Some things just have to be read to be believed. Such is William Arkin's post titled The Troops Also Need to Support the American People.
Essentially, Arkin is irritated that so many of our soldiers in Iraq are disappointed by the opposition to the war expressed in the U.S. What he writes is arrogant, inaccurate, and appallingly naive.
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.
It's nice to see that Arkin acknowledges our soldiers actually have freedom of speech and that it isn't simply the prerogative of civilians. But Arkin doesn't stop with insulting our soldiers here.
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 just don't see very man "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?
Yes, it would be nice if the nay-sayers did shut up for a change instead of their relentless blatherings about supporting troops without supporting their mission. The troops know that that is just blathering designed to make the blatherer feel smug. Of course, the blatherer was probably never in the military and certainly not in a war. Very few journalists these days have served in the military (and I'm not talking about embedding). There's a great deal of difference in the attitude one has if one has served.
But Arkin isn't through insulting our soldiers yet.
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.
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.
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.
It's too bad we don't have a different sort of media.
Powerline has more on this.
Jules Crittenden has a wonderful idea: embed Arkin.
I nominate Arkin for a combat embed. On the peacenik chickenhawk theory that, if you want to talk about something, you have to do it. He should be able to tell those GIs to their faces what ingrates they are.
|