I've Suspected As Much

From Captain's Quarters:

It seems that William Arkin has had enough of supporting the troops, now that a few of them told NBC that they believe that Americans should support the mission as well. In his Washington Post blog, Arkin suddenly feels that the troops should just shut up and retreat:

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?

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.

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.

Mercenary? Wow. Just wow. I suppose they shouldn't paid at all, Mr. Arkin?

Of course, the worst part of this -- besides the incoherent writing style -- is the characterization of the NBC report. Not one of the soldiers in the clip remotely suggested that Americans "give up their rights and responsibilities". They didn't say that George Bush should make everyone who opposes the war shut up, or else. They were asked about their take on people who say they support the troops but oppose the war, and they expressed their views.

Unfortunately, Mr. Arkin can't handle free speech. He incomprehensibly calls them mercenaries because they volunteered for the military, and apparently because they have the audacity to offer their opinions when asked..

My favorite part of Arkin's diatribe:

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform

You know, I can understand those whose job it is to write pieces of opinion often walk a fine line. You want to make a particular point that may be subtle or may stray close to sensitive areas. Articles concerning race are a good example of such things. You can wind up offending people when that really wasn't your intent, or despite every precaution you take and caveat you supply. Almost everyone who reads the papers with any sort of critical eye knows the dance, and you can discount the angry letters to the editor with a "There is always someone with their knickers in a twist" shrug.

That being said, I find Arkin's middle finger salute to the troops baffling. For Arkin the "truth" of Iraq is measured more by opinion polls in the United States than by the experiences of the troops in theater. Such a notion is so stupid it borders on the retarded. One really wonders about what circles Arkin moves around in. Maybe the insular world of the Washington DC cocktail circuit has stunted his emotional and intellectual growth. He should get out more.