WaPo Supports The Troops

He really is a reporter for the Washington Post, and he really wrote this. It's not a print column, but it is part of an official Washington Post blog. Disgusting. The Post better respond, forcefully and soon.

Arkin is indeed the National and Homeland Security columnist for WaPo, as he was previously for the LA Times. He is also an MSNBC and NBC commentator and consultant on national security issues. His official WaPo bio is here.

Note the lack of specificity as to for whom he filled the posts of "nuclear weapons expert" and "on-the-ground study of the effects of military operations." That would be for Greenpeace, The Bureau of Atomic Scientists*, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Human Rights Watch. His current email leads here. He claims to have been a military intelligence analyst in the US Army in the Carter years, but rank and unit assignment are notably missing from the resume. He also leaves out his ongoing anti-military acitivism.

This is what WaPo, LAT, MSNBC, NBC-TV, etc. consider to be a qualified expert on military affairs and an impartial journalist. Nope, no media bias here.

[*--the "Doomsday Clock" people]

This Arkin guy is clearly a bonafide buttpipe, a true wanker. It takes brass idiot-balls to lecture soldiers on gratitude, as though the folks providing some measure of emotional and financial support are the heroes, as opposed to the poor bastards laying their lives on the line for the sake of the safety and the security of dickheads like Arkin and his fellow ingrates. I can't think of a more bassackwards choice of topics to lecture our soldiers on.

He deserves the Person Who Doesn't Get It of the Year award.

These soldiers have every right as Americans to speak their minds, and I sure can't blame them for doing so. Still, whether speaking their minds is ultimately helpful or harmful is an open question. That's a similar point to one Tully made recently via analogy about the fine distinction between blaming a rape victim for provocation versus suggesting that being less provocative might have some utility in avoiding rape.

Simply, I'm saying that soldiers might be wise to use some discretion in exercising their free speech rights. They're free to join the debate of course, but they might find themselves wishing they hadn't. And to be clear, I'm not adressing any of the specific content of this recent mesaage, only talking about the general merits of the practice. It's similar to the issue of athletes talking or not talking to the media. Lots of athletes choose to just stay out of it and focus on their jobs, and there's merit to this approach.

By Pat: Brian, this thread is not the place for more general arguments about what other soldiers may or may not say. This thread is about these specific comments and the Washington Post drivel, period. If you wish to have a broader discussion about what soldiers should and should not say, kindly move it to the open thread. Thank you.

UPDATE:
My bad. I tried to strike it, but neither html form I found would take. I thought it was related, but now I see what you're going for. Next time just yell pigpile! :-) Seriously, what else is there to say after "what a _____!"

And only if they oppose the war. If they support what their children were doing, obviously those parents don't have absolute moral authority.