Posted by
BP on Thursday, February 01, 2007 10:41:04 PM
WILLIAM ARKIN WROTE AN ONLINE COLUMN on the Washington Post site which cannot be described as anything but anti-military. Arkin is the paper's "National and Homeland Security" online writer, and by all accounts is a typical lefty. His contempt for the American military cannot be described without highlighting key passages from his site (taken directly from the OpinionJournal's "Best of the Web" update this afternoon):
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people. . . .
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.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
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? . . .
The recent 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.
NOW, HUGH HEWITT hit him pretty hard this afternoon with Mark Steyn on his radio program and with a posting on www.hughhewitt.com. Also, James Lileks did a brilliant smackdown of his silly argument on www.lileks.com. I could only hope to be as pithy and witty as Lileks's analysis. There is no need to re-hash the absurdity of Arkin's posting, although the slip of mercenary is simply appalling.
HOWEVER, ARKIN'S WRITING represents a point of view possessed by several within the MSM. Arkin is probably not un-American or un-patriotic. In his response posting after the initial post slamming the military, Arkin cited a great deal of messages received from irate readers accusing him as such. Doing this only gives guys like Arkin cover. The easiest thing in the world is accusing him of being un-patriotic and un-American when writing something as ridiculous as he wrote. He can effectively portray opponents as typical "right-wing nuts," and continue on his merry military-bashing way. What Arkin is, and what many in the MSM represent, is a sort of elitist, "we know better than you," contempt for America and its military. Instead of acknowledging mistakes in Iraq, yet reporting on the progress (yes, there is some) made there, Arkin and others throw Abu Ghraib and Haditha in everyone's face as examples of, "Look! America's the problem; not the solution!" rhetoric.
WHAT RIGHT-THINKING SUPPORTERS OF THE MILITARY can continue to do is support our troops monetarily and morally, pressure Congress not to adopt defeatist resolutions, and pressure the Washington Post to fire Arkin and like-minded agenda "journalists." Of course, as evidenced by newspapers' rapidly-declining subscription and advertising revenues, Americans are voting with their feet and pocketbooks against shoddy agenda journalism, brilliantly displayed by William Arkin.