A response to William M. Arkin
Journalists Also Need to Support the American People (a rewrite, no thanks necessary Bill)
I've been mulling over a Washington Post editorial by William Arkin about an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the journalist was expressing a majority opinion common amongst leftists - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the Washington Post editor's office put the writer up to expressing their views, nor steered Arkin to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even psuedo intellectuals who pretend to understand those in the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that Washington Post editors took Arkin aside after this story blighted the paper and explained to him why it wasn't for him to disapprove of the American soldiers.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from Arkin's colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"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," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "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."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
Arkin's disdain for the American military is apparent as he derides them as spoiled and ungrateful. I doubt their blood spilled and limb lost, impress him, but the fact that these patriots go into harm's way on behalf of journalists as well as honorable citizens, should be the real point of discussion.
Arkin should be grateful that the American military has defended his right to write drivel in spite of the fact that the public overwhelmingly recognizes his editorializing as pure manure.
Through every word and line, through every slur and insinuation, the American military still willingly stands between the tyranny that would silence critics, even admitted imbeciles like Arkin, and the fragile freedom upon which American life is balanced, accepting along the way a myriad of personal attacks and propagandistic hit pieces thinly disguised as editorialism.
Even when Arkin produces deceptive statements for which there is incontrovertible evidence to the contrary such as the following: "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[y] "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon." Our servicemen and women still bear the burden of his freedom to be a loudmouthed bore.
So, we pay journalists a decent wage, allow them to spew slanderous untruths, provide them with Washingtonian idiots who are easily swayed with poll numbers and poor analysis and enough village idiots to hang on their every word, we die for their freedom, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the written words of people who don't live life, but merely write about it? We should give up our rights and responsibilities to defend the defenseless and spread the cause of human freedom because it's just too damn messy?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the propoganda and lies and those in the computer rooms and dens of America feel the frustrations caused by the pen laden psuedo-intellectuals. In my little parable, those in pajamas and flip flops shake their heads that the journalists don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from fools with Microsoft Word, an 8th grade vocabulary and a desk in a newsroom, 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 in the new media will use their keyboards as sophisticated weapons against the real enemy. If I weren't the United States, I'd say the story ends with a blogger led coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, save the nation from the journalistic elite.
But it is the United States and instead this William Arkin and a Washington Post editorial and they are just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for freedom to hear oneself speak - oops sorry, freedom of the press - led by a press corp 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 editorializing is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the journalists, in order to sleep at night, 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 anti-American and unable to get a real job where they have to actually do something for a living instead of reporting on the doings of others and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the ever changing situation in America where an increasing number of citizens are becoming aware of just how little journalists really matter. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in newsrooms. I believe that America needs mandatory critical thinking courses in middle and high school and I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had some.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/01 @ 07:50 AM — (Reply)
With all due respect,
At what point does disagreement with policy and strategic decisions made by the upper echelon become distinct with criticism of the enlisted soldiers following there commands? Is there any place at all for discourse over military operation, or is any discussion that runs contrary to marching in line with the orders in place sour the morale of our military?
There is no doubt that the Confederate soldiers who marched with Pickett on his infamous charge were brave beyond reckoning. It is also pretty clear (to me, at least) that Pickett's Charge was a foolhardy mistake. But if I say that Pickett's Charge was a bad decision on Lee's part, have I shown disrespect to the thousands of brave Confederate soldiers who undertook the assault??
If someone had spoken up, and questioned the collective wisdom of Operation Market Garden, could the disaster at Arnhem have been avoided? Or was it better for everyone to remain quiet, lest they show disrespect to all the hard-working infantry, paratroopers and armor brigades who undertook the "Bridge Too Far" scenario?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/01 @ 09:47 AM — (Reply)
Arkin implies that soldiers are ingrates and he outright lies when he ignores the anti-war movement's hateful treatment of our military.
There are more than a few cases of soldier's being spat upon in the headlines just within the last 6 months. There are photos of protesters holding up signs that say "Frag your officers" and Arkin himself calls them mercenaries. The baby killer remarks are all over liberal anti-war blogs and accusations of brutal homicide, rape and the like are rampant even when we know they are a statistical anomaly and the same acts occur with more frequency in California during any given month. You think a "support the troops" car magnet makes it all better?
Michael, you've defended the right of libraries to house porn, do you think soldiers shouldn't be allowed to say they don't feel supported by people who spit on them, burn their uniforms, and accuse them of atrocities?
In my opinion, Arkin is the ingrate. End of story.
If you are defending the right of people to speak out against the war - I'm for that - so are all the soldiers I know. What I refuse to accept is the ungratefulness of a desk jockey who sits in his air conditioned office and derides the troops for receiving too many amenities, for suggesting that the meager benefits they receive in return for the sacrifice are spoiling them.
The anti-military movement masquerading as a healthy dissent with policy may be fooling some people, but I'm not one of them, and while I respect you as an individual, I won't let you get away with suggesting that there is not a strong disdain for the military at the root of many of the anti-Iraq movements.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 10:52 AM — (Reply)
And maybe I should have said so in my first post, but I don't care much for Arkin or his snarky attitude either. He has a point I'll agree with, but it's buried beneath a pile of bullhockey that smells foul, and gets nowhere.
Spitting is major-league uncool, though what the heck was Joshua Sparling doing spitting back? Doesn't excuse whoever spat "at the ground near" him, but the fact that he spat back doesn't make him much of a hero in my book, either.
I've heard some recent stories, but I can't help but be suspicious about the motivations and truth behind some of them.
Now, you asked, "do you think soldiers shouldn't be allowed to say they don't feel supported by people who spit on them, burn their uniforms, and accuse them of atrocities?" but the point that I got out of Arkin's snipy little bit of tripe was repeatedly this line:
"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." That quote is from Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, but it is paraphrased to some degree or another in the other quotes in the article. And that is really what I wanted to ask you about, Cate.
The whole spitting, raping, whatever stuff, I was hoping we could set aside to the more militants in our respective camps. I wanted your opinion- is it possible to support the troops, but not support the war? Because in some people's minds, perhaps in Staff Sergeant Sahagun's mind, that simply isn't the case.
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/01 @ 01:24 PM — (Reply)
Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but in the middle of a rape is no time to discuss birth control with the victim. And it's no way of showing "support". If liberals really believe that a travesty is happening, then end it. How about sending money, goods and services overseas in an effort to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure so that the Iraqis have something worth fighting for?
Our servicemembers deserve real support. If you hate the mission and want us out of Iraq then get with the program and help them complete the mission. Organize, send supplies. Send humanitarian aid to the Iraqis, lobby corporations to send more civilians over to build schools, roads, and libraries.
Instead of defacing the capital with graffiti and burning Bush in effigy, all surprisingly (eye roll) less than effective techniques for political change, do something to change the world.
Why aren't Barbara Streisand and her liberal hollywood friends spending their millions to feed, clothe and house the Iraqis who they believe are suffering? Why isn't Michael Moore making movies in Arabic to counter terrorist propaganda?
I'm completely down with the idea of ending the war in Iraq and I love the idea of winning hearts and minds through compassionate service but that takes more effort, dedication and longevity than some Americans can stomach. We have to overrun the place with freedom and give every Iraqi enough security to seek the liberty every human being craves. Personally, I think we have underdone this mission for a long time now and the longer anti-war Americans behave as if Iraqis don't deserve to be free, the less secure they are bound to feel and the less supported our troops feel.
Where are all those spokespeople for human and civil rights on the left? Those are qualities to which many of your fellow liberals lay singular claim. Why don't they care about Iraqis? No, they're busy throwing rocks through the windows of recruiting centers and hosing down the ROTC buildings on college campuses with fake blood.
So don't mind me if I kick the soapbox out from under Susan Sarandon but these anti-war liberals don't want our boys home, they just want Bush's head on a platter.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 02:10 PM — (Reply)
Only thing that came to my mind, is I have vague recollections of some charities that sprang up last year or so, designed for the sort of things that you described. Sadly, I can't find any reference to them now, so this might all be poor memory on my part. However, as I recall, a few of those charities were slapped with accusations of "aiding and abetting the enemy," though I sincerely can't recall if those were actually government charges or just media (Faux, I mean Fox, News) jingoism.
Or maybe it was Palestinians. Wish I could recall- sorry.
I completely applaud your suggestions, though it would probably come across as self-serving and diseingenuous if Ms.Sarandon or Mr.Penn started publicly declaring where their charitable contributions have gone.
In general, they'd be better served to just smile, wave for the cameras, and leave the politics to the politicians. After all, noone asks Bush, McCain, Clinton or Obama who they think should win an Oscar, right?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 10:41 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 10:43 AM — (Reply)
With all due respect,
At what point does disagreement with policy and strategic decisions made by the upper echelon become distinct with criticism of the enlisted soldiers following there commands? Is there any place at all for discourse over military operation, or is any discussion that runs contrary to marching in line with the orders in place sour the morale of our military?
There is no doubt that the Confederate soldiers who marched with Pickett on his infamous charge were brave beyond reckoning. It is also pretty clear (to me, at least) that Pickett's Charge was a foolhardy mistake. But if I say that Pickett's Charge was a bad decision on Lee's part, have I shown disrespect to the thousands of brave Confederate soldiers who undertook the assault??
If someone had spoken up, and questioned the collective wisdom of Operation Market Garden, could the disaster at Arnhem have been avoided? Or was it better for everyone to remain quiet, lest they show disrespect to all the hard-working infantry, paratroopers and armor brigades who undertook the "Bridge Too Far" scenario?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/01 @ 11:35 AM — (Reply)
How about encouraging them to abandon their commitments in favor of assinating superior officers? Would you call that crossing the line? How about attacking them on the street and calling them baby killer while you bludgeon them? Is that alright?
You want to fight Washington, buy yourself a lobbyist, join George Soros, picket, protest, whatever, but don't defend the indefensible treatment some in uniform have received. The only person you delude when you try to wrap that kind of abuse in the constitution is yourself.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 12:01 PM — (Reply)
You ought to know me enough to know that I despise the demonization that occurs on BOTH sides. Too often the argument seems to go "YOU HATE AMERICA, TRAITOR!" or "YOU KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, FASCIST!" To think that I'd support or defend anyone spitting on someone else... well, bums me out to think you see me that way.
My brother did a stint in Iraq, and may very well be part of this 20,000 surge. Yes, I think the 'surge' is a mistake, for reasons I posted over on my own blog... but for kicking ass and chewing bubblegum, noone can beat my brother. Oh, and watch out- he's all out of bubblegum!
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/01 @ 01:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/01 @ 02:11 PM — (Reply)
Did you happen to read the President Bush interview by their editorial board in today's WSJ ?(don't tell anybody I know it even exists much less read it)
The surge is at least an idea. The same House committee that grilled and approved the new Iraq on the ground military chief whose opinions mirror the President's now take the opposite view than when the committee approved him. The WSJ seemed to find this ironic as did of course the President.
Who knows what tomorrow will bring. One thing is pretty much for sure. By the end of the year, the vast majority of our military will be out of Iraq.
Regarding Iran, everyone talks about the President attacking. What if Iran attacks our military is Iraq?
I am still sticking to my position that no one really knows what all of those varying interests and ethnic backgrounds over there really think or want or whether they even know or care.
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/01 @ 04:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/01 @ 04:59 PM — (Reply)
On your recommendation, I read the WSJ interview. Interesting, though there were a few softballs tossed to him, you have to admit. :)
As for the Senate and David Petraeus... I listened to some of that testimony live on the radio. The Senators expressed their concerns, called him out on a few questions, but fundamentally, they were not there to vote on the president's plan. They were there to vote on whether or not Petraeus was a capable man to take the role the President had appointed him for. I don't think anyone felt that Petraeus was less than a fully competent, preeminently qualified general with the full faith and trust of the President he will be serving... and that's why he was unanimously promoted to his fourth star.
I don't see any irony in that.
I agree, the surge is an idea. But it's not as if the President was without ideas. There was the whole Iraq Study Group's report, that was chock full of ideas. He just didn't happen to like any of the ideas, one of which (engaging Syria and Iran in dialog) would actually have gone a long way to your final concern about figuring out just who all the players are, and what they might want.
He is the decider. He gets to decide. He is the President of the United States, and I do believe that he is acting in what he thinks is this nation's best interests. I don't happen to agree with him, but next time he asks me, I'll be sure to let him know. :)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 11:04 AM — (Reply)
The question is what will either liberals or conservatives do when Iran finally goes what everybody agrees is too far. Then the question will be whether conservatives or liberals decided that what they all initially agreed on and supported was all wrong from the beginning. Sound familiar?
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/02 @ 08:08 PM — (Reply)
The 'suspense' in Iraq was not whether we could reach Baghdad and take out Saddam. The suspense was/is whether a nascent democracy is able to prosper in this region. If we leave by chopper, with gunfire in the air... well, honestly, that seems like the direction Bush is taking us down.
Iran, far more than any other nation in that region is simultaneously our best hope and worst potential enemy. Iran has -already- gone too far, and we ought to be asking what can be done NOW. Bush's answer seems to be wait and do nothing. Because that's worked so well with North Korea, right?
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/05 @ 04:36 AM — (Reply)
BTW I've been called a baby killer.
SPIT!
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/02/01 @ 02:01 PM — (Reply)
Yoiks- you almost hit me with that one!!
Well, I don't think you're a baby killer, EB. You're an honorable man who served your country to the best of your ability, I'm sure.
For whatever that's worth...
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 11:10 AM — (Reply)
Dear friends,
Today at 6 am the U S ARMY repositaives knocked on my ex wife's door, to inform her that her son ( my step-son ) was killed in the line of duty. I still strongly feel that our Country is doing the right thing. I received a email from Allen the day he went out on patrol. One thing he wrote me that is still in my mind was this; "It's not so bad here, specially when you see the smiles on the little kids eyes when you give them candy or water." i would apprecate it if you will not send jokes to me that are anti-america, anti-presdient, anti-war ..ect........ He did not die for nothing, but for his God, country, and our freedom. If you would remember us in your prayers...........
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/02 @ 11:42 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/02 @ 11:53 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2007/02/05 @ 06:18 PM — (Reply)
Hey cate check this out
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2007/02/02 @ 11:54 AM — (Reply)
To get back to one of your earlier points, no one doubted whether or not the cause in France and Europe was to be pursued. So your observation about Operation Market Garden refers to tactics and procedures, the comparison with the Iraq war opposition fails to hold up. The same for Pickett's charge, the argument is over tactics, not the value of the cause.
In fact, in each case the debate was about whether or not to make an end run (outflank) or a frontal assault. In both cases an enemy was arrayed across a broad front and in each case a different choice was made. Both failed. Should we have walked away from France or Virginia?
A better comparison would be to the Revolutionary war. We have citizens in the country who are in such strict opposition to the war that they aid and abet the enemy. We have citizens who have enlisted in jihad and others who fund the very IEDs killing our soldiers.
Do you remember 1776? We lost Long Island, Harlem Heights, Valcor Island, White Plains, Fort Washington. We were forced from Canada. Members of Congress were calling for George Washington to be fired. Sound familiar?
Should we have abandoned the revolutionary cause because the price was high and the war too long? Remember, it was a very unpopular war. It took 8 years to defeat the British and then they came back and took our capital in 1812. Was it worth it? Do you really believe that Iraq will be less challenging?
90 second commercials and 30 minutes headline news cycles have turned us into a nation of ADHD sufferers who want constant change. If the picture on the tube doesn't alter quickly enough, we put a new video game in change channels. But our enemies do not live in the hypnotic, fast paced world of Wii. And they are fighting with a level of patience most Americans cannot comprehend. We cannot run a war based like stock market day traders.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/03 @ 09:25 AM — (Reply)
I was wondering if you were going to point out the seeming discrepency in scale. I was going to include that in my first post, but then realized that no- it's not a difference in scale.
For really- why are we in Iraq at all? Iraq is merely an operation in the greater "War on Terror." And as such, asking whether Operation Iraqi Freedom is a good tactic, as compared to Operation Enduring Freedom, is analogous.
There might be a few far lefties who think we shouldn't be fighting terrorism, but the bulk of what you'll hear is "Afghanistan- yes, Iraq- no." So, Cate, yes- the question of Iraq is one of outflank vs. frontal assault. Invading Iraq was a frontal assault- in the wrong direction!
If you want to make the analogy to the Revolutionary War, then I'll try... for from our current perspective, we are France of the 18th century. The "War in Iraq"/"American Revolution" is merely one branch of our "War on Terror"/"War Against Britain." We can and should 'help rebuild'/'help defeat Britain' the new small democracy, but we should not devote too much of our energy there. Ultimately, that small nation is going to have to run things on its own.
Oh, and since you know your history, you'll recall that it was the debt the crown racked up in those 18th century wars (of which our revolution was merely one 'operation'), that led in large part to the French Revolution. Should we talk about the $8 billion a month we're pouring into Iraq??
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/05 @ 04:01 AM — (Reply)
Huh? Now you're arguing that in this analogy, Iraq is part of the overall war on terror but 9/11 was an attack on the Eiffel tower?
Michael, you injected the historical analysis, and it is fun to try and make comparisons but we both know that every analogy breaks down when faced with scrutiny.
The point remains however that leaving Iraq will only strengthen our enemies. And despite all the compaining and politicking, I'm hearing very little in the way of actual plans other than 'stay the course'. So when someone ponies up a suggestion that resembles a plan for a resounding victory, I will shift my support from the Bush plan. Leaving the job half done by placing responsibility on a fledgling government that is still incapable of defending itself from within and without is just asking for a Gulf War III.
Let's end this thing the only way we can - with a resounding defeat of every terrorist network we find and a strong, democratic ally in Baghdad.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/05 @ 09:43 AM — (Reply)
I'm so tired of the conservative's echoing refrain "We don't hear any other plans out there." No, I don't agree with all the points in this report, but to say that there are no plans out there is utter hogwash when it's available at any library, bookstore, or downloadable by the internet... and paid for by government dollars!
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/05 @ 11:20 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/05 @ 04:12 PM — (Reply)
We've got a group of politicians telling us that government registration of non-governmental groups should not lead to government censorship or an extension of government power and in the US we've got the ACLU fighting to keep the Boy Scouts from using the school gym after hours and we threaten churches who endorse candidates (republican ones anyway).
They want to include Baathists in the government again - uhhhh - that's already happening.
We could pick this thing apart sentence by sentence but the simple truth is that the report is nothing more than politicobabble.
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/05 @ 04:23 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2007/02/05 @ 06:54 PM — (Reply)
Comment by jim— 2007/02/03 @ 11:09 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/05 @ 04:47 PM — (Reply)
When the issue is just too complicated for little minds to understand, bring out Hitler and Chamberlain. That'll show 'em!
Comment by Michael— 2007/02/05 @ 08:14 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2007/02/06 @ 06:44 AM — (Reply)