great danger for the nation - as Bush-Cheney and company have already demonstrated - when people arrogate to themselves the sole determinant to make a judgment about national security.

The Army Major goes on to say that "soldiers -- unlike journalists -- have values inculcated from the very beginning of basic training."

D speaks of "last week's leftist freak show in D.C." to describe anti-war protest.

KC questions how I could jeopardize the "safety and morale of those who lay their young and noble lives on the line for you and your ilk."

Too many to count denounced me (and my ilk) for being elitist, arrogant, exclusive, a Washington a@$*hole or worse, above-it-all, and superior.

Given that I spent so much of my time in this column every week railing about Washington myself, the dismissal is hilarious. But there is such contempt for civil society in these words and I wonder where it comes from?

As the Major says, something is inculcated into the minds of military members from day one of duty. It is not just defense of the Constitution, it is also unanimity of thought and an unwavering regard for hierarchy. Without this, you can't have a military and you can't expect human beings to go against their instincts to put their lives on the line.

I'm not saying that this makes people in the military automatons, or that they are stupid. But this unanimity of thought and this absolute allegiance to a hierarchy of ideas is and should be foreign in the civilian world. That's what makes the two different.

I hesitate to describe the military "attitude" about the world, or to even apply some negative connotation to the assertion that the military, from the Pentagon on down to the lowest platoon assumes a singular worldview.

But Major TW from Baghdad describes the world as he sees it and condemns me for my dissent:

"Iraq is only a mistake if, like Vietnam, we don't finish the job. Your sloppy logic at the end of your piece belies your agenda. You write Iraq, 'is not some necessary endeavor, the people just don't believe that anymore.' Would invading Europe in 1944 been a "necessary endeavor" if the American people had not believed it? How about maintaining West Berlin in the 1970s? And what about Somalia in the 1990s? Pulling out following the Blackhawk Down incident arguably emboldened bin Laden and played a hand in 9/11. With the benefit of hindsight should we have stayed? Even if it cost more American lives it might have saved 3000 years later."

The Major asks a terrific question as to what it says about our society that 3,000 lives are not considered "worth it" and I'll develop some thoughts on this in the future.

But what does it say about our current political and military leadership?

Bush and company, and the Abizaid's, Casey's, and Petraeus's have had years to make their case to the American people that the threat is so great and the mission so noble that the sacrifice is worth it. They clearly have failed to make their case and that is why the majority of Americans no longer support the war.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem those wearing the uniform.

By William M. Arkin |  February 1, 2007; 9:39 AM ET  | Category:  Iraq
Previous: New Middle East Commander Correctly Stays in His Lane |

Comments

[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

[TheSpartan]

Is this somehow worse than the gonad envy displayed by Bush and Cheney? Sure this guy is off in way out left field, but our rather than simply use words, out fearless leaders have chosen to display their balls by putting other peoples children in harms way.

[Artie]

Of course it smells like the 60's. GW's Iraqnam is a complete disaster too! The only question is how best to cut our losses and extricate ourselves.

I wonder how you define a 'real man'? Blindly following orders doesnt strike me as too manly - but whatever makes you feel good. Stay the course!

[seekeronos]

Nah, you libs got it all wrong. The way to do it is to increase the force deployment to around 400,000-500,000 soldiers on the ground, reduce Sadr city to smouldering rubble, and deploy airburs/bomblet munitions over sudden appearances of terrorist squads that attack our men.

But that would take a congressional set of balls.... balls to support our commander in chief. Balls to knuckle down and squeeze the terrorists' throats until there is no life left in the mangled corpse of the Islamists. And balls to squelch the seditious and traitorous belchings of nefarious Islamist dissemblers and supporters like CAIR and the ACLU.

Real Balls would be allowing our troops going in with flamethrowers, M1A2 Abrams tanks armed with cannister rounds (think of a shotgun shell fit to an 120mm cannon) and merciless suppression of the Al-Sadrists and the Badrists and anyone else fool enough to raise a fuss in Iraq.

But unfortunately... Dhimmicrats seem to want to wish it all away and pretend that everything's all okay when we bring the troops home and give everyone socialist-style health care... while the Islamists laugh at us and continue thier plans for a one-world caliphate.

[Purple Avenger]

"The only question is how best to cut our losses"

Win?

[yyy]

There is no winning, the only question is whether or not the situation can be salvaged and stabilized.

Winning would have meant that we did not allow looting, that we had enough troops to keep the peace from the beginning so that no insurgency, foreign, home grown or otherwise ever could get started. Winning would have been rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure quickly, well and on budget to ensure that Iraqi citizens could return to normal lives ASAP. Winning would have prevent any Sunni/Shia killing and prevented any Shia quasi government death squads.

[Sherlock]

"Bush and company, and the Abizaid's, Casey's, and Petraeus's have had years to make their case to the American people that the threat is so great and the mission so noble that the sacrifice is worth it. They clearly have failed to make their case and that is why the majority of Americans no longer support the war."

And the media has had nothing to do with that. I mean we constantly try to explain the nuances of what Bush is trying to say, don't we? And look at all the positive things we have written about our efforts in Iraq. Okay, but I mean, it is just so obvious that every single thing the US has done in Iraq is wrong. How could anyone think the media has an axe to grind? We just report the truth, and if the truth is that everything is wrong, wrong, wrong, well that's what we report. You foamers just need to learn to listen to those who know better. Now don't make me say it over and over, it's tiresome.

[Sherlock]

Just to be clear, I find that reply of Mr. Arkin's above to be nauseatingly self-serving. The affrontary of a leftist in the MSM lecturing about arrogance and intolerance of the military is infuriating. The MSM is simply jealous that anyone else has ANY power at all - they think 100% of it is rightfully theirs to wield, and they are close to having it. One can hardly be blamed for ascribing the lowest of motives to his preening in the futherance of such an obvious falsehood.

I am reminded of the scene in that great and silly movie "Young Frankenstein", where the local quasi-fascist Chief Constable, a prototype of Dr. Strangelove, speaks to a bloodthirsty torch-bearing crowd out to kill Frankenstein's monster...

"Nowww, a rri-ott iss an ugly 'ting," he says, "... und I 'tink it's chust about time ve had vun!!" Yeah.

[ticktock]

i believe the liberal above accidently enunciated his/her party's actual, secret, never-before-admitted-to policy on any war america happens to be in: "there is no winning".

because liberals believe there MUST BE "no winning". might make america look good. act proud. not kowtow to 3rd-world pissant dictatorships (y'all might want to go ahead & sell your venezuelan stocks soon); or middle-eastern death cults.

can't allow THAT.