First rule of holes
The Washington Post's William Arkin forgot the first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging. After more than 1,000 responses to his original bile -- the majority of which questioned his intelligence, sanity, sincerity and the circumstances of his birth -- Arkin doubled down on stupid.
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.
This is a claim that he tried to back up on Fox News host John Gibson's show (audio here) yesterday before going a little batty. And it's a claim that really doesn't make sense. To review, here are the comments that originally set Arkin off.
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me." -- Tyler Johnson said.
"One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." -- Staff Sgt. Manuel Sahagun
"If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain." -- Spc. Peter Manna
Arkin interpreted those comments practically begging for the support of the American public as calls to silence anti-war critics here at home and evidence that the troops believed that they were a better, protected class of American.
In both cases, Arkin appears to have been suffering from an acute case of projection.
Then Arkin apologizes -- sort of:
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.
So, asking their fellow citizens to support them and what they are trying to do in Iraq is "anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen"? (Does any anti-war type honestly believe that the troops on the ground aren't trying to do good in Iraq? They question if we are succeeding and they question the motives of the civilian administration, but do they really believe that the troops are raping and murdering innocent men, women and children in order to ship oil home?)
I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "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?"
Again, Arkin sees criticism of his position as a the equivalent of throwing him in some gulag. I know that most journalists are thin-skinned, but Arkin needs to avoid anything but onion paper -- one cut and he'd bleed to death.
The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.
Strawman. Willfully ignorant.
When and where to fight has never been decided by the American military -- and if Arkin doesn't know it he needs to take a civics class. There is generally a consensus that the "how" should be left to the military in most cases (the current non-binding resolution garbage in the Senate notwithstanding).
Sometime between yesterday and today, a Washington Post editor apparently had a "come to Jesus" talk with Arkin resulting in this sort-of apology.
I won't address this drivel due to the fact that it's the same drivel as before couched in a less deliberately provocative fashion -- even that isn't saying much.
I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word 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.
Arkin, if I were you, I'd seriously consider hunkering down there at your home in Vermont and avoid showing your sorry face in any military town for the rest of your pathetic life.
0 comments on “First rule of holes”
Tags
[...] One of their featured discussions was WashingtonPost.com’s William Arkin’s vile, hateful slander of the troops. (Check out posts here, here and here for background.) Even reliable liberal Neal Gabler conceded that Arkin’s comments were out of bounds, but [there’s always a but] Gabler complained: A. that conservatives were cherry-picking Arkin’s comments and, B. that Arkin wasn’t representative of the liberal left. [...]