William Arkin makes the anti-chickenhawk argument, suggesting that troops unhappy with the antiwar political tone of the country…
…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.
Over at Blackfive, Matt and Uncle Jimbo kind of have their way with Mr. Arkin, and I’ll leave the response to them.
But I’ll point out, first that Mr. Arkin isn’t an opinion columnist at the Post – he’s the domain expert for the military there.
And that he has quite an interesting history.
What a disgusting screed with its poorly disguised snide and slanderous innuendo.
In case I dropped the context, I’m referring to Arkin’s dreck. Uncle Jimbo and Blackfive have my applause.
Arken speaks for most rational people when he says that we American don’t blame the entire military for the criminal actions undertaken by some of them in our name. Most, after all don’t participate in the crime, and of those that do, most do so under orders from above.
For this, decent people in service will, as they should, be grateful. And they should be careful as well, careful not to abuse that trust. Even though Bush and his cronies may have committed them to an illegal and immoral war that is no excuse for them to commit war crimes themselves.
For the rest of them, for those who think we owe them our blind allegiance, in spite of whatever harm they cause us, I say f%*k them. We owe those people nothing except a swift exit out of our military and off the taxpayers back.
ken,
You misrepresent Arkin’s comments on that subject actually, as Arkin’s innuendo is that it would be reasonable to assume them all culpable for those offenses.
Ken / Arkin seem cut from the far-hard Left mold. Neo-Monarchists seeking their own hereditary Monarchy (Castro, the Kims, Saddam and Co). And doubtless their own place as the Palace guard.
I would not quibble on judgment calls soldiers who guess wrong end up dying make every day. This country did not quibble when US Marines on Okinawa sometimes incinerated die-hard Imperial Army soldiers intent on killing Marines and Soldiers, and sometimes kids and women, old men in the back of caves. Because there was no way to tell and the soldier or Marine who guessed wrong not only ended up dead but so did his buddies.
These hard-left ANSWER types (who yearn for the hereditary rule of a Castro or his like) are realistic and understand no war can be fought under political correctness; that good order and discipline requires following of the rules, but survival requires well, survival and doing what’s needed. Moreover that ticky-tack violations are unimportant while the gross misconduct merits appropriate punishment.
They understand this.
There issue is that they don’t want the US to be defended at all; rather it destroyed by the Green Horse with themselves the Red Jockey. Thus every terror attack by Muslims is excused and every counter-effort condemned.
They have the fantasy of the Tudeh who thought they could use Khomeni.
“… 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. …”
I could say the same thing about the media, their CEO’s, not to mention their leading editors and managers getting the passes when their pissant go-fers screw up, and that I still do offer my tolerance and respect to the media despite the treason and sedition which a few bad apples engage in.
————
Ken, our troops don’t need to be grateful to us for anything, whatsoever. It is we who need to be grateful to them.
And while I might grant your point that they must be careful and not abuse our trust, you must also remember that we must be careful and not abuse their trust. Spouting off about the illegality and immorality of this war is not being very careful, dude.
ken, thanks for bringing up what will be a core issue in 2008; the fundamental belief by many of those on my side of the house in the inherent badness of the US and our actions.
It’ll be interesting to see how that plays out.
A.L.
Arkin:
I think Blackfive delivered only half the kicks that Arkin deserves for this, because the First Amendment of the Constitution doesn’t begin to cover the sacred, centuries-old right of the soldier to gripe.
Soldiers are bound by law and duty to obey orders they don’t want to obey, and fight wars they may not agree with or understand, and to lay down their lives for ungrateful cretins like William Arkin. In exchange for this they have a right to disapprove of the American people, second lieutenants, bad food, poor supplies, the weather, the atomic weight of cobalt, and the entire metaphysical structure of time and space. There is even ritualized griping in the military, a sort of art form, often featuring a guy named Jody who is back at home screwing your sister, your girlfriend, and your mother.
Arkin ought to recognize Jody. He is Jody, the ungrateful, spoiled rotten civilian who has been protected and cared for his entire life. He sits at home lecturing and pontificating while better men hump heavy loads through the worst places on earth, and he feels entitled to look down on them for this service. He congratulates himself on being smarter than they are, and credits himself with a superior moral character on top of that.
Yes, makin’ mock o’ uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an’ they’re starvation cheap;
*Sigh*. Why would you right this article? I don’t understand. I guess in principle I understand what he’s saying… that he feels he has a right to think this war is not in our best national interests, without getting attacked for it. But he’s not being attacked, slandered, mobed etc. It’s just a few soldiers say they feel annoyed, which is fine. They should have the right to feel annoyed, Arkin should have the right to oppose the war. They both should have the right to vehemnetly disagree with one another.
But throwing little lines about troops being lucky because we aren’t blaming them yet… that’s just horrible. This guy should lose his job. And can we please just hang those guys responsible for Abu Gharib… that should serve as a strong enough message that we don’t tolerate these things, and then it never has to come up again.
On another note; did anyone else catch the Slate article by a Vietnam vet arguing that spitting on troops “probably didn’t happen”:http://www.slate.com/id/2158608/. Interesting read.
Your Anti-chickenhawk title is dead on. All summer, and before we heard that no one who has not served in military combat has credibility in approving of this war. So now some soldiers who have the ultimate credibility, those on the front lines, are making their voices heard. Well, we just can’t have that can we?
So if I understand the argument correctly, it is this. “If you don’t aggree that what we write in the newspapers fairly represents the facts, just shut up and eat you gruel. And be grateful.”
Is that about it?
alchemist – go checkout the response to the ‘spitting’ issue at Blackfive. You can find it “here”:http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/01/they_want_it_le.html .
A.L.
Fair enough. Not alive then, makes it difficult to have your own perspective.
Been thinking about this article today. While I’m sure this individual probably beleives what they wrote, I can’t imagine there’s that many people out there who feel the same way. Maybe the extreme 0.01% left, but as a fairly strong lefty, I can’t think of anyone I personally know that wouldn’t call this article repugnant (sorry for the double negative).
I have to wonder if this writer is used as a publicity-hound. Someone the editor knows will say something stupid that attracts publicity and gets people to buy the paper. Like a reverse-Savage/Coulter. It’s still a horrible article, and it doesn’t make it any more excusable; but I just can’t imagine that this is a widespread view among the media, or any prominent group of lefties.
AL, Alchemist,
People like Arkin are defining just what the left is to American non-leftist because your kind has no other competing voices.
If anyone has had more than their share of free speech about the war its been the anti-war/radical left in this country. Their voices have never been stifled, in fact they have been covered in such a gentle and soft light that their true views (those of people like Arkin) rarely if ever get published. Rallies where 10 people show up are given front page treatment in the papers, yet letters from soldiers in the field have to be circulated via email and blogs and rarely if ever appear in major media publications.
I am not surprised at all by what Arkin has written because I’ve always believed that this was at the core, the anti-war argument that no use of force is ever justified, that the US is an evil empire and that it should fail and be destroyed.
It’s a good thing that Arkin wrote this and its getting the attention that it deserves, because it illustrates the lefts position perfectly, and that is truly a rare occurrence by todays media.
Trent,
They’re are lots of lefties NOT making these statements. For example: you can look at most of the house and senate, which have bent over backwards (in most cases) to praise troops while simultaneously attacking Bush. Hopefully his comments will be seen as worthless and disgarded. Myself and ‘my kind’ shouldn’t have to answer for every stupid comment made.
Just like I don’t hold you responsible for comments by Hannity & Savage.
The deeper Arkin issue is, to me, the fact that a guy with these core values is the domain expert at a national paper of record.
A.L.
A.L.
given the caliber of military reporting out of nearly all major US dailies, I don’t see how his position should shock anyone.
You know, I can almost deal with most of his opinion – and his “through every” paragraph is way over the top, and gives away his intentions. This part gets me more than anything else:
=======
But it is the United States, and the recent 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.
=======
Equating the service with mercs is one of the most distasteful things I’ve seen a writer put pen to in the past few years, especially in such a major newspaper.
Alchemist,
This is what I said:
>People like Arkin are defining just what the left is to American non-
>leftist because your kind has _no other competing voices._
This is what you said:
>They’re are lots of lefties _NOT making these statements._
Please provide a list of Leftists who have condemned Arkin’s statement publically in national op-ed pages in large media papers or on national media programs or have issued public statements picked up by either.
You can’t because there hasn’t been any.
That silence is damning.
In politics, unlike criminal law, guilt by association can be a capital offense.
First of all The quote was yesterday.
Second, why should democrats have to condemn it. The party didn’t say it. The Washington Post’s writers SHOULD condemn it, the EDITORS should immediately apologize for letting this dribble through, but the democrats didn’t write it, or have any plot for it’s conception.
Let’s look at this from the other side. Have any Republicans condemned it? No, of course not. They are not related to the story, why should they have to?
Just like Republicans don’t have to apologize every time Hannity or Coulter say something stupid. They are not directly affiliated with the Republican party. Neither is this clown affiliated with the D’s.
Alchemist,
bq. _Second, why should democrats have to condemn it. The party didn’t say it. The Washington Post’s writers SHOULD condemn it, the EDITORS should immediately apologize for letting this dribble through, but the democrats didn’t write it, or have any plot for it’s conception. _
I said “The Left,” not the Democratic Party.
“The Left” =/= “The Democratic Party” as a whole. (Although it seems to ne closer and closer to that every day.)
As for why the Left ought to condem this, please see what abortion clinic bombings and killings did to the Pro-Life movement and what Clinton did with the OKY City bombing to the Gringrich lead Republican Congress in 1995-96.
Arkin and Hersh’s attacks on American troops as “atrocity prown mercenaries” fighting a war that started for the American people with an attack on the American homeland is an equivalent moral/political event.
If the Republicans had someone mean and politically smart like Gulianni as President rather than the political Deaf-mute that is President Bush, the Pelosi Congress would be in the same position as the Gingrich Congress was in 1995-96.
As it is, the Main Stream Media has sowed a field with salt when it comes to Civil-Military relations. As far as everyone up to Lt Col rank is concerned, the Media has sided with the enemy in this war, just like they did in Vietnam.
The credibility of the MSM news operations with the American people has and will continue to be reflected in declining revenues.
That is why the NY Times has resorted to “Death Porn” by showing American soldiers dying on the battlefield before the next of kin has been informed. It is the only way they can attract enough eyeballs to justify their quarterly ad revenues.
alchemist – actually, some Republicans have…go see this post on “Power Line”:http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016669.php
A.L.
Alchemist,
bq. _Let’s look at this from the other side. Have any Republicans condemned it? No, of course not. They are not related to the story, why should they have to?_
Please see the letter by three Republican Senators–Cornyn, Kyl and Inhofe–sent the following to the Publisher of the Washington Post, Donald Graham; at this powerline blog post:
“http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016669.php”:http://windsofchange.net/
A Fisking of Arkin on the First Amendment:
Here is what Mr Arkin stated in the first of three pieces addressing US Soldiers first amendment rights:
ARKIN:”I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.”
ME: Mr Arkin states that in his opinion, those members of the military do not have the right to criticize the American people. I did not know there were limits on such speech IAW the First amendment but lets go on to his more tortured replies to criticism of his article and Soldier’s 1st Amendment rights:
Here is what MR Arkin stated next:
ARKIN: “Contrary to the typically inaccurate and overstated assertion in dozens of blogs, hundreds of comments, and thousands of e-mails I’ve received, I’ve never written that soldiers should “shut up,” quit 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.”
ME; Mr Arkin here states that he never stated that Soldiers do not have a right to an opinion, but his statement is rather clear that he does believe they do not have a right to an opinion on the American people…his quote again “and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.” To me he stated exactly what he meant to say. He is “bothered by the notion” that soldiers feel that their opinion on Iraq should matter in discussions on policy. He is essentially saying that they have too much power in the world of opinions and he does not have enough. His arguments are not being heard above those who are actually serving the policy, and he does not like it, so the soldiers should be muzzled.
Next Mr Arkin is in apology mode:
ARKIN: “When I hear soldiers and war supporters expressing their frustrations about the American public or the news media, something doesn’t quite seem right — even when the soldiers and war supporters aren’t talking about me. I know that those in uniform would like to bring the war to an honorable conclusion, but are they blaming those who are against the war and the news media for having tied their hands under a Bush administration which is certainly the most warrior-oriented in the past 20 years? Is there no space for respectful acceptance of the possibility that people who also love the nation and care about our security think that the country is wasting national treasure – lives and money – on an unwinnable cause?…
I also reiterate my core point, which is that military attitudes should not serve as a censor of the civilian debate at home, either literally or through intimidation.”
ME:Mr Arkin’s first amendment point is that since the troops speaking to the media seem to support the Iraq policy and they express that feeling it is intimidating to him. IF the troops feel that the negativity from the press is undermining their mission, they should not “intimidate” the discussions back home with their opinions. If the soldiers feel opposition to the war and the policy is bad for troop morale, they should keep it to themselves. It appears that Mr Arkin feels threatened for some reason by troops voicing their opinion, as is theie First Amendment right. He feels that military attitudes are a “censor” to debate and are “intimidating. ” What Mr Arkin apparently is against is the troops stating their opinion and that opinion is taken at a higher value than his “elitist” “opinion” columns are. He does not like that. However, there is no intimidation in this clash of ideas or opinions. No one is getting the IRS to look at Mr Arkin’s finances, no one is bugging his phones…there is no intimidation here at all. It is a bogeyman for his real issue…he does not like the opinions of those who are fighting. He does not like it one bit so he wants to muzzle them.
Mr Arkin then says:
ARKIN:”Spec. Johnson, everyone supports the troops. But if supporting the troops comes to mean that we cannot raise questions about the military, about how wars are being fought in our name, that we cannot criticize those in uniform, can’t protest, can’t write, can’t demand better, then what kind of country do we have?”
ME: What MR Arkin wants here is to be able to criticize those in uniform, to protest, write and demand better without getting criticized himself. He is amazed that people do not agree with him and that he gets criticized for his views. He feels that he should not be called unpatriotic, even if that is the opinion of those who read his columns. He feels that the military should not be able to criticize protestors or those who criticize those soldiers because those soldiers act as censors. Please give me one example Mr Arkin of this so called censorship by the government.
More from Mr Arkin:
ARKIN: “I know you are out there every day risking your life, and for that I am grateful. But I just can’t stand by and do nothing when I can see that your risk is no longer being matched by a commitment or a plan or the prospect for victory or a just ending. I can’t be silent when I can also see that you are a pawn in a Washington political tug-of-war that has become more about the Bush legacy and future power here at home than about Iraq.”
ME: Mr Arkin is now “grateful” which was not the tone he used in his original article. He goes back to the canard that he is fighting for the troops because he cannot “just stand by” because he knows the war is lost (and he is the security “EXPERT” for the Washington Post so listen to him). His “opinion” is that soldiers are pawns for a “Bush legacy” but he fails to realize that his opinion is just that, an opinion. Others have opinions exactly opposite of his, from people on the ground and those opinions are the ones he seeks to muzzle.
Mr Arkin says
ARKIN: ” Spec. Johnson, I also firmly believe that you are wrong if you believe that Iraq represents the difference between freedom and slavery for all of us in the future. I understand, and respect, that you think it. I understand, and respect, that that’s what keeps you going.”
ME: As a serving soldier, I think Mr Arkin is saying that the soldier’s opinion is not based in reality, it is based on a way to keep you motivated in a war zone. Specialist Johnson to Mr Arkin is nothing more than an uneducated rube who thinks that Specialist Johnson is brainwashed. I don’t know if that is Mr Arkin’s intent, but that is my opinion and that is how I view it. It is my perception of Mr Arkin and that is my reality, which I can express as an opinion…I wonder why he fears that?
Mr Arkin then says:
ARKIN: “I’m just asking you to understand that different people have different views of the world, and that those views don’t mean that they are un-American, anti-American, or contemptuous of the military.”
ME: Mr Arkin needs to reread this entire sentence. He needs to understand that different people have different views on the world and in a democracy, they can express them. He was obviously contemptuous of the military, in MY OPINION. The far left is anti-American and contemptuous of the military in MY OPINION. He needs to learn tolerance for other ideas and he needs to find his moral courage to stick by them when those ideas are attacked. He displays intolerance for military opinion and when confronted, hides behind his “I support the troops” rhetoric that falls flat to those he insulted so grieviously.