Deborah Howell, the Post ombudswoman, has a piece up on l’affaire Arkin.
It’s a reasoned, establishment take on blogging, is appropriately critical of Arkin – even though she understates the loathsomeness of what he said – and includes one gem that needs to be held up and examined.
Arkin is unrepentant about two things: He works for The Post. Period. And he said he is “probably one of the best-known and respected anti-military military bloggers.”
I hadn’t seen that before, but it pretty accurately sums him up, doesn’t it? So – two questions fall out from that exposition. How in the world can the LA Times or other news media justify calling him ‘a military analyst’ (as opposed to ‘an anti-military analyst’)? And what an interesting story he himself must be. Someone who has built a career and spent his life closely studying something he seems to hate so much. And what is it that he opposes? Note that his commitment isn’t general – to the issues of appropriate or inappropriate French or Russian military policies or actions. It’s not about demilitarizing the world. It’s aimed squarely at diminishing the role and effectiveness of the U.S. military.
My guess is that Arkin believes that the use of American force – hard power in this case – in the world does more _harm_ than _good_. That it needs to be constrained or regulated by non-American agencies which better serve the planet over against the parochial interests of the US.
And that that American power – military – by itself is “bad.” So that not only does the military serve an unjust cause; the military itself as it is constructed is “bad.”
I think any regular or semi-regular reader of his writings before this latest contretemps can come to something along those lines.
What’s the line: There isn’t a problem in the world that the left doesn’t think can’t be solved by having the US walk away from it.
Something to that, it seems to me.
People are identified as “analysts” all the time, regardless of their positions. You can be a “welfare analyst” whether you’re for or against our existing welfare system. Ditto for Social Security, Medicare, education, etc. Whether you like Arkin or not, “military analyst” is still the right label for him, isn’t it?
Not so much, Kevin – because ‘analyst’ carries an analytic, nonpartisan mantle that differs from that of advocates.
Arkin pretty clearly is an advocate, wouldn’t you say?
A.L.
Media organizations are identified as being “objective” all the time regardless of their positions: Are they correctly labeled? And is really necessary to raise the point of double standards obtaining when hyphenated labels are used?
_People are identified as “analysts” all the time_
Sorta’ like David Irving being called or labeled a “Holocaust expert” or “analyst”?
More seriously, a climatological expert who doesn’t believe in global warming (or man-made warming) would obviously have that position presented to the public before he or she opined on that topic. They wouldn’t simply be identified as a “analyst”.
Analyst implies a level of objectivity or balance or disinterest that, from Arkin’s record, he seems to be lacking.
One can make the argument in the opposite direction as well.
Puts the “I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.” into perspective. He can continue to call them mercenaries, figuratively speaking.
“The fact that The Post and washingtonpost.com are interlocking yet separate is lost on most readers, who do not care that the two are miles apart physically and under different management”
Its not lost on us. But as long as Arkin’s tripe is bannered with “WashingtonPost”, you will be associated with it and suffer accordingly.
“Whether you like Arkin or not, “military analyst” is still the right label for him, isn’t it?”
No. Arkin’s little rant, esp the part re mercs and obscene ammenities, reveals that he doesn’t begin to understand the topic. Its deceptive to call him an analyst.
Kevin’s reflexive defense of Arkin is Exhibit A of what is wrong with the media, and Dems (same thing one could argue).
Agenda politics as new analysis.
The worst thing about Dems and the Media is the appalling ignorance about all things military because of the hostility to the institution itself (due IMHO to idiot-level naivete). Given that we live in a dangerous world with dangerous people (who would make Arkin and other Liberal Dems soil their drawers if they actually met them), military affairs will continue to be vitally important to understanding the challenges America faces and cutting through the self-serving rhetoric of politicians and NGOs and others.
An analogy would be if ESPN covered the Superbowl with the idiot reporter who asked Coach Smith “where he was when he was notified the Bears were selected for the Superbowl?”
The pathetic thing is that Arkin is probably as good as it gets in the Media regarding military affairs.
Meanwhile Michael Yon continues to exhibit the old Ernie Pyle spirit (could you imagine ANY mainstream media person acting like Pyle today?) Of course not.
Oddly, I’m with Kevin, with a caveat. The AEI and Heritage employ welfare analysts, and there’s nothing wrong with calling them that.
But of course, the Post would identify them as “analysts with the conservative think-tank…” and would be quite right to do so.
The problem isn’t that he’s called an analyst, it’s that his slant isn’t labeled. More likely, his slant isn’t noticed, which is an even bigger problem.
Are you guys seriously suggesting that the word “analyst” can only be used for people who don’t have viewpoints? If so, we might as well retire the word. There won’t be any analysts left.
Look, Arkin’s a columnist, just like Max Boot and Charles Krauthammer, neither of whom is ever identified as a “pro-military advocate.” You may not agree with Arkin, but an anti-military viewpoint has just as much right to a public airing as a pro-military viewpoint. And “analyst” is just a commonplace word that means “someone who studies something.” Arkin certainly fills that bill.
Attack his views all you want. I agree that he crossed a line in the column at issue. But he’s still a “military analyst.”
Kevin, hang on. There’s a halo that attaches to the term when it isn’t modified. Arkin has made a career out of using that halo in ways the suit the beliefs of the leadership at large media companies.
Never in a million years could I imagine someone from a right-wing think tank not being labeled. But by not labeling Arkin, the LA Times, and NBC, and the Post have let him opine – which he’s perfectly free to do – under the halo of ‘disinterested analysis’ – which is a patent lie.
The fact that that lie has been revealed is a good thing. The fact that it was allowed to be carried on for so long isn’t, and I don’t see how you can argue that.
In my original post on him, back when he started writing for the LA Times, I noted his institutional affiliations. Had they been noted in his earlier columns, my criticism wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on.
A.L.
Yes Kevin. It’s analogous to having ESPN put on some angry man-hating feminist who wants football banned on the Superbowl and calling her a “football analyst.” Except at least ESPN has basic expertise in the areas they cover. Something that cannot even be said by the vast majority of the Media.
Someone who by definition is anti-military CANNOT be an analyst because they will only give angry propaganda from their Stalinist viewpoints.
I expect in analysis some minimal level of expertise. Arkin does not even have THAT because he HATES the military. As seen.
You’ve written as I recall on Washington Monthly the complete lack of any interest in Military Affairs by the Dem Party (not surprising, it’s an article of religious belief among Dems that the military is both evil and useless, all problems are solved by “talking” etc).
Arkin is a symptom of that total systemic failure.
AEI or Heritage experts are conservative, but don’t disbelieve in the institution of say, education. Arkin is equivalent of having a creationist report on the latest evolutionary research.
MOST of the reporting by the Press on all affairs military seem not even minimally COMPETENT. Such as labeling without comment a Pakistani 135 mm Artillery shell as a US Hellfire missile.
It’s like thinking the Bears were “selected” by some committee for the Super Bowl. [The other reporters laughed the woman out of the room.]
AL is spot on in calling the LAT, NBC (hard-left network), and the WaPo on having a guy who’s hard-left Stalinist (a member of Stalinist ANSWER) is both agenda-driven and not labeled and ALSO lack of expertise.
That which you hate you don’t get expertise in. Arkin clearly hates the military (as do most Media and Dems).
Kevin,
It didn’t get missed that you equate questioning how he is labeled to questioning whether his views have a “right” to be aired.
That’s just a strawman rhetorical trick on your part.
“Arkin is no rookie. A national security and human rights fellow at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, he has written books, spoken at the armed services’ war colleges, and been a consultant to the Air Force …”
Sounds like he is well qualifid as a military analyst and deserves to have his opinions heard.
Most of us Americans are tired of the miliary being treated like a sacred cow. We see it soaking up our resources, and then, with us paying to have a million people in uniform we see they are ‘stretched too thin’ when a mere 100,000 are actually deployed somewhere.
Anyone not blinded by conservatism must see we are mostly wasting our money on a bloated, fat ass dominated, military.
ken – and anyone not blinded by leftist cant could see that we face immense strategic threats the require a larger military. Thanks for playing.
No, Arkin’s not a rookie. But he’s more idealogue than analyst, and there’s the rub.
A.L.
A larger military? You gotta be kidding. Our ‘enemies’ were armed with 89 cent box cutters.
Putting a larger military into the hands of people like you would assure that none of us would be safe from the next attack.
Get a clue dude. This is not a battle that is going to be won by a larger military.
An analyst isnt usually against the core thing that he/she is studying. No one brings an anti-education analyst…
Ok ken. Enlighten us. How is this battle to be won?
So ken – what will it be won by? Potlach? A longer discussion coming about boxcutters…
A.L.
Notice, its not merely that a larger military won’t protect us … its that the military itself – and “people like us” – are dangerous to people like ken:
“Putting a larger military into the hands of people like you would assure that none of us would be safe from the next attack.”
Can I call them anti-american yet, A.L.?
We see it like this. We see that conservatives like you would do anything, use any deciet, manufacture any crisis, in order to wage war on Iran. We saw you do it with your war on Iraq.
Now we, the American people, are wise to this. We hear your threats. We also know that Iran is listening to these threats as well. So Iran is doing what any rational actor would do in the face of such hostility – it is trying to arm itself to ward of an attack by a far superior force.
Putting a larger military in the hands of people like you is like giving a belligerant drunk a bigger gun. Stupid idea. The wise thing to do is take the gun away from you guys and make sure that if you are ever in a position to sieze a weapon then it be one that cannot do much harm.
In short, you are not trustworthy.
So to answer your question as to what to do? The first step is clear. Remove conservatives from power. They have proven, time and time again, that they only screw things up.
But ken, that’s kind of a magic underwear gnome plan. I’m readily swayable into the Democratic camp – just show me that there is some plausible plan or idea for a plan to deal with the Bad Guys.
Saying ‘get rid of the GOP and the world will be a great place with bunnies and chocolates for everyone’ is nice, but kind of … well, incomplete.
A.L.
Marc, when the Bad Guys are right here amongst us it has to be our first focus as a nation to firstly get them out of power, and secondly to make sure they cannot repeat the disaster they caused if they ever sieze power again.
Once we have decent people running the show we can do an evaluation of the damage left by the conservatives and make plans to amend those damages.
Your fear of the bad guy hiding under your bed, while real for you, and scary, giving you nightmares, is not something we are going worry too much about. We will however keep you safe from real danger. At least safer than you would be if the nutters remain in powere.
I like it. “Vote for us! We’ll keep you safe. Well, not safe, but safer than the other guy would have. Not that you could actually judge that, since he won’t be in power and we will. But we do promise to break the military so well that, if he does get back into power, he’ll never be able to use it again.”
You’re right, ken. The voters will eat it up — particularly the ‘most Americans who are tired of the military being treated as a sacred cow.’ You just ride that horse as far as it will carry you. I can’t wait for the election.
Ken- You have given a good synopsis on the liberal view point of the war on teror. You view conservatives as the bad guys. What are you going to do when the liberals come to power and your talk, talk, talk does nothing but enbolden the enemy. By denigrating our men and women in the armed forces, who do you think is going to fight the next war? I wouldn’t blame these young men and women just telling you to shove it, and telling you liberals to save youselfs. Oh but wait, you’ll be hiding under your bed.
OK ken. Say you get the conservatives out, and it’s all lefty liberals controlling all the levers of power. Now what? Are you saying that once the conservatives are marginalized the folks who believe in the inevitability of a one world caliphate will be mollified? Is that why the mad moolahs, AQ, and what we on the right consider the “bad guys” were so jubilant last Nov. 7th? Because with the prospect of Democrats in charge they no longer have to righteously defend themselves against the illegal predations of the Great Imperial Hegemon, and they can now coexist peacefully with a kinder, gentler, Democrat America?
Or is it because they see weakness, cowardice, and the unbelievable good fortune of a powerful enemy that loathes and blames itself, having embodied so much white liberal guilt, and can be relied upon to accept any terms in order to avoid war?
Paul, grow up and be a man. Your cowardice in the face of fantasy is pathetic.
Americans are no longer frightened. Your gangs scary stories may still scare a pantload out of you but we see them for what they are: fairy tales.
We have a military that is fat and bloated with waste. We can get more out of it by cutting it down to size. Americans have seen this happen with other institutions. From manufacturers to service providers we see effectiveness increase when the layers of fat are carved out and discarded.
Like any institution that goes through this process there will be the malcontents and troublemakers. It always happens. Get rid of them. We are a nation of three hundred million – so no one is irreplacable – especially when it comes to military types. We have plenty of really honorable men and women to replace the ones who leave positions we need filled. But many others, some good people too, are part of the waste and we cannot use them any more. These people we can offer education and job retraining.
We Americans deserve to have our tax dollars spent wisely. We also deserve to have leadership that does not lie us into illegal, immoral and unjust wars.
When honest people back in charge Americans will have a government that focuses on real and not imagined dangers. And we will have a military that enjoys popular support and can handle whatever we ask of it.
ken is simply providing yet another version of “and now the magic happens”. Besides the somewhat true statement that the military is a bloated bureaucracy, he has no real plan, no alternative view to improve it except getting rid of Bush. Ah, and the US military budget is now about 4% of the GDP – a far cry from a money sink.
Ah the inevitable lefty ad hominem response. Of course demonstrating both how grown up and courageous you are.
Well it’s obvious you think that there is no Islamist terrorist threat. And “Americans” no longer believe such rubbish. (No doubt you believe the real threat is global warming. I guess there’s no chance that IT is a manufactured fantasy designed to frighten people into acting against their own interests and empower the unscrupulous.)
But you haven’t told me why those who hate and wish to destroy America (even if they are, as you believe, utterly impotent) were so jubilant to see the Democrats take both congresional houses?
Ken wrote:
“We have a military that is fat and bloated with waste. We can get more out of it by cutting it down to size.”
_______________________
Is the above opinion essentially agreeing with former SECDEF Rumsfeld’s idea about a leaner, meaner military?
Paul, get real. Whatever threat we may face from outside cannot be dealt with until we deal with the threat we face from conservatives right here at home.
Until the republic party members are willing to denounce their leaders for starting an illegal, immoral and unjust war against Iraq, for employing widespread torture, for putting our nation in hock to Communist China, for sending our jobs overseas and for flouting the constitution, you guys will nver be taken seriously.
Our first order of business must be to return to our decent liberal values and elect leaders that will adhere to them. Unless we can do that we won’t have a nation worth saving anyway.
You can either stand with your fellow Americans or you can stand against us. We are going to take back our country, with you or without you.
#32 Ken,
I’m kind of perverse and hope you get your wish.
Sad that the only thing standing in your way is a bunch of conservatives.
And Joe Lieberman.
Well, the folks in Europe didn’t want to fight the Austrian Corporal in 1936. What they got in exchange for their peace plan was 1939-45.
I expect your plan will work as well as Chamberlain’s. He bought a years peace at the price of a butchers bill that still makes the world recoil in horror.
===============
Nevile Chamberlain was a man of peace.
He had the papers to prove it.
Peacemongers
“Unless we can do that we won’t have a nation worth saving anyway.”
I had a feeling that was the real position. “America: our way, or to hell with it.”
Bravo, ken!
Congratulations on utterly derailing an interesting thread about how we should view folks like William Arkin, and the role of the press in clueing the rest of us in as to whom they consult and whom they don’t.
Instead, we have, for the umpteenth time, a repetition of the dreary “Bush lied, People died, ken cried” mantra.
If I didn’t know better, I’d almost venture that some folks don’t want the issue of who helps shape public opinion, the role of the press as one (of several) factor in that shaping, and whether “we, the people” should be made better aware of this.
Shortest Ken.
re: War on Terror: “Islamist fanatics aren’t a threat to secular nations; Republicans are.”
re: U.S. Military: “We have a military that is fat and bloated with waste. We can get more out of it by cutting it down to size. Americans have seen this happen with other institutions. From manufacturers to service providers we see effectiveness increase when the layers of fat are carved out and discarded.” (No real way to shorten that. If I had time, I’d go back and find someplace where ken alternatively calls for re-instituting the draft, and by compare-and-contrast conclude that what ken really thinks is that the biggest problem with our military is that it works pretty good as-is.)
Ken said:
“illegal, immoral and unjust wars”
Whenever I see the adjectives “illegal”, “immoral” or “unjust” before the noun “war(s)”, at least as pertains to the Iraq thing, I stop reading. I know where the person is coming from, I know where they’re going, and I know they’re not usually going to be worth listening to.
I did used to read these diatribes, but they assume so much. Nobody has yet produced evidence that satisfies me that Bush lied about anything. Nobody has yet shown me how taking out a dictator is a bad thing, or how it’s “immoral”. Nobody has yet shown me how the “conservatives” are bad people, or how they have mismanaged the war worse than the leadership of previous wars did.
I was a raving lefty until the late 90s, when I tacked center. I took a brief hard right after 9/11 (as I suspect a lot of people in the US did), and I’ve since tacked back center. Now, because of the public pantswetting by the Dems, I’m starting to drift right. Are there no people left on the left-of-center that can convince people who haven’t yet drank their koolaid to believe their view is the correct one?
The Dems have to show me how they plan to deal with the “bad guys” before I’ll vote for them again. Like guys who, while apparently driving toward nuclear weapons, say things like that a member state of the United Nations should be wiped off the map. Bad guys who send tapes to media outlets outlining their plans for destruction and mayhem, and follow them up with spates of suicide bombings and other atrocities in Iraq and other countries. Guys who set up training camps to teach people how to build explosives, hijack planes, get around security, shoot innocent people and so forth.
Assertions that these guys don’t exist, that they are boogeymen contrived by “evil conservatives” just don’t hold up under the known facts.
Gah.
When people are claiming that their domestic opponents in a democratic political contest are more dangerous than people dedicated to terrorism and murder, it is clear that their hatreds are driving irrational responses. Its not healthy and its not adult.
Dan, the people you are so afraid of are just mirror images of the conservatives right here at home you support.
It wasn’t the heated rhetoric from Saddam that caused this war. It was the conservatives in the US who launched the illegal, immoral and unjust war on Iraq.
You claim that the language coming out of the arab world is scary and you are afraid of further attacks. But realize that over the years conservative language has grown increasingly threatening to the people in the middle east.
And really, who is the bigger threat to whom?
Box cutters, vs the US military.
And you are afraid?
Coward.
There are many near-constants in human events, one hard as nails one is that when the chips are down cowards will slander the better men on which they rely. Ken, that’s you and since you have already declared half the nation, most conspicuously and explicitly incuding the military you can skip the pro forma complaints on form. On the substance: sure, Arkin is an analyst but he is not with Heritage or PFAW… he is the steersman for the WaPo’s military affairs coverage, no? If the WaPo claims to be non-partisan (uh…) and detached, and they do, still, no? they cannot have a goober like this in this position because he is obviously, admittedly, beyond reasoning with. No facts on the ground can sway him; he is an ideologue. On the question of his credentials… yes, check those books and speeches etc. Hard-lefty cant all the way. Besides being boring, predictable and ahistorical his work is transparently thin. No non-ideologue could have risen so far in the media complex without the helium of fellow-traveling thumbs on the scales all throughout his “career”. Why does tired Marxist “analysis” still hold such hypnotic sway over so many of our fellow citizens. Well, Ken et al, start your little revolution. It will be a hoot to say the least.
Just….. wow.
So far, the only person-of-note who has advocated a nuke-’em-’till-they-glow policy re: the mideast has been Duncan Black. Conservatives (or at least the ones currently calling the shots) seem a bit more nuanced than that…
And personally, ken, I’m not at all afraid of the U.S. military because I’m under the impression that they’re on our side. (I’m including you in that for courtesy’s sake. The military includes you in that for Constitutional reasons, I think.)
But the whole boxcutter thing should scare the crap out of you, because it shows that our enemies (you know, the ones who have killed lots of U.S. citizens, and their fellow travelers who chant “Death to America”) aren’t stupid; Al Queada had the organization, logistical expertise, intelligence and creativity to hit us hard right here in “safe” America.
If OBL had waited a few years, he might have had a nuke or four to play with. And of course, if we’d listened to the “War on Afghanistan is a pretext for a Haliburton gas pipeline” crowd (which I would bet included you at the time), he would have had the WTC under his belt and gotten those extra years to get better tools….
ken, I really don’t know if your point is to try to convince anyone of anything, or just to publicize your superior morality. I think what you really have is a bad case of wishful thinking, where Bush’s America really is as bad as it gets. Honestly, I wish I lived in that world.
But I don’t think I do.
Well ken there’s another accusation of cowardice. Truly brave people almost never level such charges. People who have had to face danger and make the hard choices that require courage generally are taciturn about their exploits and loathe to draw attention to themselves. Something about the character of truly brave people I guess.
On the other hand the “bravery” of the leftist cafe revolutionary will be advertised ad nauseum, as well as the careless and ubiquitous accusations of cowardice leveled towards anyone who doesn’t march in ideolgical lockstep.
Parphrasing Mark Twain, there is no weakness like the weakness of virtue untested by fire.
Somehow I fear you and those who think like you will have a chance to have your “virtue” tested by real hardship before this is all over, as opposed to the imaginary hardships you are enduring in Bush’s facist America. My prognosis is that you will fail miserably.
But again, you still haven’t told me why those who hate and wish to destroy America were so jubilant to see the Democrats take both congresional houses?
Ken said: “Dan, the people you are so afraid of are just mirror images of the conservatives right here at home you support. ”
Utter, liberlous filth. Conservative aren’t cutting off heads, planting bombs on trains or flying planes into buildings.
You lack perspective enough to understand the difference between “I disagree with you and I’m going to campaign to have my views hold more sway with the electorate.” and “I disagree with you, I’m going to hack off a journalist’s head”
You are a coward. You’re too scared to recognize the real threat, so you pick a fight with conservatives, knowing they’re too civilized to do anything but exchange words with you. You don’t have the guts to call the islamists the barbarins they are and condemn what they do. We are not perfect, but our vision for the world is a hell of lot better than theirs and that is worth defending. The fact that people are willing to defend that idea is what allows you to spew your vitriol against those very people who defend you.
We have real enemies. To equate those you disagree with about the best way to make this country better with those who would see this nation wiped from the face of the earth shows a lack of understanding and maturity on your part. If anything, conservatives want a strong America with a robust role in the world. Is that what you really fear, that America be the dominant force in the world? To many conservatives, while it’s not perfect, it’s better than almost any other alternative. You’re a coward who is not looking for a debate, but a place to shout obscenities at anyone you don’t like.
There is room or a reasoned disagreement on how best to deal with terrorists, despots and conlict in the world. What you’re saying doesn’t contribute to that debate in any meaningful way.
As for conservatives in this country being a mirror of the islamofascists, if that were the case you’d be in real danger right now. You’re not. At least not from anything other than your own inablility to recognize the situation for what it is, rather than a play world where you can spew epithets and lies about ‘the other team’ safe from any real consequences.
Mark Poling,
Which country’s leadership lauched an illegal immoral and unjust war within the last six years or so?
Was it Iraq’s leadership that invaded America without cause and destroyed its civil institutions, wrecked its infrastucture, killed tens of thousands of its innocent inhabitants?
Or was it the conservative American leadership that invaded Iraq, destroyed it civil institutions, wrecked its infrastructure and killed tens of thousands of its inhabitants?
From reading conservatives I really don’t think you guys know the answer to that question.
Just becuase you sit at the comfort of your keyboard and quake in fear at poor people in distant lands chanting ‘death to America’ doesn’t mean the rest of us Americans should share your irrational belligerancy towards them.
Let them have their rhetoric. We have the strength, when used correctly, to withstand angry words.
You, of course, do not understand that.
“Was it Iraq’s leadership that invaded America without cause and destroyed its civil institutions, wrecked its infrastucture, killed tens of thousands of its innocent inhabitants? ”
Yes, they would much rather have stuck with a murderous kleptocrat who was murdering people at a _much faster rate_ before the war than they have been dying since then.
Perhaps you should ask them. How many would prefer a return to Saddam. They begged us not to leave in 1991, and voiced fear about us not finishing the job this time.
As for their infrastructure, etc….what was there was inferior to what’s being build now, and now everyone will have access–not just Baathist elites. Our soldiers and contractors are busting their butts to make Iraq a nation with a firs-rate infrastructure. It’s not like the US to break it and leave (except in the case of Viet Nam, but we can thank your end of the political spectrum for that one.)
Illegal (approved by congress), immoral (leaving a murderous dictator in power is better?) and unjust (because freeing 30 million people from dicatorship by a madman, aided by a small Sunni minority was preferrable?) is a matter of opinion that you keep repeating as fact. Saying it over and over again does not make it so.
It would have been peace without justice, which isn’t peace at all.
We can’t fix every one of the world’s problems all at once, but it is in our interest to make as much of the world hospitable for liberty as we can, whenever we are able to do so.
tom says that conservates must not be too bad cause they not cutting off heads.
But tom, Conservatives have launched an illegal, immoral and unjust war. Conservatives have changed American policy in order to employ torture. Conservatives have put our nation in hock to communist China. Conservatives have flouted our constitution. Conservatives have encourages shipping our jobs overseas. Conservatives have been threatening war against Iran, Syria, and others.
But tom says they haven’t been cutting off any heads lately so all the stuff they are doing must be ok?
What kind of sicko are you tom?
So, next time they hit us, we nuke them until they glow, right?
100 dead from suicide bombs day in and day out under Saddam? This is rubbish, utter rubbish.
“What kind of sicko are you tom? ”
The kind that believed in your right to make such an ad hominem attack because liberty is important enough that even silly arguments have a right to be voiced.
If you think any conflict can be free of violence, pain and suffering you are wrong.
If you think that any lack of conflict (what you might call peace), in spite of injustice, lack of liberty or growth of threat if preferable to conflict you are in fact wrong.
That’s what kind of sicko I am. If it makes you feel better to think I personally approved the Iraq war and all the things that are wrong with it, with a cabal of oil executives, rednecks and others then do so.
You’ve picked a tiny point (cutting off of heads) out of my argument and ignored the rest because it is convenient for you to do so—just like it is convenient for you to ignore the fact we have real enemies and make conservatives the ultimate boogieman. “If only people like Ken had power all of our problems would suddenly disappear. The world would love us, we’d have not enemies, no one would be poor and global warming would instantly cease.” You are naive and foolish—-and more importantly too irresponsible to actually be in charge of any decision that might have consequences.
I am a sicko that realizes adult decisions have real consequences and rarely are all of them good. But, it is easy for someone like you to criticize and put themselves on a higher plane when nothing they have to say will ever have to be tested in the real world.
ken, your arguments, such as they are (“illegal, immoral and unjust”, yada yada yada) really don’t merit serious response. “Let them have their rhetoric. We have the strength, when used correctly, to withstand angry words” isn’t a prescription for how we should use our strength when our enemies’ put their angry rhetoric into action; it’s a platitude that has become a catechism for some members of the anti-War left.
In other words, it sounds good without actually meaning anything.
If you’d actually move beyond “conservatives are evil” (and by extension the US Military, since those in service are predominantly conservative) that catechism might be a decent starting point for productive conversation. But has been mentioned before, you and yours never get around to actually addressing some very real history, and some very legitimate concerns for the future. Until you do, you and yours are just engaging in circular manual stimulation, and getting off on us wingnuts calling you on your if-not-deviant-then-at-least-ultimately-unfruitful obsessions.
“100 dead from suicide bombs day in and day out under Saddam? This is rubbish, utter rubbish.”
No, it was more like wood chippers, poison gas, and bullets to the back of the head. The bid difference is that stuff didn’t have direct consequences on Western elections, so was ultimately unimportant.
“Let them have their rhetoric. We have the strength, when used correctly, to withstand angry words”
Except it is more than angry words–and plans to do more. The threats have been spelled out. Just like when Hitler wrote Mein Kamph, many choose not to take those plans seriously.
We do so at our own peril.
Our enemies aren’t as comfortable and soft as many here are. They’ve already drawn our blood on several occasions, and have stated they want more.
It’s already a lot more than rhetoric, but some of us want to pretend it’s just angry words.
tom, here is the difference between people like you and the rest of us.
We realize that we must be willing to accept the consequences of doing the right thing.
You, on the other hand, are willing to violate the norms of western civilization in order to feel a tiny bit safer regardless of the horrendous consequences of your actions on innoents elsewhere.
We know our strengths, and we know our enemies weaknesses.
You, on the other hand, cower if fear of the enemies exagerated strenth and have no confidence in American power which lies mostly in our moral virtue, not in our military might.
People like you tend to be conservatives, you seek authoritarian leaders, you want a strong man to rule over you and over those you fear.
You think that is the best way to live. Most Americans however, do not agree. We will keep you safe. But we will not do it by violating our principals or our values.
What is it in William Arkin’s background, education, training or experience that qualifies him to be labeled a military expert or commentator?
I must be missing something? Every time Arkin writes or says something he proves that he is effing idiot.
I would dearly love to know what percentage of self-identifying progressives actually agree with ken (and then how to beat candidates who court them about the head with the number):
[emphasis not-doubt-needlessly added.]
This, then, is the Santa Claus theory of international relations.
Glad to get that cleared up.
Geez, I know I should stop, but it’s like watching a really bad American Idol audition, or munching on trans-fat-saturated popcorn.
This is a version of American Exceptionalism that really should be riding on the “Special Needs” bus….
“People like you tend to be conservatives, you seek authoritarian leaders, you want a strong man to rule over you and over those you fear.”
Your deluded. American conservatives want limited government. We are anti-statist and anti-dictator, as opposed to the left who have swooned over every socialist dictator from Lenin up to the predent day leftist hero Hogo Chavez. The conservatives you describe exist only in your feverish propaganda polluted mind.
“You think that is the best way to live. Most Americans however, do not agree. We will keep you safe. But we will not do it by violating our principals or our values.”
ROTFLMAO!!!!! You are simply unbelievable. You’re going to keep us safe????!!! You make sure you tell that to a battle hardened soldier or two and let me know when you do because I would LOVE to see that!!
And if you think America hating lefties like yourself are the MAJORITY in this country you must really crawl out of your cocoon sometime and take a look around.
And of course you being the uber brave swaggering hero type I’m a bit flummoxed why you keep ducking the question of why our enemies are so delighted with the Democrats attaining power?
“Hogo”. Ha, sorry.
Andrew, based on the Lancet study, 100 dead a day is nothing.
Based on the Lancet study, every day, day-in and day-out, there’ve been something between 400 and 500 dead. That’s right, every day.
Uhm, of course, if that were true, then why is losing 100 a day in a couple of bombings such a big deal?
Unless, of course, the Lancet study was wrong?!
Hmmmm.
Might wanna think that one through a bit….
Oooh, this one is priceless….
_Just becuase you sit at the comfort of your keyboard and quake in fear at poor people in distant lands chanting ‘death to America’ doesn’t mean the rest of us Americans should share your irrational belligerancy towards them._
Patronising, condescending racism meets pop-psychological kumbaya’ism. They want to kill us, aren’t they cute? Let’s give them all a big hug!
As one of Arkin’s hated mercenaries, I can’t express any shock at what he wrote, or at the fact that a Post editor approved it (an editor whose identity Deb Howell is keeping secret, if he exists — he may be as bogus as Dana Priest’s typical anonymous sources).
Or that Howell, in her role as Reporters’ Representative, does her usual mealymouthed circle-the-wagons trick, whitewashing Arkin’s bile. After all, she the the exact same thing with the “vile Tom Toles cartoon”:http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/02/02/PH2006020200736.jpg playing the wounded for laughs.
At some point, even those of us who didn’t meet the “smart and work hard” standard of a C- student Senator can figure out when there’s a corporate culture that hates us.
Arkin at least has the stones to say he’s “anti-military.” Good for him. But so is his editor, so is Howell, so is Howard Kurtz, so is the Washington Post from masthead to agate. So is the LA Times, which wants to bash the military so badly that it actually hires anti-military activists if they bring a juicy enough story — true or not. So is NBC News. They’re so steeped in the bias that they can’t see it.
I have been wondering what happens in these news rooms when one of us goes down. High fives? A quick clink of glasses, and back to the Atex terminal?
Fortunately, we’ve been hated by much finer people. I suppose Arkin’s loathing for the service stems from his brief and undistinguished tour in — of all the stagnant pools of misfits and malingerers — MI. They must not have recognized his brilliance, and he’s been singing his version of “Workin’ at the car wash blues” ever since.
You know, whatever your field of expertise is, you’ll probably find that the media covers it superficially and inexactly; and the reason may be that they set the bar for experts unbelievably low. QED.
How can he be called an “analyst?” “Polemicist,” “opponent” or “critic,” maybe, but to me “analyst” connotes someone without an ax to grind. I would expect an analyst to provide reasonable conclusions from available information, not a continuous stream of vitriol that never changes. His use of the term mercenary to describe American soldier makes him a propagandist, not even rising to the level of a reporter.
“tom, here is the difference between people like you and the rest of us.
We realize that we must be willing to accept the consequences of doing the right thing. ”
The rest of us? So you speak for everyone else now?
Unless you’re talking about the voices in your head.
Kenny, the arbiter of ‘doing the right thing’? I don’t think so.
I understand that we need to protect this nation and our liberty and sometimes the liberty of other nations if it is important to protect our own.
Because we seem to have a difference of opinion on this, you seem to think it is okay to hide behind your keyboard and throw insults like a monkey throwing feces in the zoo.
-“You, on the other hand, are willing to violate the norms of western civilization in order to feel a tiny bit safer regardless of the horrendous consequences of your actions on innoents elsewhere.”_
Frankly, I think our actions have had a lot more positive effect on the lives of the the innocents in Iraq than they have on my immediate safety. To be honest the safety of my kids and their kids of much more concern to me…and I don’t like their odds unless we do something about the islamist movement ASAP.
_We know our strengths, and we know our enemies weaknesses.
You, on the other hand, cower if fear of the enemies exagerated strenth and have no confidence in American power which lies mostly in our moral virtue, not in our military might._
You know absolutely nothing about what goes on in my head, or about the strength of our enemy. For that matter, you appear to know very little about our strengths. We are strong and we can be confident in the strenght of our military, our people, our economy and our culture. However, it is folly to let a sworn enemy plot against us unharassed, after they have stated our destruction as a goal. I don’t fear them any more than I do a hornet’s nest in my yard, but both need to be rooted out.
_People like you tend to be conservatives, you seek authoritarian leaders, you want a strong man to rule over you and over those you fear._
Again, you no nothing about me or any ‘people like me,’ it seems to me that you are simply bigoted against conservatives and lack the maturity to understand that everyone who disagrees with you is not necessarily evil. I prefer a weaker central government. Less government in my life the better. Liberalism requires a strong central government to take from those who earn and redistriute as the ruling elites see fit. Not interested.
_You think that is the best way to live. Most Americans however, do not agree. We will keep you safe. But we will not do it by violating our principals or our values. _
You seem to speak for other people a lot. I don’t think as many people agree with you as you believe.
Frankly, I think a close look at what our military has done and is doing in Iraq would make most people proud. Unfortunately, blood and destruction is what the big media think sells advertising.
You talk a lot about fear, perhaps you have an unrealistic fear of conservatives. I understand that people who believe in self-reliance, less government, lower taxes and a robust, optimistic foreign policy can be intimidating, but if you got to know us, I think you’d be a little less afraid. After, we don’t go running around saying our political opponents in this country are the enemy. We grown ups will handle the real enemy so that you can continue your adolescent temper tantrum about not having control of the white house.
tom,
It wasn’t a bunch of third world loudmouths spouting harmless rhetoric who changed American policy in order to torture people. It was conservatives who did that.
It wasn’t a bunch of arabs carrying protest signs that subverted our constitution. It was conservatives who did that.
It wasn’t an Arab nation that lauched a war against America. It was American conservatives who launched an illegal immoral and unjust war against an Arab nation.
We see conservatives for what they are tom, you are no better than those you hate.
You are, in fact, more of a threat to America, that are those in some far off land with ambitions far in excess of their capacity. We can handle them. It is you guys who are creating all the problems America is facing today.
_ken at 3:12 am on Feb 12, 2007
Marc, when the Bad Guys are right here amongst us it has to be our first focus as a nation to firstly get them out of power, and secondly to make sure they cannot repeat the disaster they caused if they ever sieze power again.
ken at 12:17 am on Feb 13, 2007
We see conservatives for what they are tom, you are no better than those you hate._
Making progress tom, from being the bad guys to equality with them in less than 24 hours. Another day or two and conservatives might hit crazy pan-handler status.
“it is folly to let a sworn enemy plot against us unharassed, after they have stated our destruction as a goal. I don’t fear them any more than I do a hornet’s nest in my yard, but both need to be rooted out.”
Paul,
I know the distiction is lost on you but the hornets nest is in YOUR yard. A bunch of radical wackoes chanting hate slogans in a far off third world country are not.
This might come as a disappointment to you but you have no right to ‘root out’ people who don’t like you. It is exactly this attitude on the part of conservatives that leads your kind to embrace totalitariasm in order to gain control over others.
Grow some huevos dude. And relax. We will keep you safe. And we won’t take away any of your freedoms to boot.
Without the equal sharing of military responsibility by the whole of the citizenry, I don’t know how you cannot call the U.S. Military a mercenary force. Any true conservative will tell you that.
We now have military in, last time I looked 130+ countries out of 202. How far do our interests reach? Is there ever a law of diminishing returns for military spending? Is there ever a law of diminishing returns for military intervention.
Iraq is loaded with oil. Financially, we are losing our shirt over there. Can you tell me the benefit of this invasion? We can’t even break even with the business deals tied to rebuilding that we refused to share with the, French, Germans, etc. after the fall of Baghdad.
Washington warned us to beware of foreign entanglements. Eisenhower warned us against the Military Industrial Complex. Where are we now? Up to our necks in the former and mesmerized by the latter.
Can someone define what American interests are and where they end before saying that the military is protecting American interests. If you can’t do that you are just repeating the mindless drivel of politicians.
Wow ken you are seriously disturbed. I live and work among left wing crazies out here in Cali, but not even the silliest of them can match your level of psychotic delusion.
So, good night. And good luck.
#66 ken,
I totally agree. It is just like those folks making a big fuss about the ravings of some whacked out Austrian Corporal in the 30s. Those folks were totally deluded that some insignificant individual like him could ever be a threat.
It was wise for the American people to stay out of it.
#67 toc,
Totally agree. Down with mercenaries. What we need is a draft so we can have a slave force.
I’m against mercenary police and firemen as well.
If they want to be police and firemen so bad they should train and equip themselves and do the work for nothing. To avoid being mercenaries or slaves.
In fact I propose buisness stop paying their employees in order to avoid attracting the mercenary element.
ken,
American interests? Glad you asked.
Decline and Fall
Desolation Row
“We see it like this.”
“But ken, that’s kind of a magic underwear gnome plan. I’m readily swayable into the Democratic camp”
I dont think that ken speaks for the Democratic camp, or party, or anything like that.
AFAICT most Democratic leaders in Congress support a larged army end strength – certainly Ms. Clinton does, Im quite sure Biden does, and I havent heard that Obama is against it. Even the withdrawl from Iraq tomorrow camp hasnt argued that the military isnt overstretched – in fact overstretch is one of their arguments for immediate withdrawl.
Lets not be reduced to the silliness of letting blog commentators, even ones who claim to speak for “we the people” be considered spokesmen for real life political movements.
Yes, the only extremists who speak for anyone but themselves are the extremists that support the other side.
our involement in 130 countries maybe factually true but these are mostly military attaches or training missions at the request of the host government or part of treaty obligations.
Mercs get a bad name because we confuse the true professionals from homicidal manaics.
Executive Outcome did an outstanding job in Africa and I would submit that a small, professional military force that is not afraid
to engage the “enemy” might be more productive in say, the Congo, then the thousands of ill trained, sex craxed UN forces.