Have you seen Arkin's blog? Response?

Question

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html#more

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 just don't see very man "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 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.

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

Answer 1

Realistically speaking, there is A line of logic that can be agreed with here - the American military is technically the property of the American public as all of them do sign away many of their rights when they enlist either as grunts or as officers. Mind you I do sympathize with the troops and wish more Americans believed in their mission as well as the efforts, but I can also legitimately recognize this guy's argument....

until he turns it over to how we take care of the troops - 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...

The American military is slowly (and I mean VERY VERY LETHARGICALLY) becoming our new welfare system which is comparable to many totalitarian countries. When lower middle class blue collar families get jammed into a lifestyle which encourages (and obligates) them to risk their lives just to get along without sacrificing their dignity, you know there's a problem. Now when this guys goes on and on saying how they should basically shut up and deal with it like volunteers, I gotta wonder if he does appreciate what they're doing so he doesn't have to.

This guy is a perfect example of how coercive institutions are a double edged sword. Since the urban revolution milleniums ago, society has had to balance civics with progress, economics with culture, and tradition with cosmopolitanism. We try our hardest to realize where work ends and comfort begins in realizing what our optimal level of existence is, but the problem here is by what do we approve that. Happiness? Success? The truth? Social Interaction?

I believe that Arkin's experiences in the military and in journalism have brought him up to have a tight disciplinarian vision of our place and purpose as human beings and that this straight forward line of thought clarifies what he means to say. In this sense, I can only appreciate his efforts since it allows the reader to take his words for what he really thinks and allows a much more direct form of rebuttal. Still, he leaves much to be desired in configuring an actual plan in how to approach a situation when controversy surrounds the decision maker or in other words, "How exactly would good ol' Willy do on the hotspot?"

When you think about it though, he's just doing his job. He writes to get paid just as much as NBC interviews and reports for ratings. If it weren't for guys like him, we wouldn't have someone to criticize who summarizes the viewpoints of millions of Americans, so for that I have to applaud him for stepping into the ring and standing up for what he believes in.

Good job man, but next time breathe a couple of times before you start huffing and puffing. That way you won't look so red faced by the time you're done.
----------

And TY for bringing this up after they closed the comment line. It always helps to know there's someone out there who's bringing people together even after the obvious routes are closed.