Rockheads, below, you will find a blog entry from William Arkin of the Washington Post. I must give credit where it is due, I have read some of Arkin's writings and found them to be generally well informed, articulate and sometimes interesting, others not.
But, in the case of his blog "Troops Should Also Support The America Public" Arkin strikes me as a big baby. As a man who "got mad" at the troops because they had the nerve to express an opinion about the lack of support from the folks back home. As you read this incredibly ill advised blog, keep in mind that Arkin is a professional journalist, working at newspaper with a global readership and a good amount of influence. I think that Arkin's blog is more damaging then he realized.
One thing that I hoped that America would be able to avoid regarding the war in Iraq is an us versus them mentality i.e. an anti military movement against Soldiers. It appears that intended or not, Arkin's ill advised words have moved us one step closer to that catastrophe.
I would advise Mr. Arkin, that the I believe the vast majority of America does support the troops in so far as they will not tolerate a journalist using his position to attempt to discredit them. In fact, I think a good number of Americans are downright protective of their troops. From the number of responses his blog prompted, I'd say that is logical assumption.
If you are going to blog about the troops Mr. Arkin, weigh your words carefully and never presume, assume or guess.
I might add that this has turned into a running event. William Arkin has updated his blog in the attempt to explain why he was so critical of our troops and why he used the pejorative term "mercenary" to describe them, but I'd say he has a lot more to answer for than that. For his blog was more than inflammatory, it was divisive and even hurtful. If your going to blog like this Mr. Arkin, you should expect such responses, like they say. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.
I recommend reading his blog entries of Jan 30, 31 and Feb 1. His original attack on the troops, his condescending response to the hundreds of angry responses he received, and his attempt to explain why he did it.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
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.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my 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.
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.
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 don't see very many "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?
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.
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 naive 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.
Pretty incredible stuff huh? And some people wonder why the main stream media has such a terrible reputation.
No comments:
Post a Comment