|
WaPo blogger attacks the troops, Lileks responds
I read, with a heavy heart, this WaPo blog entry by William Arkin, who handles the papers national and homeland security beat. (The distinction escapes me, at the moment.) The pith of the gist seems to be shut up and bleed, but Ive only read it once, and subsequent study might yield additional nuance. Go read it.This sticks out: 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. They ought to be damn glad we dont regard them all as man-stackers and baby stabbers, I guess. Every time theyre not spit upon in an airport, they ought to offer up a silent prayer. Noted. Then comes this: 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? As for the obscene amenities, I recall putting together that package to send to the troops a month ago. Foot and hand warmers were requested. I realize now they were just stockpiling those things in case the fancy propane-fired boots run low, and the fur-lined Gucci gloves get swiped by the locals. Fine. I heard the other day that some bases have fast-food outlets. They have a Subway stand. And you can just walk to it. Me, I have to drive. And find a parking place. And they dont give stamps anymore. I suspect the Subway stand in Iraq gives stamps. Right now Id imagine theres some guy whos paid a decent wage whose family back home in a nice house with freshly painted cinder block walls is sitting in his bunk (with a blanket he got for free, no doubt) licking the stamps that bring him ever closer to a free six incher. With meatballs. And he has the nerve to have an opinion about other peoples opinions. No, thats not fair; hes entitled to his opinion. But its another thing to express it. Its almost as if the actual troops think they have some sort of absolute moral authority to have an opinion, and this gives them the right to express themselves without considering the impact that might have on people who disagree. They do have a moral authority, but only when theyre killed, and it transfers immediately to the closest relative who disagreed with the mission. Oh, and we need the Fairness Doctrine to restore balance to the AM radio band. Dissenting voices are being stifled. Then comes this: 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. This is the most singularly incomprehensible passage I have read from a mainstream media journalist in my entire life. And Ive written a few that might win second place. I dont know where to begin. Hoovers? Hoovers? I write for a second-tier regional daily, and if I woke tomorrow to find Id posted that paragraph on a company blog I would open my veins in a warm bath. The coup de gracelessness occurs in the next paragraph: 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. Oops, indeed. That just slipped out. He temporarily forgot the patriotism that motivates many, and provides a definitional difference between mercs and volunteer soldiers, but thank God he caught himself in time. As for that dirty work, it is best understood in terms of soiled linen, which wives are ALWAYS complaining about. We dont do the laundry, we dont do it right, we mix the bloody clothes with the silk shirts, et cetera: 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. Dear lambs, confused by Robust Debate, thinking that the big package of letters from the elementary school back home means more than last Tuesdays editorial in the Times. One last blurt of unpunctuated insight: 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. You have your orders from the Posts muller-in-chief: commence pondering. Oh, and wed be talking about something different if we had a draft, which we dont, but somehow this all applies anyway. Did I mention Abu Ghraib? I did. Okay. Fine. Fricken Hoover. Hate that guy. Dont you? Posted by: Mike 2007-02-01 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=179286 |