Then I read Bill Arkin...both his first piece and the follow up.

Oi.

So, I have a few cocktails and ponder.

This is the attack pilot way. It is not to be questioned. Well, you CAN question it, but I won't care and I won't answer. So there.

And thus, without further ado, is my rejoinder....

Bill: The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out

Me: Oh, dear. It does not bode well for the writer when he or she begins the piece with an ad hominem attack on those who have criticized his work. “Methinks thou dost protest too much” comes to mind but, after thinking about it, it fits the pattern of a man who, at least at first blush, seems to know he’s done something wrong. Not morally wrong, mind you, but tactically dumb—coming out of defilade too early is a misstep he regrets, i.e., before spitting on veterans is in vogue at the nation’s airports and other ports of debarkation. Timing is everything and America just isn’t ready to give the troops (professional thugs, if you will) the treatment they actually deserve.

Bill: Well, one thing’s abundantly clear about who will actually defend our rights to say what we believe: It isn’t the hundreds who have written me saying they are soldiers or veterans or war supporters or real Americans — who also advise me to move to another country, to get f@##d, or to die a painful, violent death.

Me: For those who did that to Mr. Arkin, foul—depart the range, you’ve violated the ROE—by that I mean you’ve lowered yourself to his level (or worse, to Markos Moulitsas’).

Bill: 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.

Me: Well, lad, that’s a bit of a dodge, actually. There is literal and implied messaging in one’s product, especially when crafting an opinion piece. The impression many people got is that you sort of think the troops should, in one man’s words, “shut up and bleed.” Perhaps this is incorrect, but thousands came away with that impression. Moreover, in listening to your interview with John Gibson, you quite clearly implied (to me…not my fault, man, I was just sitting there listening) that the behavior at Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly but rather typical, because that’s what American soldiers do.

Bill: 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.

Me: Please. First, the troops don’t need scare quotes. They exist. They are real. And they are hallowed beings to some extent in that they have voluntarily entered into the fray against barbarism. Second, many are post-9/11 enlistees and officer volunteers, conscious of what they were doing when they signed up and why. Third, they are willing to die for total strangers, in a faraway, alien place for a concept, not for a buck, not for health care, not for benefits but because they think it’s the right thing to do.
OK, I’ll give you that they’d probably prefer to live, but are willing to die if they must. Personally, I don’t think I’m fit to shine these guys’ boots…and I’m a retired senior officer (that would be a Colonel).

Bill: I was dead wrong in using the word "mercenary" to describe the American soldier today.

Me: Ah, the first step in rehab is admitting you have a problem…

Bill: 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.

Me: Goodness. I really think you misheard them. First of all, “hide” used in the same sentence as “American soldier” is a bit of an operational oxymoron. Second, these are people who are willing to sacrifice everything, in the most literal sense, for you to say they most repugnant things about them you can conjure.
That, my friend, is not hiding behind the Constitution. It is defending it to the utmost. Now, I will grant you there may be some impatience with the Democrat Party, “liberals” (who are often anything but, given their proclivity for suppressing counters to their arguments—scare quotes justly earned), journalists, dissenters and anti-freedom citizens because what these warriors see, in person, up close and personal, utterly annihilates the premises under which the above-mentioned groups labor. Third, I defy you to present me with a credible example of an active duty soldier, sailor, airman or Marine that shows “contempt” for the American people. Do they exist? Hey, there’s a FEW bad apples in every barrel but the percentage is statistically negligible. I’d bet my life on it and I’d be willing to bet his/her peers have no use for them…nada, zero, zip.

Bill: What I’ve heard ever since my article “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People“ was published on Tuesday are a lot of people telling ME to shut up and be grateful for the sacrifices others are making.

Me: OK, there are a lot of people telling you to shut up. Not good. However, there are a LOT of people out there who recognized the article for what it was, a snarky, condescending smackdown of men and women putting their lives on the line for a noble cause and making the best of a bad situation. Your piece was petty. It was dismissive. It was small. It was unoriginal.

Bill: I never said we shouldn’t support the troops. I just lamented that “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?”

Me: Whoa, whoa, whoa! “We support them in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY?!?” C’mon, dude. Even the densest grunt and Jarhead KNOW that ain’t the case. “Support” refers to “giving aid and assistance to,” “providing encouragement to,” etc., and that isn’t a theme that jumps out in your piece. Your “lament” is crocodilian—tears that are shed for effect, not in sincerity. Then the paragraph descends into incoherence—“give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up” is sort of repudiated by the fact that you are doing so in one of the three most widely-read newspapers in the United States if not the world. “…[B]ecause they are above society” is called “projection”—assigning a shortcoming to an external entity that you in fact display in spades. (I know this is a waste of time, but I offer this as a way to support the troops: Support any and all efforts that lead to victory over Islamic fascism and contribute to establishing a viable democracy in the heart of the Middle East.)

Bill: Thousands have written telling me to “shut up and quit whining,” that the troops do support the American people - “with their lives.”
I can’t respond to everyone individually - keep the cards and letters coming though, I do read them - but I’ll try to tease out of the comments some themes that confirm in my mind the difficult state that this impossible war has put us.

Me: *Sigh* “Impossible war” you say?

Now, before you take this out of context, know that I consider the blood of an American soldier the most precious of things. If I could prevent a drop being spilled, I would do it. But I cannot. I believe that resistance is necessary, uncompromising, fierce, and unyielding. That means blood will be spilled. But, as long as we believe that victory is preferable over defeat, it will not be spilled in vain.

-Instapilot