MSM Screed of the Day- Washington Post
 

I would respectfully suggest that anyone who actually subscribes to the Washington Post read this and consider whether you want to pay for this "journalism".

I would also recommend that Arkin, a known America-hater, wake up and get a clue as to what these "mercenaries" buy for him with their blood.

TR


http://blog.washingtonpost.com/early...to_suppor.html

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

The Troops Also Need to Support the American People

I've been mulling over 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 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 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.

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.

By William M. Arkin | January 30, 2007; 8:51 AM ET

Washington Post
 

Add the New York times with the Washing Post as toilet paper. :mad:

TR:

Thanks for posting this. It's about what I would expect from the Washington Post.

"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 have yet to see a decent wage paid to soldiers who go in harm's way, especially the junior enlisted. Taking care of the families usually comes from within the military community - not the civilian sector. We've always tried to take care of our own. It's been a while since I've seen post housing, but it usually was a step or two ahead of being declared uninhabitable. And I would damned well like to know what obscene amenities our troops get.

Jeeze - this guy really gets to me. I'd like for him to spend some quality time with our troops to see what life's really like. I better quit now before my blood pressure spikes!

Get ready for more of this.

Now that it is widely believed that OIF is "unpopular", the leftists are going to come out of thier shells. They believe, now, that since the Flags have came of the porches the world should learn about their opinions of the Military. They are looking at this past election as an "All Clear" signal to getting back to espousing America is always wrong and that servicemen arn't all that smart or they would not have signed up in the first place.:rolleyes:

That's a pretty amazing four year career.

He's also is or has been...

Adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies.

Director of military research for Greenpeace International (Gulf War).

Military adviser to the second "Harvard Study Team," Iraq (Survey, effects of bombing on the civilian population.)

Consultant to Human Rights Watch, Iraq, Lebanon and Yugoslavia. (Effects of weapons and warfare on civilian populations).

thememoryhole.org/war/gulf-secret04.htm

All that and he's a prolific writer and a talking head for the media, how does he find the time.

This is what happens when the consequences of losing are not apparent to the American people. When the only group "paying a price" are service members and their families. This is something I blame on the administration. They've made every effort to "reduce the impact" and obscure the "clash of cultures" and now they're reaping the rewards: an ignorant, disinterested, uninvolved, resentful populace, easily swayed by pundits appealing to their baser instincts. We need another "Great Communicator" and a lot of treason trials. My .02 - Peregrino

Peregrino:

Gotta agree with you there.

Curious that the same MSM source would also run this cartoon.

Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

TR

That's a great find, TR! :D

Maybe, just maybe, our service members are young and un-contaminated with liberal bilge garbage. And possibly, if it weren't for this hippie and others like him, we might be able to make some progress above and beyond where we currently are, and return home.

What a jack-legged assh@le.

Absolutely right! But just to be clear, that doesn't take away one bit from this idiot's responsibility for his own words! (not implying that's what you meant)
This guy needs to remember who defends that 1st amendment that he is hiding behind!
-NotMe
:mad:

Got it backwards. The American public should be grateful to our soldiers. I don't even know what drugs you have to be on to see things any other way.

I guess, then, that since Jayson Blair plagarized and fabricated for the New York Times, all journalists are bad. And, since when did offering support and prayer constitute indulgence? If that's his definition of indulgence, then I'd hate to see what his definition of duty is.

Hipshot already covered this very well. I'll show it again because it just gets more unbelievable every time I read it (like "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi" or "Hillary Clinton, Presidential Candidate").

The only mercenary I see here has a keyboard and a warped perception of reality, Mr. Arkin.

Finally,

We sure do, Mr. Arkin. We sure do.

Bandy

If he's gonna bitch about what soldiers are paid, why doesn't he look at what Congress and the Senate get paid, and the fact that one term in either House or Senate qualifies that person for the highest wage paid during their tenure - for life.... without ever having to step into the fray, and without all the perks like being able to vote down an 8% pay raise every year, free transportation, and PACs throwing more money at them. A senator starts at $180k IIRC, add in the benes - and you could field about 10 private soldiers for a year. would this shitbag be able to live and support his family on what an average soldier makes? Would he do the job the soldier has volunteered to do to protect his ability to spout crap? Military families are taken care of properly? Housing? Support Systems? Medical Care? Obscene Amenities? What friggin planet is he living on - must be a hallucination.

I guess I'm agreed with HipShot.

Well guys and Gals - this is who we protect.

***RANT OFF***

Wow that guy does a good job of infuriating people. Lots of shock and awe.

on target. fire for effect.

This is an op-ed piece, right? Or is it published as a news story or editorial of the paper?

Do we not have a historical suspicion of the "standing army" in this nation?

What do you think is going to happen when you declare a "war on" [insert subjective phrase] and ask nothing of the people?

It is from his Blog at the Washington Post. IMHO, it is the single most vile op-ed that I have read in a long time. Not only did he denigrate every man and woman currently in uniform but the tens of millions that came before them.

Well, Molly Ivins is gone now, so maybe he felt he had to pick up her slack.

TR

Geez, what an assclown.

I know the reason every one of us joined the military was to get rich. Heck, I'm just ROLLING naked in all the cash I'm raking in as a Guardsman!

Joe-Boo is right. Seems like a lot of liberal chuckleheads are coming out of the woodwork lately.

It is only going to get worse as the push grows to quit and run!

Nightmares of years ago gone by..........the peace nicks, socialist, and communists will do it again.....

Jim

I have just read the finest rebuttal on that site I think I have ever read.

If this does not find traction with him and the rest of the self-loathing, America-hating libs, then they are not Americans.

God Bless you, Sir.

Thanks you for your service.

TR


Mr. Arkin-

I am an officer in the United States Army. I have deployed to Iraq twice, and been wounded once. I have had my soldiers killed and wounded, I have killed and wounded other human beings. I have carried wounded soldiers and civilians in my arms; crying in pain. I myself am permanently physically damaged by my experience.

Through all those events, I never shed a tear. Yet I sit here today crying; reading your original article and your rebuttal to the overwhelming response.

I am proud of what I do, what my soldiers do, the freedoms we defend, and everything we stand for. I proudly defend your right to publish your article, and it actually warms my soul to see free debate and discourse about any topic, because this is the only nation in the world where such completely unbridled discussion and opinion rage on in an organized fashion. That is the United States I am proud of, the one that has given me so much.

I decry and am ashamed of my fellow warriors who have lost their thin veneer of civilization and chosen to engage in the atrocities committed in Iraq. May God have mercy on their souls.

I have chosen to shelve my right to have an opinion on the war in Iraq. I support our effort to help the Iraqi people, depose Saddam, and promote a free(er) Iraq. Are we (or can we) still doing that? I don't know anymore. I have an opinion, but it is too visceral to be truly rational anymore, so I keep it to myself.

Overall, it does not matter. My country, almost unanimously, asked me to refresh the tree with my blood in Iraq/Afghanistan 6 years ago. That was this country, by referendum. As my country comes to terms with what she has done, and possibly chooses a different path, I will soldier on. I will guide and inspire my Soldiers to do the same. But, it saddens me to see so many of my brothers and sisters killed and maimed, only to find out my country either didn't mean it or had no stomach for it.

None of these are the reasons I cry. I cry for the lack of purpose, the apparent lack of caring, the lack of compassion you displayed in your original article and in this subsequent failure to apologize to me, my fellow warriors, and all those who came before me. Here's why.

1. I am not a mercenary. You could make me work two jobs and this would still be one of them, because I am that passionate about defending you and your rights. Many in the National Guard and Reserves do just that. My country needs professional warriors to do her bidding, and he is me, and thousands like me.

2. I have the right to express my opinion within the bounds of the UCMJ, as do my Soldiers. How dare you imply that I do not, or that I should reprimand them? We already accept an abbreviated set of rights willingly. Do not attempt limit my liberties that I have already willingly limited while I defend without complaint the unabridged version you are so rightly entitled to.

3. As an officer, my needs are met. However, in the three months leading up to my first deployment and the entire 13 month adventure, my pay amounted to 173 cents an hour. My friends and I logged our hours as a joke, but $1.73 is the reality. That equates to 19-20 hour days, 7 days a week, for 16 months. That's with the relatively lavish bonuses and benefits we receive while deployed. And I am an officer. Think of our junior enlisted, and find someone else in our great country that is willing to work so hard, day and night, no weekends, under fire, threat of death over their head, for so little? Find me one and I will retract this comment graciously. Of course, even when not deployed, it takes my wife and me quite some time to get through the line at the grocery store. That's because we get in line behind one of my fellow warriors, who with shame in their eyes and faces flush with embarrassment fill out their WIC paperwork because they don't make enough to support their wife and two kids (an average sized family).

4. This response is taking an inordinate amount of time to type, because I have only one functioning hand after being wounded in Iraq. I am trying as quickly as possible to use the medical system your (and my) taxes paid for to recover, so I can go back to Iraq and continue to fight for what you don't believe in, because I believe in you and my Soldiers. Still, I count myself lucky, as I received my Purple Heart next to a 19-year old warrior with both his legs amputated above the knee. No matter how wrong the majority feels the decision was at this juncture, that Soldier gave (I use the word gave deliberately) his legs at his nation's calling. Not for money. Not because he was too stupid to get into college. Not for the great benefits. Just because you asked him to. Please don't imply that this fallen hero is not entitled to the basic medical care he receives.

5. Given the opportunity, I would fight the Germans in 1944. Oh, to have that definition of purpose, that sense of righteousness! But, that is not to be. This is the war that this country has chosen for me, my peers, and my Soldiers. With its vagueness, dirtiness, ambiguity, undefined enemy, amorphous center of gravity, and undefined purpose. The actions of our administration, the decisions higher-echelons of our military, the blunders of the CPA, (I could go on) etc. aside; it comes back to one thing. America chose this fight for me, and I will fight it with all my skill and might until she tells me to stop. The woes and throes of the majority, hawks, doves, liberals, neocons, etc. mean nothing to me or those Soldiers you quoted. What matters to us is that you told us to be there, 3000+ of our brothers and sisters have died there, and we are still there. Change that - in reality, not in the abstract - and we will gladly leave and prepare ourselves for the next challenge and opportunity to defend your freedoms.

I am a Warrior, a Soldier, a Scholar, and a Patriot. This country has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to train and educate me. I am well-versed in our government, our demographics, our history, and our Constitution. Perhaps I am an idealist. To the end of my life or capability I will defend your rights and this country. I am proud that I live in a country where a free-thinker such as you can write an article so critical of current policy. But I am deeply hurt by the insinuations and accusations listed above. I request an apology, on the behalf of all the Armed Forces, for your insensitive and boorish comments. I only wish I could communicate with your entire readership the bitter taste of betrayal that is in my mouth as easily as you communicate your speech and thoughts.

With Respect,

A United States Army Officer
"Army Strong"

Posted by: Army Officer | February 1, 2007 05:25 PM

I shed a tear reading that, and this line above got me as well.

I think this is the original video Arkin refers to:

Robert Engel: NBC Report from Iraq

That is one incredible response by the Army Officer to the oxygen thief who wrote that piece. God bless him.


As for the genetic debris that wrote the blog entry....well....I'd make a trucker blush if I wrote what I was thinking.

That rebuttal was eloquent, intelligent, passionate, and right on target.

Doesn't get any better than that.

God bless and keep you, sir.

Bandy

And the winner, of this year's Nobel "Some People You Just Can't Reach" Award.:rolleyes:

William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security

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.

What I've heard ever since my article "The Troops Also Need to Support the American People" was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.

I never said we shouldn't support the troops. I just lamented that "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?"

Thousands have written telling me to "shut up and quit whining," that the troops do support the American people - "with their lives."

I can't respond to everyone individually - keep the cards and letters coming though, I do read them - but I'll try to tease out of the comments some themes that confirm in my mind the difficult state that this impossible war has put us.

TR writes "you're an America hater and a friend of our enemies."

JS writes that "this country is in the fight of its life. Terrorists are attempting to establish a world-wide caliphate. And you tell us we DON'T need to stop them."

And adds MEJ: "Cowards like you guarantee that my grandchildren will be fighting a war someday because we of the generation were too cowardly and comfortable to be honest about the world around us."

These are opinions about the war in Iraq and the "war" against terrorism. They aren't facts. I understand people need to believe that the United States is engaged in a grand and noble mission to continue to support the deaths and sacrifices being made by American forces. Nonetheless, there is also an equally valid opinion that not only is the United States NOT involved in some fight for our lives in Iraq but that our military actions merely increases and complicates our insecurities tomorrow.

An army Major with the 1st Cavalry in Baghdad writes: "there is no way to accurately opine about the war unless you've been on the ground."

KJ (and many others) adds that I am just "sitting in the lap of luxury that is the United States."

Again, I understand the frustration of those in uniform and the supporters of the war. But these are not the only people who have a valid opinion, and there is great danger for the nation - as Bush-Cheney and company have already demonstrated - when people arrogate to themselves the sole determinant to make a judgment about national security.

The Army Major goes on to say that "soldiers -- unlike journalists -- have values inculcated from the very beginning of basic training."

D speaks of "last week's leftist freak show in D.C." to describe anti-war protest.

KC questions how I could jeopardize the "safety and morale of those who lay their young and noble lives on the line for you and your ilk."

Too many to count denounced me (and my ilk) for being elitist, arrogant, exclusive, a Washington a@$*hole or worse, above-it-all, and superior.

Given that I spent so much of my time in this column every week railing about Washington myself, the dismissal is hilarious. But there is such contempt for civil society in these words and I wonder where it comes from?

As the Major says, something is inculcated into the minds of military members from day one of duty. It is not just defense of the Constitution, it is also unanimity of thought and an unwavering regard for hierarchy. Without this, you can't have a military and you can't expect human beings to go against their instincts to put their lives on the line.

I'm not saying that this makes people in the military automatons, or that they are stupid. But this unanimity of thought and this absolute allegiance to a hierarchy of ideas is and should be foreign in the civilian world. That's what makes the two different.

I hesitate to describe the military "attitude" about the world, or to even apply some negative connotation to the assertion that the military, from the Pentagon on down to the lowest platoon assumes a singular worldview.

But Major TW from Baghdad describes the world as he sees it and condemns me for my dissent:

"Iraq is only a mistake if, like Vietnam, we don't finish the job. Your sloppy logic at the end of your piece belies your agenda. You write Iraq, 'is not some necessary endeavor, the people just don't believe that anymore.' Would invading Europe in 1944 been a "necessary endeavor" if the American people had not believed it? How about maintaining West Berlin in the 1970s? And what about Somalia in the 1990s? Pulling out following the Blackhawk Down incident arguably emboldened bin Laden and played a hand in 9/11. With the benefit of hindsight should we have stayed? Even if it cost more American lives it might have saved 3000 years later."

The Major asks a terrific question as to what it says about our society that 3,000 lives are not considered "worth it" and I'll develop some thoughts on this in the future.

But what does it say about our current political and military leadership?

Bush and company, and the Abizaid's, Casey's, and Petraeus's have had years to make their case to the American people that the threat is so great and the mission so noble that the sacrifice is worth it. They clearly have failed to make their case and that is why the majority of Americans no longer support the war.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform.

By William M. Arkin | February 1, 2007; 9:39 AM ET |

Pardon me for saying so, but this arrogant, ungrateful son of a bitch needs a LAPES parachute ride into the Communist or Islamic paradise of his choice.

And to think that the MSM actually pays an "American" to write this crap.

TR

Thanks, TR!


Jim

Geez, this guy just doesn't know what to shut his pie-hole, does he?

He will for six to eight weeks when he meets the wrong GI or Marine who read his articles.:munchin

TR

"JS writes that "this country is in the fight of its life. Terrorists are attempting to establish a world-wide caliphate. And you tell us we DON'T need to stop them.""

Arkin writes:
"These are opinions about the war in Iraq and the "war" against terrorism. They aren't facts. "

Wait... how can someone be so stupid as to say terrorists are not trying to start a world-wide caliphate... :confused: thats there playbook in a nutshell

Mr. William M. Arkin wrote in his rebuttal:
"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."

Hmmmmmm......... Maybe he needs to read the oath that every serviceman takes when they enter their respective service (variation for Guard units):

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

For those of us who believe in Duty, Honor, and Country, maybe having gone in harm's way and survived makes us appreciate the freedoms which others take forgranted. We ask for nothing special - just a little respect for stepping forward to do what out Country says needs to be done.

I do take exception to being called "anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen". The Green Beret that I and others have been honored to wear was authorized by a Democrat, liberal President of the United States - John F. Kennedy. I might be more understanding of journalists if they would report things accurately and not just those things that make headlines and sells newspapers. As for being anti-dissent, we are the ones who guaranteed their right to dissent. I certainly do not agree with everything our national leadership has said and done. But saying that, let me also say that it is by consent of the people that our govenment does what it does. If we don't like something, we have the right - or better yet, the Duty - to speak out and do something about it. We have that opportunity coming up in 2 more years. We are not anti-citizen. We, or at least myself, see things a little different from those who have never served in the military. That does not make us better or worse than them - just different. But we do what we've done and are doing for all of the citizens of our country.

Maybe I'm not as articulate as some who have posted here (TR, you are my hero, you silver-tounged devil). I'm just a good ole boy from Texas who happens to believe in what our country stands for.

Oh, by the way, Mr. Arkin... If my son, currently serving in Iraq, is a mercenary, then I want him to get a pay raise! He needs it if he's going to defend your right to dribble sh*t from your mouth and slander him and the others serving in our Armed Forces.

A bit more on Arkiin's vitae: http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/gulf-secret04.htm

William M. Arkin is an independent writer, investigator, and consultant specializing in national security affairs. He is the "Dot.Mil" columnist for the Washington Post's online service and has written the "Last Word" column in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists since 1985. He is also a regular contributor to Defense Daily. He is an adjunct professor at the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Airpower Studies.

Arkin's interest in Iraq began when he was director of military research for Greenpeace International. During the Gulf War, he headed Greenpeace's war response team and co-authored On Impact: Modern Warfare and the Environment: A Case of the Gulf War (May 1991),which was the first comprehensive study of the war's human and environmental effects.

In August 1991, five months after the Gulf War ceasefire, Arkin traveled to Iraq as military adviser to the second "Harvard Study Team," which conducted a survey of the effects of bombing on the civilian population. He visited over 250 sites that had been bombed, and he subsequently briefed the finding of his on the ground bomb damage assessment to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the CIA and other intelligence agencies, the Air Force and Navy, as well as other military audiences. He returned to Iraq in February 1993 to complete his research, and conducted extensive interviews with Iraqi government and military leaders.

Arkin has written extensively about targeting and airpower, and he became a consultant to Human Rights Watch in 1995, where he continues to pioneer independent field work and research to investigate the effects of weapons and warfare on civilian populations. He has since conducted bomb damage assessments in Lebanon and Yugoslavia, most recently in August 1999 after Operation Allied Force. In 1998 and 1999, Arkin also served as an on-air analyst on military affairs for MSNBC and NBC during the bombings of Iraq and Yugoslavia. His work on Iraq and targeting has been featured on CBS' 60 Minutes, ABC's 20/20, NBC Nightly News, BBC, CNN, and the Discovery Channel.

Mr. Arkin is the author or co-author of several books, including SIOP: The Secret US Plan for Nuclear War (1983); Encyclopedia of the US Military; and, most recently, The U.S. Military Online (1998, 2nd edition). He also co-authored and co-edited the prestigious encyclopedia of nuclear weapons, the five-volume Nuclear Weapons Databook, undertaken by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Mr. Arkin served in the U.S. Army from 1974-1978, and was an assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence of the US Commander Berlin. He was engaged in a number of covert intelligence collection projects and was the primary intelligence analyst for the West Berlin command.

Prima Facia evidence of his being a traitorous punk.

After doing a brief profile I conclude that he;

1. Never made the cut for a competitive sport.
2. Lusted after cheerleaders, but could never get a date.
3. Kept getting his books knocked out of his hands in the school hallways.
4. Refused to shower after gym class.
5. Had one to two friends he played Dungeons and Dragons with on Friday and Saturday nights.
6. No mention in his high school yearbooks, with the exception of a class picture.
7. Wore a pocket protector.
8. Rode the bus to school, each and every day.
9. Only extra curricular activity was Drama Club.
10. Worked in the school cafeteria.

Apologies to Firebeef if this is a little too close to you, but at least you rode your bicycle to school each and every day!:D

Well said, Lawman.

Noted to add appropriate definition of positions and groups.

Wow, in my first four years in the Army, all I was able to was barely get trained and lead three platoons. I guess he went directly to field grade, rather than spending the first 3-4 years as an LT. Anyone else smell a little resume padding?

TR

I want to know what he did in the Army.... MOS? Rank? Schools? Active/Reserve/ARNG?

All that detail above - and But was he an assistant to DCSI-USCoB while he was in, or after - very vague - lots of grey in the CV here.

He would have likely been a Lieutenant and just possibly, a very junior Captain at the end. It would be a real stretch to have done this as a Private, Specialist, or Buck Sergeant. The titles don't track with enlisted positions.

Since it would appear that he was running HUMINT, I would guess him to have been a Military Intelligence officer.

I strongly suspect that COL Moroney would be familiar with the positions in Berlin at that time and may know who/what he was.

TR

I served in the U.S. Army from 1982 to 1987, and was an ASSISTANT to the Commanding General XVIII Airborne Corps..... I was his driver.

Hell yes this idiot is padding his resume. Regardless of his military/civilian education and experience, I think his writings are ignorant drivel.

Cool job?

A United States Army Officer


This is gut-wrenching to me as a civilian.

Maybe someone could arrange a little trip, for Arkin to a "special AO?"

Holly :mad:

Lindsay?

TR

Sir PM inbound

I think 112thSOLCA pegs it. He never says he was an officer. MI officers are not intelligence analysts. "Intelligence analyst" is an enlisted MOS. So he was a 96B (or whatever they were called in the mid-1970s) assigned to the Berlin Brigade. He probably served as a gopher, driver, whatever for the G-2 among other analyst jobs. Being a smart young enlisted soldier (and he's undoubtedly smart, even if his morals and judgment are open to question), he was able to do some interesting things during his hitch, but his current resume spins that to sound more important than it necessarily is.