| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| WaPo blogger attacks the troops, Lileks responds |
| 2007-02-01 |
| I read, with a heavy heart, this WaPo blog entry by William Arkin, who handles the paper’s “national and homeland security” beat. (The distinction escapes me, at the moment.) The pith of the gist seems to be “shut up and bleed,” but I’ve only read it once, and subsequent study might yield additional nuance. Go read it. This sticks out: These soldiers 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. They ought to be damn glad we don’t regard them all as man-stackers and baby stabbers, I guess. Every time they’re not spit upon in an airport, they ought to offer up a silent prayer. Noted. Then comes this: So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, 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? As for the obscene amenities, I recall putting together that package to send to the troops a month ago. Foot and hand warmers were requested. I realize now they were just stockpiling those things in case the fancy propane-fired boots run low, and the fur-lined Gucci gloves get swiped by the locals. Fine. I heard the other day that some bases have fast-food outlets. They have a Subway stand. And you can just walk to it. Me, I have to drive. And find a parking place. And they don’t give stamps anymore. I suspect the Subway stand in Iraq gives stamps. Right now I’d imagine there’s some guy who’s paid a decent wage whose family back home in a nice house with freshly painted cinder block walls is sitting in his bunk (with a blanket he got for free, no doubt) licking the stamps that bring him ever closer to a free six incher. With meatballs. And he has the nerve to have an opinion about other people’s opinions. No, that’s not fair; he’s entitled to his opinion. But it’s another thing to express it. It’s almost as if the actual troops think they have some sort of absolute moral authority to have an opinion, and this gives them the right to express themselves without considering the impact that might have on people who disagree. They do have a moral authority, but only when they’re killed, and it transfers immediately to the closest relative who disagreed with the mission. Oh, and we need the Fairness Doctrine to restore balance to the AM radio band. Dissenting voices are being stifled. Then comes this: I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the people. This is the most singularly incomprehensible passage I have read from a mainstream media journalist in my entire life. And I’ve written a few that might win second place. I don’t know where to begin. Hoover’s? Hoover’s? I write for a second-tier regional daily, and if I woke tomorrow to find I’d posted that paragraph on a company blog I would open my veins in a warm bath. The coup de gracelessness occurs in the next paragraph: But it is the United States and instead this NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. Oops, indeed. That just slipped out. He temporarily forgot the patriotism that motivates many, and provides a definitional difference between mercs and volunteer soldiers, but thank God he caught himself in time. As for that dirty work, it is best understood in terms of soiled linen, which wives are ALWAYS complaining about. We don’t do the laundry, we don’t do it right, we mix the bloody clothes with the silk shirts, et cetera: The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore. I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them. Dear lambs, confused by Robust Debate, thinking that the big package of letters from the elementary school back home means more than last Tuesday’s editorial in the Times. One last blurt of unpunctuated insight: America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one. You have your orders from the Post’s muller-in-chief: commence pondering. Oh, and we’d be talking about something different if we had a draft, which we don’t, but somehow this all applies anyway. Did I mention Abu Ghraib? I did. Okay. Fine. Fricken’ Hoover. Hate that guy. Don’t you? |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #14 the American public has indulged those in uniform He oughta be grateful we indulge idiot reporters instead of hanging them from lamp posts. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2007-02-01 18:47 |
| #13 Real poll never to be taken by MSM and headlined up front and first to air - Who do you trust most, your military or your Congress? Actually, in a poll taken, I think, before the last election, people were asked to rate how much they trusted a variety of people/groups. The most trusted, at about 75% I think, was the US military. President Bush got something like a 35%, and both houses of Congress got something like 17%. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-02-01 18:19 |
| #12 Talk about an ungrateful asshole. |
| Posted by: JerseyMike 2007-02-01 18:05 |
| #11 Arkin has done all of us a real favor here. He has lifted the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" mask of "objectivity claimed by the MSM. He makes it abundantly clear that he hold our military in, ahem, disdain. This drivel could have been written by virtually any journalist at the NYT, LAT, CNN, CBS, etc, etc. So many of them feel this way. If they don't and they air their positive views about the mil or the ops in Iraq, they are smacked (see recent NYT journo who said the surge might (MIGHT) just work). These people are on the other side, plain and simple. Broadhead6, you watch your six and thanks so much for your continuing service. You protect me, my wife and my two little girls. I can't thnk you and your fellow Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors enough for that. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2007-02-01 15:34 |
| #10 Real poll never to be taken by MSM and headlined up front and first to air - Who do you trust most, your military or your Congress? |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-02-01 14:41 |
| #9 The significance of the WaPo blog post is that Arkin is already frustrated that the troops are likely to remain in Iraq, 30 days into the new era of Pelosi & Co., and regardless of whatever non-binding resolution is passed in Congress. Plus, there's the surge and the increasing activity vs. Iran. From Arkin's POV, it must be hard to take that a Democratic congress in and of itself is unlikely and unwillingly to stick their necks out and go to the mat to de-fund the Iraq effort. So what was the point of those mid-terms, anyway? What sticks in his craw is that he and others still have to go through the jujitsu of "supporting the troops, opposing the war" for the benefit of public opinion. Look for more frustration to continue. |
| Posted by: Whimble Spiger9099 2007-02-01 12:36 |
| #8 Thanks guys, no worries here. Going back to the same place, essentially the same job, same office, w/the same Marines. Pretty low key & business as usual. I'll shoot some emails from out there like I did last year. Until then I'll still be doing my regular schtick. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-02-01 11:03 |
| #7 Broadhead: good luck, good hunting, and get back in one piece, OK? |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-02-01 10:40 |
| #6 That's one BA rant to save, Broadhead. Keep your head focused in the sandbox and Godspeed in a few weeks. Oh, and one more recent FACT of history. Official US Policy on Iraq was changed from containment to regime change. When? 1998, under Clinton! But, then again, facts are curious things that most Americans (worried over stupid sh!t again) don't know they don't know! |
| Posted by: BA 2007-02-01 10:27 |
| #5 I'd almost be mad at Arkin (who, I guess claims to be a man) if I actually believed he could find two synaptic nerves inside his cranium to rub together or an x chromosome in his body to prove his male cred. I was there during the Iraqi elections and am going back for tour#2 (albeit a much shorter deployment) in about two weeks. I totally understand where those Army grunts are coming from. I remember calling home from the sandbox and my mom telling me about the stuff she saw on the msm and saying how her mind was changing on the war and all the typical quagmire nonsense - I spent more time arguing w/my own mom about how much b.s. the American folks were being fed and they really needed to get their heads out of their collective asses and connect the dots that Iraq is not 'nam, never was, never will be. IMHO - The American public has an absolute personal investment in supporting the war - 17 UN resolution violations over 12 years written in the blood of 300 dead Americans in 1991 = we have absolute moral/legal authority to kick the fuck out of Iraq and dispose their tyrant. *Then* after that was done it was imperative for the region, the world, and our own safety/conscience that we leave the place in some sort of order so we're not un-f*cking them again in 20 yrs - how f*cking hard is that for the average person to grasp? Those of us mil guys don't want our kids there in 20 yrs doing the job we can easily handle now. GWB said this would be a long and bloody slog - I guess the average 30 second attention span of the pepsi gen has already forgot that. How many lives and years did it take for us to complete our own Revolution? 60% of the American population was against that war as well. 60% of the American (union side) pop was against fighting the south during the civil war. Does anyone (besides those on the 'burg) know their f*cking history? The MSM is who I really have a chapped-ass with. The pussy's in our congress would be no.2 - f*ck you Nancy Pelosi - the only "catastrophe" is your dumb myopic ass being the speaker. No.3 would be my drooling fellow citizens who are "too busy" or willfully ignorant to fact check the info they get from CNN/NBC/ABC/MSNBC or whoever. Clearly Arkin's a 68'er moron w/a severe case of penis inferiority syndrome - prolly when he was in college his girlfriend cheated on him w/a Marine or Sailor hence the underlying disdain for any man who is not afraid to claim to be a man. Then again were all mercenaries (I prefer to be a mercenary of love though am not sure I banged his girlfriend during my formative years :) - I guess his definition of mercenary is different from mine and websters. Overall, a clueless article written by a coward who can afford to say such pussified crap from behind his cushy desk in his safe office. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-02-01 10:20 |
| #4 Those Hoover's and Nixon's will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. ...I have gone through EVERY historical reference I can get to and can find nothing about Herbert Hoover getting us into a war (though every president from TR to FDR sent the Marines somewhere in Latin America, so maybe this guy is just so fired up he can't get his facts straight), and Richard Nixon had us mostly withdrawn from Vietnam before his career ended. Seems to me though that Harry Truman sent a LOT of guys to Korea without a declaration of war, Kennedy not only sent them to Vietnam but sent guys to Cuba who weren't even HIS, and LBJ sent troops to the Dominican Republic and Vietnam based on a AUMF that even LBJ was skeptical of. On the other hand, I can find ONE President who consistently misled and lied to Congress and the American people, who sent US military personnel to assist one of the combatants without notifying Congress, and who conducted an undeclared war for more than a year that led to the loss of 141 US military personnel and hundreds more US civilians - and during all this time, the US military was looked upon as not much more than a group of overpaid and coddled bums who were unfit for 'real work'. IIRC, his name was Franklin Roosevelt. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2007-02-01 10:05 |
| #3 Another step closer to making Sulla. George Santayana: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-02-01 07:40 |
| #2 Bobby: May all of your children join the Marine Corps. Maybe you'll learn something. Well said, sir. Well said! |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-02-01 07:31 |
| #1 I posted the following comment to the clown's column. There were many, many comments that were far less polite. My son served in Iraq as a Marine. My wife jumped every time the phone rang. The moment he will remember for the rest of his life was watching the Iraqis have their first free elections. He was proud to be a part of that. I suggest you read "Keeping Faith: A Father-Son Story About Love and The United States Marine Corps" by John Schaeffer and Frank Schaeffer. The author, Frank, thought much the same way you do, until his son, John, joined the Marine Corps. May all of your children join the Marine Corps. Maybe you'll learn something. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-02-01 07:05 |