Bill Arkin on:
Demonization and Responsibility

Bill: I’ve been making my way through the mail and online comments I’ve received in response to my columns last week.

The many e-mails I’ve gotten privately from people serving in the military are, not surprisingly, the most respectful and reflective. Some correspondents are downright indignant, some are sarcastic, and most are hurt by the “mercenary” epithet and my commentary.

Moi: Wait. You’re NOT surprised the comments are “…respectful and reflective.”? I thought the benighted souls you described in the first two screeds would not be capable of such things. Mercenaries are not reflective. That’s why they’re mercenaries.

Bill: But they are philosophical about their service and where we are in the war and the country today.

Me: I have no idea what on earth that means. Philosophical as in “resigned to defeat” or as in “we’re used to this kind of tripe, in the best traditions of Jane Fonda and John Kerry”?

Bill: The torrents of other mail — biting, fanatical, threatening — represent the worst of polarized and hate-filled America.

Me: Read “Screw ‘em” Kos lately? How about John Edwards’ new internet chief? They dominate the left side of the blogosphere.

Bill: I’m not complaining about being criticized or being made the latest punching bag for those who subsist off of high-volume conquest.

Me again: “…the latest punching bag for those who subsist off of high-volume conquest…” is the latest MSM euphemism for “those uppity proles talking back to their betters” I should think.

Bill: Nor am I apologizing for addressing, however imperfectly, the questions I did last week, nor for being critical of the military.

Me: Bill, there’s a difference between “being critical” and being slanderous. You don’t know it.

Bill: Instead, I’m trying to make sense of the worldview of those who have responded. For the critics, I have become the enemy and have been demonized. In that process, I have ceased being a person, an individual, or a human being, all essential to justify the campaign to annihilate me. I’m not trying to offer myself up as victim here, nor do I expect the critics to change their view. I’m merely pointing out the process and the implications of the dehumanization.

Me: Another “what-the-heck-is-he-talking-about?” moment. This is completely incoherent. (Hint: “person,” “individual,” and “human being” are essentially the same for the purpose of his argument which is, I think, “I’m human so they hate me!” This makes no sense either.)
There is no serious “campaign” to “annihilate” you, Bill, but there are a lot of people out there who think what you said is beyond the pale. Alas, some of them are in the news business too and are trying to get you to defend your position and, so far, it looks like you can’t. Or won’t.
And, oh yes, you are indeed setting yourself up as “victim” (see your sentence preceding the one I just cited). You then compound this contradiction by darkly hinting at the “…implications of dehumanization.” What ARE those implications, pray tell?
This should be interesting, given your denial that you are pleading victimhood.

Bill: The overall theme is fairly consistent: I bask in my easy, comfortable, elitist Washington existence telling people what to think and deciding what news is, while others suffer. Therefore, those who claim to love America and all it stands for wish for my life, my work, my fat-cat existence to be taken away from me, that I be punished not only for what I think but for who I am.

Me: It’s an easy trap to fall into, I admit. After reading something by a person who obviously has zero recent exposure to the military or, at the very most, a cursory one, some people might want you to get a different perspective. I think that’s the real message, however crudely expressed. For most folks like me, however, the reaction was a sigh and shake of the head after reading something so obviously inaccurate, unfair and just flat wrong…by the military affairs and homeland security “expert” of the Washington Post.

Bill: They find fault with four major areas of my work and existence.

Me (In my best command voice): Oh, stop whining and get to the point!…

Bill: Let’s start with military service: The argument I read is either that I haven’t served (coward, leftist, not real American), or that even if I did wear the uniform (which I did), I had a comfortable and safe existence in Germany while my brethren were fighting and dying in Vietnam. Or, that I was not high-ranking enough to know anything. Or, that I was not low-ranking enough to really experience the truth.

Me: For those who made assumptions in error, that’s a fair point, Bill. For future reference, before you malign a group, stating that you do have some experience with that group, of that type, may attenuate the overall blowback. Of course, the nature of the comments affects that attenuation. Some slagging of the military even by former soldiers, sailors, airmen or Marines can get a rise, based on the nature of the rant. And Bill, trust me, that first piece was a rant.

Bill: I can see, in the military blogs and in the comments of those who have written about my posts last week, that those who refer to themselves as Vietnam veterans still yearn for the recognition and thanks that they believe they haven’t received.

Me: Now this is just a guess on my part, but I think in recent years, Vietnam vets have received a great deal of positive recognition. Granted, some is patronizing (of the Charlie Rangel sort) but for the most part it’s been genuine. In my personal military experience (26 years active duty), the Vietnam vets I knew were almost universally revered…we looked up to them for their experience, toughness and élan.

Bill: There is no question that Vietnam is still an open wound for them, and that they therefore only recognize the worth of fellow veterans, of those who have been through exactly the same experience.

Me: I think this may be a bit of a projection. You’re projecting the average Hollywood screenwriter (TV or movie, makes little difference). By that I mean, you’re seeing something that may be occurring in a small percentage of vets but projecting it onto all Viet vets. Really, most are normal, successful people and just honestly glad today’s kids aren’t being maligned for their courage and sacrifice.

Bill: (Why didn’t I actually serve in Vietnam? I enlisted in the Army less than one month after my 18th birthday in June, 1974, at a time when the war was essentially over and when no one joining the new, all-volunteer force was being sent to Vietnam.)
Then there is the issue of who pays me to write this blog: the mainstream media. Whether it’s the Washington Post or journalism in general, there is nothing the blogosphere likes better to rail against than mainstream media organizations. Now that Iraq is the center of national struggle, and with the President portraying U.S. presence there and the outcome of the conflict as a fight for national survival and honor, media bashing has gotten ever more vicious.

Me: Man, this projection thing is pernicious, ain’t it?

Bill: Since I write for washingtonpost.com, I am part of the all powerful, self-congratulatory, far-left, Bush-bashing, fifth column mainstream. It isn’t so much what I say — after all I’m an opinion columnist and if you don’t like what I say, don’t read it — it is more that I sit in my safe little cubicle in front of a keyboard sipping lattes, giving aid and comfort to the enemy while our boys and girls die. In other words, I’m comfortable while others suffer.

Me: No argument to the opening sentence, as long as you’re talking about military people, people of faith, flyover staters, Republicans and the rest of the people Michael Moore wish had been the actual victims on 911 (at least until he retracted it from his website).
Then there’s the AP photoshopped pics, the filming of a kid getting hit by a sniper’s bullet (CNN), the cover blowing of a legal but covert tracking of terrorist funding channels (NY Times). Bill, people are angry at smug, self-congratulatory, far-left (at least according to newsroom polls), Bush-bashing (to quote Evan “That’s my job.” Thomas, ), mainstream media.

Bill: Other criticism focuses on public opinion, which commenters say I’ve misstated. It appears that many Iraq war supporters believe that public opinion against the war (and the President) is a concoction of the mainstream news media and the liberal elite.

Me: There is no question the public mood has soured on the war. Gee, I wonder why that is?
Could it be the steady diet of defeatist propaganda pumped out by your peers?
When Chris Matthews, talking about the war, asks Matt Damon if Cheney should be waterboarded over the war and how his answers would then change, you kinda get the feeling that there isn’t a lot of love out there for the Administration and the war.
That only Baghdad’s battle is being shown when the majority of that country is experiencing nothing like that, when a couple of soldiers are killed or wounded in an engagement that annihilates (really, not figuratively) literally scores of terrorist “insurgents” and the characterization is that the good guys (that would be our soldiers and their Iraqi comrades) were “almost overwhelmed by a rag-tag militia” (paraphrasing the Grey Lady again), are you surprised at how the tide of public opinion has been turned?
To be honest, my hat’s off to you. You have played a key role in breaking the will of the people and elected leaders of world’s only superpower to resist barbarism before its depredations cause more death and suffering abroad and at home.

Bill: Moreover, some seem to believe that in the battle for public opinion, people like me are in some kind a contest with soldiers or veterans of the Iraq war as to who knows best.

Me: No contest. You appear firm in your conviction that you do…or only you should.

Bill: As this line of argument goes, the soldiers themselves and those who have served in Iraq are the only ones who really know what it is like, what the war is about, and what should be done. The media in general and war opponents in particular intentionally and purposefully provide a negative and discouraging view that doesn’t comport with what the soldiers see, so goes this argument. But the bigger point is that any dissenting voices are just those of whores, politicians, tin foil hat liberals, or worse, un-Americans. In this view, there are no actual experts in this world, no one who studies and measures public opinion, no one who studies war or the military, who do not wear the uniform. This is not some post-modern relativism, it is pure anti-elitism. The elite think they know it all, while those who do all of the dirty work, who do all of the suffering, are methodically ignored and dominated.

Me: Nope. It’s people who you’re not used to having an avenue to argue back atcha doing just that. Sorry, Bill. Gone are the days when you could type this stuff and not hear a peep out of the “anti-elites.”

Bill: Finally, commenters attack what I wrote as the work of Democrats and “liberals.” I’m lumped with Bill Clinton, that degenerate who decimated the military and the Kerry-Sheehan-Hillary-Gore-Pelosi evil axis, which now threatens more of the same. Fight back, the commenters say to their brethren. America for too long turned the other cheek against terrorism and now it is time not just to fight but to draw battle lines and show no mercy in that fight. They have, after all, shown no mercy for us.

Me: The first sentence in the preceding paragraph is a hoot. The last is, well, pretty good—sign me up!

Bill: In this narrative, I have spat upon the American soldier and thus America, called the true patriots naïve and un-educated.

Me: OK, so far…

Bill: I have all the power and control all of the words and through my actions I enslave others and ensure that only my type and my class prospers.

Me: Oh, don’t be silly, Bill. We NEVER gave you that much credit. You’re starting to sound rather amusing now.

Bill: The reconciliatory and peace-loving narrative is that only the soldiers are honorable and virtuous, and no matter how despicable I and my ilk are, they will still “save” me from the enemy. The evil narrative is that they will happily watch me die, serving not as protector but as judge of who can live and who does not deserve to.

Me: Well, in the first case, that’s a bit like your own condescension. In the second, well, they shouldn’t be listened to anyway—just ask Michelle Malkin about verbal abuse from the Left…two wrongs don't make a right, of course but a few of her samples might give you some insight into what it takes to be a little more thick-skinned about that sort of thing. Then again, reading some of them might give you a case of the vapors. My bet is hers have been much worse, and much more numerous, than yours.

Bill: Note: On the advice of my editors, this is the last column I will post for awhile on this subject. My impulse would be to continue to fight back and answer the critics, but I see the wisdom in their observation that nothing new is being said here and the Internet frenzy is adding nothing to the debate or our understanding of our world. I also see that I cannot continue to write about humanity and difficult questions if indeed what I wish is to vanquish those who attack me.
A blog is a deeply personal endeavor and for that reason, the writing and the comments in response veer towards the hyper-personalized. I need to say to my readers, though, that I write an opinion column. It is my voice, one that is often sarcastic and one that solely reflects my 30 years of experience in the field. I strive to see an angle in an event that is different. Because I try to be ahead of the curve, and not just reflect conventional wisdom, the observations are often uncooked, and often even wrong. I feel successful when I’ve tapped into something, and I guess the recent postings have been a success in that regard, even though they have become painful for me and others.

Me: Bwaaaaaaaahahahaha! Sorry…couldn’t think of anything else to say. That. Was. Just. Funny!

Bill: I’m a bit surprised that many of the critics, even the O’Reilly’s of the world, think that I AM the Washington Post, that is, that the journalism in the Post is inseparable from the opinion. Maybe these critics are just posturing to attack the newspaper; maybe they truly don’t get it; maybe they really wish for or foresee the demise of the mainstream news media. The Post, on the other hand, has made a major commitment to adjust itself to this new, cacophonous, very imperfect new medium, demonstrating that it is not going to die a carbon death while the digital era advances. Because it is the Washington Post, I know that my words carry more weight, and that gives me an added responsibility: I not only have to be true to myself and what I believe and adhere to the facts, but I also have to be mindful of the power of the pen. In that spirit, I’ll give myself and my readers a break.

Sentence to the WaPo Editors:

Signed,
Your readers.

[BTW - if you missed Dusty's first rant on the subject... click here.]