In Stanley Kubrick’s wildly funny and depressingly dark comedy Dr. Strangelove, Peter Sellers, playing several roles including both the President and the title character, just can’t help himself as Dr. Strangelove. The more Strangelove talks about the end of the world and nuclear annihilation, the more his Nazi instincts try to take over. He struggles to keep his arm from flinging upwards in a Nazi salute. His feet desperately want to do the goose step despite his being wheel chair bound.
Finally, almost swooning with ecstasy over the possibilities in a post nuclear world, Strangelove loses the battle and his arm shoots up in a Nazi salute, calling the President “Mein Fuhrer.” In the end, he forgot that he was trying to fool people about his true feelings and gave in to his natural inclinations.
In similar fashion, try as they might to suppress their natural proclivities regarding the American armed forces, many on the left get so carried away sometimes they forget that they are trying to fool the American people into believing that they are but simple patriots, concerned about the lives and welfare of the troops and, in a spasm of hate and loathing, reveal exactly what they think of the young men and women who have volunteered to serve.
Of course, some never try and hide their contempt for our military. One of the major players in the anti-war movement, Code Pink, picketed Walter Reed hospital where many of our wounded vets are being treated. They even accosted and razzed some soldiers who were out-patients coming in for further treatment on wounds suffered in battle.
The press was extremely careful not to report these demonstrations. Gather half a dozen anarchists, greens, or moveon.org types on a street corner asking people to “honk for impeachment” and that will get you a page 3 write up in most newspapers. But somehow, there were no reporters available to cover these demonstrations at Walter Reed that showed such monumental disrespect for the volunteers who have suffered wounds in service to their country.
But the Democrats and their allies on the left have largely been successful in subsuming their real feelings about the military with only a couple of exceptions marring the record. Predictably, John Kerry’s “botched joke” about the intelligence of soldiers serving in Iraq was one such example of this subsurface hate for those in the military. It apparently sank his presidential ambitions and probably saved the Republicans a couple of House seats in the election. But at the time, it was generally felt that Kerry’s revealing anecdote was just a demonstration of his long time loathing of active duty personnel. Like Strangelove, Kerry just couldn’t help himself.
Now we have William Arkin of the Washington Post revealing in spectacularly ignorant fashion, his own contempt for the men and women who currently wear the uniform. In what can only be described as a shockingly inappropriate post on his blog, Arkin complains that the men and women in the military who speak out in favor of the mission in Iraq and complain about the lack of support from the American people are a bunch of ungrateful wretches who who should shut up and do their jobs – a job that Arkin believes is akin to one that a mercenary does:
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 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.
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.
You can put your hand down now, Arkin.
For those who can’t fathom why Arkin would write such a post in the first place, I would say that these are obviously feelings he has suppressed for a long time for so much bile and hate to spill out so nakedly and in such a public way. The entire post reeks of self serving hypocrisy as Arkin sets up one straw man after another, posits logical fallacies again and again, and then, most shockingly, questions the motives of the troops who volunteered to keep him safe in his bed at night.
For a specific refutation of Mr. Arkin’s execrable ideas and statements, I would visit first Blackfive. Although this is the kind of post that is emotionally satisfying to read and write, if you get beyond the name calling, the author does indeed make several valid points answering questions raised by Arkin’s writing as well as easily knocking down several of the strawmen propped up by the Post blogger.
Hugh Hewitt has some background info on Arkin as does Marc Danzinger. Apparently, WaPo hired a raving, anti-military lefty loon to write about military affairs. Ben Domench anyone?
Michell Malkin has her usual thorough round up and posts some of the comments left at Arkins blog – 504 and counting as of 6:30 AM Central time this morning.
John Hinderaker wonders where WaPo’s editors were prior to the publication of Arkins blog post.
AND IF YOU READ ANYTHING TODAY ABOUT THIS ISSUE, YOU ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY HAVE TO READ THIS ARTICLE BY JOHN AT OP-FOR:
And with that piece, every frustration that I’ve felt over America’s new fifth column, every insult that smug anti-war pundits have hurled at the silent stoics in our armed forces, all the false pity, all the overused meaningless cliches (“we support the troops but not the war”) that we in the military have endured, every bit of anger that I’ve suppressed in the name of good manners and honorable debate, reaches a fist-clenching apex…
If there is a war that’s unwinnable, it’s the war on this type of horrid ignorance. The type of uniformed, intellectually lazy thinking that can only exist in the sheltered bubble of cocktail parties and classrooms. Arkin is a gazer. A man forever condemned to peering out the window into the real world, watching the exertions of men better than himself. And yet he fancies himself the educated one. Any logical human being would trade career in journalism for the expertise gained by serving a mere one month in the box, yet this slime fancies his opinion so informed, so expert, so utterly irrefutable that even the very soldiers who are fighting this war are shamefully ignorant for daring to challenge his infallibility.
Go. Read. Now.
If, as Dan Reihl speculates, the press is now in open opposition and is making no effort to hide their bias, then we should expect to see more of this kind of truthiness coming from the left. After all, the election is over. They won. They successfully fooled enough of the American people into actually believing they cared a tinkers’ damn about the troops or about the United States for that matter. They successfully allowed people to believe that they had no intention of cutting and running in Iraq before some semblance of victory could be achieved all the while planning to do exactly the opposite.
But with the moves afoot to not only cut off funding for “the surge” but also attempts to micro manage troop levels, mission goals, and benchmarks that must be achieved by the Iraqi government, a sick sense of defeatism and helplessness is running through our political class, weakening any remaining resolve to bring the Iraq adventure to some kind of honorable conclusion. The politicians – both Republicans and Democrats – simply want the issue to go away. And with it, the hundreds of thousands of American servicemen who have served courageously, honorably, and despite what Arkin says, with few complaints. They have done all that they have been asked to do and then gone beyond that and heroically done much more.
And this is the thanks they get. Not just from the Arkins of the world and other leftists who, after all, just can’t help themselves. But also from people who should know better.
I don’t know where these young men and women will be in two years. But I hope that wherever they are, they are at least given credit for carrying out their mission with honor and that sense of duty that only a true calling to serve others brings to life.
UPDATE: ARKIN RESPONDS TO CRITICS
Michelle Malkin has the gist of Arkin’s response. Basically, he’s a liar:
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.
Beggin’ your pardon kind sir, but where in God’s name in the original post do you write, hint, or dream of anything you claim you were saying? Where, for instance, do you posit the notion that our soldiers believe they are “the one true nation?” Or that they “hid behind the constitution?”
In fact, after an obligatory nod to their constitutional rights, you then attempted to take that right away:
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.
Sounds pretty clear cut to me. You don’t think it “was for them” to disapprove of the American people. How do you get around the fact that you hope that their commanders shut them up? Or that they should just keep their criticisms about the American people to themselves?
William Arkin is a bald faced liar. His “response” is replete with instances like the one above where he claims he’s just some poor, misunderstood newspaper guy with people making death threats against him and saying he should leave the country.
Welcome to the blogosphere, chum.
His meaning in the initial post was clear. Trying to muddy the waters with this response will not wash away his rhetoric about “obscene amenities” and the ridiculous and insulting scenario where our robot-like troops would follow a General James Matoon Scott in some kind of military coup against the government – all because the troops were mad at the press and politicians.
Doesn’t he realize what a monumental insult that is to the honor and integrity of every member of the United States military both living and dead to intimate that any of them would violate their oaths to the Constitution so cavalierly?
Sorry Mr. Arkin. If you had left well enough alone and not tried to throw sand in our eyes about what you truly meant to say with your original post, the issue may have faded away on its own.
But since you have seen fit to compound your monumental errors in judgement by trying to school your readers in what you really meant – equally reprehensible in any case to what you originally wrote – I am going to write a letter to the editor and publisher calling for your resignation.
And if you had an ounce of decency, you’d beat them to it.
UPDATE II
Allah has some audio from Arkin’s appearance on Fox last night.
9:08 am
Rick,
Per your suggestion, I read John’s blog entry at Opfor. He’s right – any fight against the kind of ignorance evident in Arkin’s screed is unwinnable. As long as these people – I use that term loosely, in Arkin’s case – command audiences larger than any of us can, the narrative of which you’ve written will continue perpetuating itself.
If we do wake up one morning 20 or 30 years from now and find we no longer live in a nation worth defending, we’ll have Arkin and his ilk to thank for it.
9:29 am
Mr. Bushahppy:
Your comment was deleted for being non germane to the post and for insulting the host.
9:40 am
“The press was extremely careful not to report these demonstrations”
The right wing’s paranoid view of the media reminds me of another character from that movie: General Ripper (played by George C. Scott).
That is, by the way one of my favorite movies.
10:00 am
“The press was extremely careful not to report these demonstrations. Gather half a dozen anarchists, greens, or moveon.org types on a street corner asking people to “honk for impeachment†and that will get you a page 3 write up in most newspapers. But somehow, there were no reporters available to cover these demonstrations at Walter Reed that showed such monumental disrespect for the volunteers who have suffered wounds in service to their country.”
Colour me confused, but, since the whole point of demonstrations are to gain publicity, how can not reporting a demo be an act in its favour?
10:17 am
Do you seriously not understand why the Code Pinko protests at Walter Reed might reflect poorly on the anti-war “movement,” or are you simply trying to provoke an argument? Because common sense tells me that even if I were interested in actively protesting this war, yelling at people who have served their country at the price of an arm, a leg or an eye would probably not be the best way to get my point across.
11:02 am
[...] Hat Tip: Right Wing Nut House [...]
11:28 am
“Do you seriously not understand why the Code Pinko protests at Walter Reed might reflect poorly on the anti-war “movement,†or are you simply trying to provoke an argument?”
Are you seriously suggesting that the US media as a whole is anti-war?
Or that Code-Pink would not want their demo publicised?
Hell, they’ve been there since at least 2005. I mean, I don’t know much about Code Pink, but the photos at the link aren’t exactly inflammatory;
http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=476
As for the MSM not reporting the vigil, well, I found the Washington Post article after about a minute’s googling (circulation 600,000 odd);
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102901250.html?referrer=emailarticle
And, from the Fox news (biggest TV news share isn’t it),
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,167017,00.html
It isn’t as if the vigil gets front page every day, but it is, frankly, very old news.
Fron the Fox article,
“Maimed for a Lie” that the wounded soldiers come in and out of the main entrance at Walter Reed Hospital, that’s hard to say they’re putting on a vigil. They don’t like the word “protest.” I heard chanting that night that George Bush — last Friday night — “George Bush Kills American Soldiers.”
Well, since the case for war was pretty much based on, at least, deliberately scewed facts, “Maimed for a lie” is accurate if not nuanced. It doesn’t mean that they deserved it. As for “George Bush Kills Americans”, hyperbole perhaps. “George Bush send Americans into harms way without sufficient planning, equipment or mission and ends up getting them killed for no good reason” is more accurate, but not really snappy enough for a banner.
And no, I don’t think that protesting for veteran’s benefits does hurt the Anti-War case. It isn’t as if they are screaming “Baby Killers” at them.
“They successfully fooled enough of the American people into actually believing they cared a tinkers’ damn about the troops or about the United States for that matter.”
Is it possible for you to believe that the majority of people on the left do support the troops as individuals while not supporting the way that they have been used? And that they honestly believe that it is America’s best interests not to get involved in no-win wars like Iraq? Or do you think that it is more likely that they are self-righteous liars who hate soldiers and want the USA to go down the pan?
11:53 am
I applaud you for referencing Kubrick, but as with all of his movies (post paths of glory) the central theme is chaos and ultraviolence. His suggestion is that no matter what your intent, be it democratic or Communist/Dictator/Nazi/Faciest, humans are drawn to the perils of violence and destruction of ourselves for self preservation. We are all nazis on the inside that would destroy our fellow man if it came down to ‘you or me’. To compare Dr. Strangelove to the fledgling democrat’s spine and perseverance is far off of the point. No the democrats do not have spine, but under it all, they are exactly like republicans in their quest for world domination. No politician on the hill has half of the backbone that it takes to make this country into what it could be. The reason is that they are all like Dr. Strangelove with a lushes passion for power and glory where in most cases that only comes with violence and pseudo-violence. What we need is a General Jack Ripper to take the reins and a Maj. T.J. ‘King’ Kong to ride this bitch in the ground.
12:42 pm
Drongo – Did you notice that the Washington Post article was in the Metro section? Can you say ‘buried it’?
2:35 pm
Oh, yeah, I “question his ‘patriotism’”
After all, here’s his latest, giving his soi-disant apology: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
4:01 pm
“Did you notice that the Washington Post article was in the Metro section? Can you say ‘buried it’?”
What do you think is front page worthy about it?
7:41 pm
This paragraph is most certainly a lie:
“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.”
Arkin never said he anything about his concerned that they were becoming hallowed. Rather, the opposite, since he referred to them as young, naive and confused. The quotes of the soldiers—in both attitude and actual words spoken—did not convey that “only they had the means – or the right – to judge the worthiness of the Iraq endeavor.” Arkin is indeed a bald-faced liar.
Doesn’t the WA Post fact-check his material before he hits the “post” button?
8:18 pm
I believe the term for this sort of thing is “tempting the Legions”.
10:04 pm
WaPo Reporter Freaks Out Again – F@$% The Rest Of You, Too!
Well, William M. Arkin proved today that he, not those of us who disagree with him, is “arrogant and intolerant”. After all, he seems a little bit miffed that after using his First Amendment rights to bash the troops and…
10:22 pm
Thank you Rick for your words and link to John’s post at Op-for. Like many veterans, I’m still speechless at the sheer ignorant audacity of Arkin’s post and John expresses my feelings very well. To see that such ignorance comes from someone who actually did serve in the military is particularly troubling. I can’t really say anymore as I’m still seething. I lost a friend in this war, but I don’t think even I’m able to fathom the feeling of betrayal and rage Arkin’s comments have engendered in those who’ve seen themselves and friends bloodied and broken in front of their own eyes.
10:22 pm
Find one wacko journalist on the left showing his ignorance….then take the broad sweeping brush, and paint anyone against this disaster of a war as, hating the troops, hating America, roll out all the rightwing propaganda, and feel smug about it. C’mon Rick, your better than that. Arkin’s an idiot, lets have a real discussion about an exit strategy, please.
2:41 am
“I lost a friend in this war, but I don’t think even I’m able to fathom the feeling of betrayal and rage Arkin’s comments have engendered in those who’ve seen themselves and friends bloodied and broken in front of their own eyes”
They feel betray more by some journalist than they do by the administration who put them in harms way in such a mendacious and careless manner?
6:19 am
The New York Times: a Dreadful Parody
Why do I feel so happy? The New York Times is writing off $814.4 million of the value of its New England newspapers…
6:59 pm
HO-HO-HO CHI MINH.
Some people opposed U.S. involvement in Vietnam because they did not believe it in the country’s interest to do so. Others were actively on the other side…
7:45 pm
“They feel betray more by some journalist than they do by the administration who put them in harms way in such a mendacious and careless manner?”
Yes they do, isn’t that obvious based on the reaction? Why do you think that people in the military don’t blame the administration for their friend’s deaths? I’ll leave it to you to figure out the true answer to both questions, but Arkin’s claim that it’s because we we’re all essentially brainwashed, stupid or blindly loyal is not it. Here’s a clue for you though: Military people are mission and success oriented.
Most in the military would disagree with your characterization of “mendacious and careless” as well.