O'Reilly's latest obsession:
-------------

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywar ... uppor.html
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.

Thoughts?

War is awesome?

this is so ridiculous. people don't support the war because they care about these soldiers and don't want them fighting and dying in a useless war. supporting soldiers and supporting the war are two completely different things.

Heh, I thought it would be LeninFlux who would post this article.

Anyway:



This paragraph really answers all the questions and complaints he had in the rest of the article. Hell, I'd be frustrated too if I was compelled to do something that a lot of people thought was wrong. I think he's trying to make a big deal out of a common human reaction.

I also thought the mercenary comment was off the mark. If a soldier enlisted before the Iraq war, he really had no choice but to go there if he was deployed there.

Wow. This has got my blood pumping like it hasn't been since the likes of Cindy Sheehan. What a total bag of garbage. How on earth did the Washington Post publish this.

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 -

Fuck this guy.

I think mercenary is the wrong term. I also believe volunteer to be incorrect. I would refer to soldiers and their jobs as just that, their job. It is their chosen profession and they are compensated for it. Like all jobs, I am sure there is a reason they do their job besides the money. But most of them would not do it if they weren't being paid. I certainly love my job, but if I was not being paid, I wouldn't get up every day and come in.

One huge difference is that you can't quit this "job" as easy as you can other jobs.

William Arkin is a Liberal Scumbag.

Does this guy think that every soldier who volunteered after 9/11 did so just for the compensation and not because he or she wanted to defend this country?
And what about this - " [we] ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them." What the fuck is an "obscene amenity" to this fuck....a care package with DVDs and some munchies? What, does he think flat screen TVs are being shipped over? This guy is despicable.

William Arkin is not only an employee of the Washinton Compost, but he is also employed by NBC as a "military analyst." Nice to know their "military analyst" calls the troops "mercenaries."

Arkin aside, this is just another example of how far left NBC and trash papers like the Washington Compost have gone. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine. But don't sit at your computer and take a shit on the troops.

NBC and the Washington Compost needs to answer for this. Either disavow this mans comments (at the least) or fire him.

Fuck that noise.

The point of this piece is not to shit on the soldiers, although I agree that some of his comments were over the top. The point was to show that there are soldiers who are shitting on the people back home, mainly because those soldiers are not sophisticated enough thinkers to realize that one can simultaneously support the man without supporting the job.

I don't want to insult all soldiers based on teh idiotic comments of the three soldiers quoted in this piece, although I'm sure there are a LOT more than three, soldiers and civilians, who think exactly what thos soldiers said. But these are the comments of one who can't think past the concepts of "good" and "bad" and into subtleties in between. "You're either with us or you're against us." Moronthink. "You can't support the troops without supporting the war." Moronthink.

These soldiers don't even have the capacity to understand what it is that they are fighting for, so how can they criticise people for not supporting their "mission"? They're not smart enough to see when their leaders make strategic errors, or they are so "loyal" that they won't see any fault. Most likely, they are so devoid of purpose in the greater swath of their lives that if they were to allow the idea that their purpose in this war is completely full of shit into their heads, they wouldn't know how to handle it. So instead they don't even allow such thoughts to invade their myopically focused little minds.

Again, I'm not criticizing soldiers in general, just moronic soldiers (and others) who make moronic statements. They don't seem to grasp that one of the things that an American soldier should ALWAYS be fighting for PRIMARILY is the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, notably the freedom to speak out and criticize their government and its policies. But dissent is not seen as valuable to these men, merely loyalty, and as I've said numerous times, loyalty is for dogs.

Once upon a time, a great nation's army was utterly defeated in a war. The men came home, and many of the less sophisticated among them blamed their defeat on the people at home and their lack of will to win, even though the military loss was solely the fault of the leader who willed the country into an unnecessary and unwinnable conflict. Bitter about their humiliation, and angered at the democratically elected leaders who they blamed for diminshing their beloved fatherland's stature in the world, they organized to reestablish their country as a great power. To them, the glory of the nation was more important than any ideals for which the nation or its people may have stood for. Those who dissented and stood in opposition to the campaign to strengthen the country were branded traitors and removed from any position of power. Anyway, I'm sure you can see where this is going.

I don't know what it's like to be in a war zone, so I don't feel that I am qualified to tell a soldier how to do his job. But the soldiers in this article are clearly not qualified to criticise strategy or policy, whether that comes from the administration or from its critics.

No, it really is that simple. I don't think they want our support for them as human beings - they want to know whether or not what they are doing is worthwhile. If we pull out next week, then everything they did was for not - and it may well be. It wouldn't be their fault that their struggle in Iraq is hopeless - the blame for that sits squarely on the administration. Hell, even though this thing lacked any sort of justification, it may very well have been winnable. This is the thing we are dancing around - no one wants someone to tell them that their endeavor is a fools errand, and when you call for withdrawal, thats pretty much what you're saying, even if you are correct in your assesment that the situation is a loss.

It must suck to find that something you have invested years and effort and blood and sweat and tears into was fool's errand, but frankly, there have to be greater considerations than the personal feelings of the soldiers. As soldiers, they should understand that their opinions are subordinated to the greater good.

More fallout from William Arkin's blogged hitjob on the troops.
Ken Allard, NBC military analyst, severs ties with NBC news due to their hard turn to the left, Arkin's hitjob, and other left-wing agents at NBC....


Ken Allard: NBC sinks too low for this talking head
San Antonio Express-News

Like some second marriages and most Hollywood sequels, it's usually a bad idea for a columnist to revisit the same topic. But last week's discussion of renegade blogger and NBC military analyst Bill Arkin proved some larger points.

In case you missed it, Arkin characterized U.S. soldiers as "mercenaries" enjoying "obscene amenities" shipped into the war zone — pampered hirelings who then complain about declining public support for the war effort.

In reaction, many military people and their families wrote in. Some wondered why NBC would continue to give Arkin a platform for spreading slurs about our men and women serving in Iraq — and as volunteers rather than as mercenaries.

Soldiers treasure humor especially when angry, and a bittersweet correspondence followed about the nature of those supposedly obscene amenities. Did MREs count or, for that matter, heat-resistant Hershey bars with a shelf life measured in decades? What about interceptor body armor? A Marine lance corporal in Iraq reported that their tents were newly equipped with heaters: Did this mean they were pampered?

Writing for the National Review, Michael Ledeen argued this week that only "know-nothings" could call American soldiers mercenaries. "Our fighters are where they are because they believe in something bigger than themselves." And also because soldiers are members of a military community "where virtue does not equal narcissism."

Such communities are increasingly scarce, especially in certain precincts of our national media, where narcissism is apparently becoming a core value. Here, it is probably appropriate to note that for more than 10 years, I served as one of those military analysts you saw on NBC whenever international conflicts were looming.

NBC then was a network comfortably resonating to the rhythms of Tom Brokaw and the greatest generation. Especially after 9-11, our rivals at Fox and CNN scrambled for audience attention by recruiting their own military analysts — subsequently known as "Warheads." Especially for a post-draft nation where personal military service is increasingly rare, our band of TV brothers helped fill in some of the blanks about this new kind of war.

Being personally affected by the life-cycle of news stories, none of the Warheads was surprised to see our respective networks gradually reining in their coverage of the war as popular support waned. Audiences were wearying of a conflict with no end in sight, and, unlike the greatest generation, this one was being fought by Other People's Kids.

When you don't have skin in the game, war becomes a matter of sheer personal preference. Channel clickers are wielded, the soldier overlooked or, as we saw last week, even maligned as a mercenary without provoking a career-ending scandal.

It is, therefore, possible to argue that NBC is merely undergoing a delicate arabesque in anticipation of changing audience preferences and the long- hoped-for Democratic restoration (although journalists generally seem reluctant to raise the tough questions that should punctuate the 2008 campaign).

But has anyone else noticed the network's precipitous retreat from journalistic and ethical standards? Not only were no apologies given and no pink slips issued for Arkin's outburst, but on his MSNBC show last week, Keith Olberman went out of his way to defend this "valid criticism" of our military.

In January, Conan O'Brien was allowed to escape without apology after airing a particularly tasteless gay skit deriding Christianity: "Oh, Jesus, I love you, but only as a friend." (Just try doing that sometime using Mohammad's name!)

And only this week, questions have been raised about the cozy relationships between CNBC anchor Maria Bartiromo and the companies she covers as a supposedly objective journalist. The response by Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of GE and godfather of the NBC family: "Substantially, I don't think she did anything wrong."

Fine: Let's hope he's right. But sometimes the only way to show where you really stand is to vote with your feet. And so with great reluctance and best wishes to my former colleagues, with this column I am severing my 10-year relationship with NBC News.


http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/col ... 9ca78.html

Wow LeninFlux you used "hitjob" twice in two consecutive sentences. Ken Mehlman should be showing up to give you a medal anytime!

Hitjob...hit piece....smear blog....whatever.
Let me ask you, meatwad...do you agree with Arkin's assertions that the troops are "mercenaries" that are sent "obscene amenities?"

Tremendous post David. I think you said just about everything I was thinking as well.