From William Arkin’s damage control:
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 worth…

When, sir, did that word ever accurately describe the American soldier?

I think he’s trolling for traffic, myself, and that they deleted the comment where I mentioned that I take as confirmation.

So he’s basically making the Ann Coulter argument in Godless that it is inappropriate to use people who can’t be criticized because of their status (eg Jersey Girls), in this case soldiers, to make a point. Kinda ironic.

kmcguire on February 1, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Coulter did not say that; she said don’t put these women up there as unassailable; we’ll assail whomever we wish on the merits of their speech. And if that were Arkin’s point, it would go without saying.

Rather, he is telling the soldiers to stfu and claiming that they are wrong. The argument about whether one can criticize these soldiers is ancillary.

The Rule: more speech is better; telling people they can’t talk is worse.

Our military is one of the best organizations in the world. We are allowed to have opinions and express them to our leaders. Our leaders listen to our input and make a decision. We then follow that decsion. In hindsight some decisions aren’t the right ones, but when you are dealing with war the right decision isn’t always black and white.

We are not mercenaries, my fellow warriors in the military are patriots, we definitely don’t do it for the money. We do it because we love this country and everything it stands for. We follow rules, such as the rules of engagement that spell out what we can and can’t do in time of war.

William Arkin was in the military, and I respect that. He was in the military in the 1970s, our military today is nothing like it was in the 70s.

We are prepared to give our life if necessary to ensure Mr. Arkin can say what he wants and pretenders like Martin Sheen have more of a voice than me. We are prepared to give our lives are they?

William Arkin has garnered quite a bit of heat for some of his comments in a blog entry posted earlier this week that labeled those who wear the uniform of the American military “mercenaries,” and stated, “Through every Abu Ghraib……

Under pressure, William Arkin has finally produced a thoughtful response to the soldiers in that NBC News video. At first glance his arguments might sound reasonable, but if they represent how most of America thinks, the young men on that……

When I first read Arkin’s post I couldn’t believe that a journalist would dare even write something so blatantly anti-military as what he did, but then I wondered, if Mr. Arkin is truly expressing his opinion that the troops should just “shut-up, qu…

This douche needs to be left alone so that he can talk…more and more, louder and louder.

benrand on February 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Exactly: this a++hole is a tonic. The Left has been very careful and very clever in their “We support the troops” mantra. For the most part, they have avoided the mistake of their Vietnam days, when they let their comtempt and hatred show.

We need more Obvious Turds like this guy to show everyone just what all the Lefties believe. I want him on the FRONT PAGE of the WaPo and NYT–I want him on the broadcast news, wanking away with Wolf, and letting everyone know what he and his pals really think…..and what they would do if they had the executive branch in their grasp

Of particular note: “I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word [mercenary] to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military.”

Anything said by him after that just went in one ear and out the other (eyes, in this case).

The connn-unnn-drummm for this guy is that the majority in the military are probably conservative. He makes them out to be marionettes, who can be indoctrinated at the government’s will. The Kerry theory, er joke…

Presumably then if troops’ tended to agree with Arkin they’d simply be exercising thier free speech, but since they choose to disagree with him, they’re nascent fascists who need to have thier CO’s “take them aside” and explain to them that they’re allowed to have any opinion they like, but they can’t express it.

“I said I was bothered by the notion that …(they)… were somehow becoming hallowed beings above society, that they had an attitude that only they had the means – or the right – to judge…”

So now he agrees with her and he disagrees with the “chicken hawk” argument – wtf is up with that?
DKK

The survival of western civilization is at stake here, but it’s not worth dying for, according to leftists. Of course, the right to have anonymous anal sex with deranged same-sex strangers while taking powerful drugs, now THAT’s worth dying for!

In other words, this entire episode is just a minor variation on the “You are stifling my dissent!” trope deployed by room-temperature IQ lefties whenever they encounter criticism of their views, layered with ill-mannered contempt for the military.

I would say that Mr. Arkin is an embarassment to both the journalistic profession and the Washington Post, but that’s not true: he’s an exemplar of both.

Well, everyone’s been over and over this, but it doesn’t mean I can’t throw in my two cents. After all, even William Arkin himself is “all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army.”
Even? Ho…

I’m personally inured to these pseudo intellectuals from my time in Vietnam.

Actually, I giggle when they make their idiotic pronouncements.

However, I do admit that if, perchance, I run into Bill or any of his ideological cronies down here in Florida(Matthews comes to mind), I might just kick their ass.

I should feel honored, he responded to me directly.  Of course he grossly misquoted me.
I said that he was telling the troops to shut up and quit whining, whereas he quoted me as saying that to him.
Whatever.  the point of my article was that…

I was s lightly behind in news coverage yesterday (homework and all, you know?) but as I perusing yesterday’s blogs, I came across this from Captain Ed, and it is in regard to a the WaPo’s in-house jer, er, blogger named Willaim Arkin. Mr. Arkin put…

If you read his bio, he was military, an intel analyst in the 70’s, which is neither here nor there as far as that goes. It doesn’t give him absolute moral authority, and to put out the blanket generalizations that he has, stating that the military (and at one point, implying it was at the individual soldier level) could have fixed Iraq, totally ignores the fact that we still have civilian authority to answer to. Every time a soldier dies, the commanders find some other piece of armor or pile of equipment or rule to further restrict risk. This is in direct response to the pressure from home (as if a war can be won without a single casualty). People in the media, like him, make it seem like we only need to stay in our FOB’s and drive around in our armored vehicles and we’d be able to go home after a few weeks.

The reality on the ground is, we can’t win it without casualties. We have to get out and do patrols on foot, exposing ourselves to enemy fire. We have to meet the public and interact with them. We can’t surrender the initiative and expect to get anywhere.

Support from home is key to this as well. If we appear to be committed to this, and united behind our troops, then we’re a formidable opponent. With the MSM beaming their propaganda around the world, without even a semblance of balance, this looks just like one man’s war, and he’s only seconds away from being removed from office.

I won’t even go into the “Soldiers=Mercenaries” analogy, other than to say that I volunteered to serve. After 18 years of service, I was paid $53k for a year in Iraq. For being EOD, and volunteering to disarm IEDs, I make an additional $150 per month.

- It ain’t the money Mr. Arkin!
- It wasn’t brainwashing
- It’s because I could do nothing less!