Whiny, Simpering Arkin Stands Behind Attack on Troops

They are mercenaries! he says. Not mercenaries for money -- he was "dead wrong" to say that -- but mercenaries for the "true nation" they've deceived themselves they represent. A "true nation" pretty much consisting of only themselves and other like-minded murderbots.

Sounds pretty much like I expected him to. National Security Reporter, huh?

Must listen stuff. Also, his blog is full of whiny poor-me crap and further attacks on the troops.

The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out

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

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

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

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

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

Heh. Yeah, he's really braving the bullets, huh? The heart-stopping sound of an email whizzing by, the ominous thumping of far-away blog positions, the terrible screaming of incoming criticism... Why, in a way, he's the real soldier defending liberty with his very life, unlike those "mercenaries" who only think they are.

Exit question: Since Arkin asserts that the troops should not be allowed to influence the public's opinion on the war, and since the entire left demands that anyone supporting the war become a troop himself -- has the left pretty much created a Catch-22 by which any and all support for the war is illegitimate?

Second exit question: How long before William Arkin "decides" out of his "own initiative" to "take a sabbatical from the Washington Post" to "spend some more time with his family cats" ?

The WaPo can't fire him. Or can't be seen to fire him. But they can let him know his services are no longer welcome.

A "Philosophical" Essay: Arkin wants everyone to ignore the hatred dripping from his post and focus merely on his "philosophical" point.

Sorry, that won't work, jackass. If one writes a long screed about how the evil homos are just dying to get their hands on our kids and pervert them, one can hardly then say, "But if you read just certain parts of my column -- minus all that stuff about fags wanting to diddle our kids -- you'll see I was calling for a general reduction in promiscuity in not just the gay community, but in America at large."

Furthermore, his "philosophical" point is rather obvious, and could have been said in just a few sentences, minus the anti-military hatred. Here it is:

While troops have the right to offer opinions on the rectitude and efficacy of their mission, and the public should listen to them just as it should listen to any expert, the decision of where, when, and for how long to use force remains an exclusively civilian decision. And while we should support the troops with all the materiel they need to keep themselves safe and win the fights we put them in, as well as giving them honor for their service, that support does not, and cannot, extend to letting they themselves decide, exclusively, which wars we should fight and which we should not.

Wow. There's the "big philosopical point." Pretty goddamned obvious, no?

Sorry, but no one's really disputing your "philosophical" point, Sally. Because it's self-evident. It barely needs to be said, but, to the extent it's said, it can be said without calling our troops pampered, whiny, demanding murder-and-rape-crazed "mercenaries."

We're angry about the seething leftist hatred you showed for better men than you (and, let's face it -- more manful betters than you, too).

Incidentally, does anyone doubt for one moment that had the report that sent him into leftist la-la land gone the other way -- with troops complaining that their mission was impossible and stating that they'd like to come home ASAP -- Arkin would have written a precisely opposite post about the "wisdom and expertise of our very-professional highly-educated military"?

It woud have been insincere, of course. But any club within arm's reach for these people.

posted by Ace at 12:06 PM

| Access Comments