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?