Kowabunga

It's an interesting day. On the Washington Post, William Arkin wrote a column (published Jan.30) in which he describes our military men and women as mercenaries. Here's the quote:

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.

There is much more in the piece, like:

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.

This male obviously does not believe that our military is a force for good, considers the tools of the trade to be obscene amenities, as he is unclear about what he considers to be such, that is what I must assume he means. These are men and women serving their country, fighting al-Qaeda terrorists and fighting an insurgency fueled by hostile neighbors (Iran and Syria).

By referring to him as a male and not a man, I am using a viewpoint set forth in a classic western film of Charlton Heston, Three Violent People in which one of the characters states that all men are born male, but not all males grow to be men. So it must be with Arkin. He may be male, but he is not a man.

This is made clear by his rant against to military, where he supposed that such as our Armed Forces would seize control via military coups if this were anyplace other than the United States.

In his non-apology issued today, he shows his utter contempt for our armed forces yet again:

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.

No one, and I mean no one, has ever elevated our military to the level of "becoming hallowed beings above society." Except for the chicken doves on the left, like Arkin, who are too intimidated by real men and women who have displayed the honor and integrity to uphold our constitution and our way of life by putting their own lives on the line.

He stated that he was "dead wrong in using the word mercenary," yet there is a big BUT right after that, where he proves his utter contempt for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines. He claims the situation is worse, that many of those who serve our country believe that they "are the one true nation." And that those who serve hide behind the constitution (what better document to use when expressing ones utter contempt for Arkin?) and the flag.

If the management of the Washington Post has an ounce of integrity, they will terminate Arkin immediately.

But they won't. They will defend and protect him, just as the rest of the chicken doves and the liberal-left always does when someone writes such contemptuous schlock as Arkin has.

One thing is for sure, Arkin is not just a chicken dove, but also a Moonbat, and thus deserving of a Moonbat Award.

Tags:

William Arkin Moonbat