Posted by
on Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:43:31 PM
I was s lightly behind in news coverage yesterday (homework and all, you know?) but as I perusing yesterday's blogs, I came across this from Captain Ed, and it is in regard to a the WaPo's in-house jer, er, blogger named Willaim Arkin. Mr. Arkin put together a rambling diatribe from January 30th. In this piece of trash, Mr. Arkin states: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 Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and 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, I am aware that a few of the normal moonbats we engage in the chat rooms have tried to defend this as a joke. Yes, yes; a joke much like John Kerry's idiotic statement that if you do not do well in school you will be sent to Iraq. Personally, I prefer that Mr. Arkin leave the humor to those better accustomed to it, like James Lileks or PJ O'Rourke. He is not, in any way, shape, or form funny. And that joke went over like a lead balloon.
Personally, I cannot buy the "joke" excuse. It is evident if one reads the entire post that Mr. Arekin is simply another of the MSM-affiliated,antiwar loonies. I am greatly offended at the insinuation that our soldiers are in any way mercenaries. My brother was one year away from graduating from law school, with a lucrative and satisfying career on the horizon. September 11th occurred, and like many men, he decided his country needed him more than any law firm did. He signed up in the Army, applied and was accepted for Ranger school, and he is currently serving in Afghanistan.
Now, Mr. Arkin claims that we pay our soldiers good money. My brother is an E-5--a three-stripe sergeant--and he makes a little over $48,000 a year (as of 2007 DoD figures). Because he is in a combat zone, he receives and extra $225 a month; an average of $2700 extra a year. BUT, they are required to deposit $10,000 a year into a special savings account, earning a guaranteed 10% interest per year. So, all in all, my brother makes as much as a middle management guy in an average corporation. He has no dependents here at home, so he receives no extra benefits from the Army. I seriously contest Mr. Arkin's idea that our troops are well-paid considering the job they have been asked to do as volunteers in our Armed Services.
These people are asked to do a virtually thankless job. All they ask is our support and the means with which to carry out their mission. They are not asking for the sun and the moon (like some idiot journalists proclaim). Does Mr. Arkin think that these people like having to be away from friends and family? Being shot at by someone not simply content with killing them, but desecrating their bodies, as well? If he thinks that then he is far more obtuse than I had initially believed.
Ironically, Mr. Arkin shows he knows nothing regarding the military. Not only does this rambling, barely coherent piece not acknowledge the truth of military personnel, and their lives, but he fails to note that he misuses the word "mercenary." A mercenry is a soldier who sells his skills to a nation that is not his own, and his loyalty is only guaranteed as long as the nation in question can meet his price. I am sure the troops would prefer to make much more money in the service for this nation. What Mr. Arkin fails to note is that we have a volunteer military where these people join, for the most part, out of a love of America, and an understanding that somebody must defend this great nation.
And he would be wise to mind his manners. The same people he calls mercenaries are the ones who are fighting to preserve his freedom to sound like an @$$. And yes, I do mean that. Regardless of his political ideology, he is an @$$; he need not be registered in that party to emulate its mascot. I can report that if you do read his piece (which I could barely stomach), I encourage you, ladies and gentlemen, to also read the comments. Unlike many on the Left, Mr. Arkin at least has the courage to allow comments. Granted, I do not know if he has actually read them. I am sure his next post will revolve around the "right-wing vitriol" within his comments.
Of course only someone on the Left would assume such a thing. The people commenting on his post take him to task for calling our troops mercenaries. And if I were the editor-in-chief of the WaPo, Mr. Arkin would have been in my office explaining himself. Sure, I would have allowed the piece to go forward, but I would have demanded he also print an apology to the families of soldiers overseas for slandering our troops in a most virulent way.
MarcieUPDATE: I failed to note that this was, as Allah put it--"the WaPo column heard ’round the blogospheric world". Mr. Arkin did not simply raise the ire of a couple of bloggers, but a good majority of the center-right blogosphere. And when we get mad, we do not simply opine. We start digging. And lo and behold, Ace of Spades,/li> has done precisely that.
Ace has dug up information regarding Mr. Arkin that the average reader NEEDS to know:
He broke the story that the Bush administration has ordered contingency plans for using nuclear weapons against seven countries and in certain battlefield situations.
He broke the story of a classified defense report outlining the obstacles to an American attack on Iraq.
He insists he's not a journalist.
In fact, he's an activist who works for the liberal group Human Rights Watch. He also does work for the Air Force. He's also an academic, an author, a newspaper columnist and a talking head.
From his home in the mountains of Vermont, William Arkin seems to have mastered one of the great juggling acts of the multimedia age -- persuading news organizations, advocacy groups and the Pentagon, through sheer smarts and a bulldog personality, to take him on his own terms.
"Sometimes I even write a story and get all of them mad at me at the same time," says Arkin, 46. "Any institution is uncomfortable with someone they don't control."
"The hydra-headed Arkin," as Doyle McManus, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, calls him, "is an interesting example of this new species of the crossover analyst. He can plausibly claim to be the country's leading civilian authority on aerial bombing, especially civilian casualties."
With an admission like this, one would think he works for the New York Times. But wait, it gets better:
In "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World," Arkin discloses and briefly defines 3,000 military code names.
Some of them are still classified. Each one represents a discrete dot in the ever-growing clandestine world of Delta Force and SEAL commandos, of spy satellites and electronic worldwide eavesdropping. Once fleshed out and connected, Arkin hopes, the dots will reveal the invisible world where billions of dollars have been spent to fight terrorism after Sept. 11, 2001, without the scantest of public debates.
This is Arkin's effort to challenge the wisdom of letting the government make so many crucial decisions in the dark.
"You either believe in democracy or you don't," said Arkin, the author of 10 other books and a columnist, military analyst and former Army intelligence officer who now works out of an office in Vermont . "There's no question that the fundamental problem that led to 9/11 was compartmentalization and secrecy -- government agencies hoarding information as power and not communicating with one another, even at the highest level."
What gives him the right to reveal classified information? Who the Hell does he think he is. I am SICK of journalists deciding that every man, woman, and child in America needs to know classified information that they do not need to know. There is a reason for having clandestine secrets like these. For Mr. Arkin, he may believe this to be some insane idea of patriotism, but I would rather not have our enemies knowing about things like this. THAT is why they are classified. Not because the governmen wants to keep secrets from its citizens, per se, but because the more people who know something, the greater risk in their divulgence.
Ace shows that he has worked with the Air Force. Were I in the DoD, I would terminate all connections to this man. What he has to offer is not wiorth the risk of having another covert operation or program blown. He says it is the secrecy that caused 9/11. That is noy entirely true. A working immigration and naturalization department would have stopped them dead in their tracks. They were here on expired visas, and had more than one run-in with authorities prior to 9/11.
It is now perfectly clear to many, including myself (and I am sure that Thomas will concur when he reads this post) that Mr. arkin has no real purpose in life other than to hurt this nation. He has disclosed secrets, he berates our troops and slanders them, and basically accuses our government of engaging in conspiratorial programs to control us. If the WaPo had wanted a conspiracy nut, they should have hired Art Bell. At least Mr. Bell would not have been revealing classified material in books and columns.
Marcie
UPDATE #2: The focus of Hugh's Weekly Standard piece from 2003 is an overview of who Willaim Arkin is, who has been affiliated with, and he gives a rundown of his attacks on Gen. Boykin. READ IT ALL. Also, John Hinderacker @ PowerLine weighs in on the entire Arkin piece in yesterday's WaPo blog. Michelle has rounds and screencaps of a few of his commenters. She also notes today that in response to the explosion of outrage across the blogosphere, he has doubled down with a screed entitled The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out:
Well, one thing's abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn't the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans -- who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.
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.
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.
I cannot speak for others, but I can assure our readers (and you may scroll back through this very lengthy piece) that never once did I tell him to shut-up, leave this nation, or "get f@$$d." (BTW Mr. Arkin, that last word has SIX letters in it, not five; I thought this guy was qualified to write for the newspaper. We may misspell a word int he course of a post, but not with a word so frequently used in society.)
On the contrary. My husband and I are Constitutional conservatives. The buck does not stop with Congress, the courts, or the president. It stops at the document that is the foundation and backbone of this nation. Mr. Arkin is perfectly free to sound off, and act like a complete @$$ is he chooses. That is his right. HOWEVER, it is also OUR right to call him out when he makes egregious mistakes in a post. (See above for my detailing of the approximate amount of my brother's pay in the US Army; hardly the "well-paid" people he insinuates.) And between Captain Ed, Allah, Ace of Spades, Hugh, Uncle Jimbo @ Balck Five, Op-For, BOTH posts from Michelle, John @ Power Line, Don Surber, Professor Reynolds, Charles @ Little Green Footballs, (twice),and Stephen Spruiell, I believe the point has been made that Mr. Arkin is not only out of line with his initial column, and his follow-up, but also that he is a simpleton hack writer who let his bias loose and free across his place at the WaPo. His apology for referring to the troops is half @$$ed, at best; utterly disingenuous, at worst.
And he should not be whining about the response he received. He should have known this sort of a response was going to come from families with members int he military, currently-serving soldiers, veterans, and the center-right blogosphere which has been nothing but supportive of the troops and the war effort. If he did not want this sort of attenmtion or response, he should not have slandered our troops in the first place.
Marcie
UPDATE #3: WELCOME Hugh Hewitt Readers! And to Answer Hugh's question regarding whether or not Mr. Arkin should be fired, absolutely. The post on the 30th of January was beyond the pale. His non-apology apology does not rectify the situation, which is his own arrogance responding to critics. Like those on the Left, Mr. Arkin has decided it is a better policy to offer a carrot, and counterattack. What he does not realize is, by definition, he has only proven our point.
His original screed showed that he lacked the intelligence necessary to make the argument he did, and it is because the facts DO NOT support his point. Instead of admitting his failings, he reached back into his decisively faulty ego, and rolled the dice that his response would be enough to end the criticism. That it may, but it will not come from his answer, which supplies noth8ing except more vitriol.
The criticism MAY end due to the fact that he has now proven to his critics that he is, quite literally and inarguably, a barking moonbat; a literal rebel without a clue.
From a business point-of-view, the WaPo needs to cut its losses, and let Mr. Arkin go. His diatribe was enough to bring out the big guns against him. If he does this again, those big guns will be back, and pressure will mount. If the WaPo thinks that it can handle the fallout, then by all means, do as he did, and double down. But to save their already falling numbers, it would be much smarter to cut their losses, and let him go.
Marcie