A "Mercenary" Force?
Sometimes it's mind-blowing to get a glimpse inside the left wing mind. One such ugly episde has occurred with this screed from William Arkin, writing for a Washington Post blog. (Here's a little background on who Arkin is).
Referring to soldiers who merely responded to a reporter's question about how they feel about all the criticism of the war, Arkin wrote:
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.
Really? In other words, they might be willing to go to Iraq and die to keep this country secure, but they should be grateful that people like William Arkin are willing not to spit on them and call them baby-killers just because they disagree with the President's Iraq policy? Frankly, Arkin should be grateful that the soldiers don't need to respect him in order to be willing to defend him.
As insultingly, Arkin writes about "the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force . . ." (Update: He's backtracking from this one). Does he really believe that the soldiers are doing this only for the money? Does anyone hold his own life that cheap?
This repugnant little commentary could be eviscerated word by word, but frankly, it's too contemptible to be worth the time. In Arkin's view, apparently, the military should just shut up and be grateful that people like him are willing to allow their tax dollars to go to the national defense so that the country can remanin secure. Unbelievable.
And one final question: Arkin notes that the frustration the soldiers expressed constituted "a majority opinion common amongst the ranks." Perhaps he'd better tip off Senator Jim Webb, who opined in his response to the State of Union address that "the majority of the military" "no longer supports the way this war is being fought."
Referring to soldiers who merely responded to a reporter's question about how they feel about all the criticism of the war, Arkin wrote:
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.
Really? In other words, they might be willing to go to Iraq and die to keep this country secure, but they should be grateful that people like William Arkin are willing not to spit on them and call them baby-killers just because they disagree with the President's Iraq policy? Frankly, Arkin should be grateful that the soldiers don't need to respect him in order to be willing to defend him.
As insultingly, Arkin writes about "the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force . . ." (Update: He's backtracking from this one). Does he really believe that the soldiers are doing this only for the money? Does anyone hold his own life that cheap?
This repugnant little commentary could be eviscerated word by word, but frankly, it's too contemptible to be worth the time. In Arkin's view, apparently, the military should just shut up and be grateful that people like him are willing to allow their tax dollars to go to the national defense so that the country can remanin secure. Unbelievable.
And one final question: Arkin notes that the frustration the soldiers expressed constituted "a majority opinion common amongst the ranks." Perhaps he'd better tip off Senator Jim Webb, who opined in his response to the State of Union address that "the majority of the military" "no longer supports the way this war is being fought."
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home