Easy on Arkin
Many of those in the blog and MSM spheres feasting on the remains of William Arkin’s Jan 30th Early Warning column, “The Troops Also Need to Support the American People,” have unfortunately missed the crucial point of his argument.
Arkin’s thesis – clearly and unambiguously presented at the opening of his post – was this:
I hope that military commanders took the soldiers [who spoke to NBC] aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them [in uniform, on camera] to disapprove of the American people.
I saw the NBC newsclip Arkin reacted to. As an active duty military officer currently into a 23rd year of military service, Arkin’s main thesis was spot on. Slap him for his style. Bash him for much of what followed his opening lines. It seems emotion may have blurred his professional peperspective. Moreover, he should be held accountable for the words he published. All that said, PLEASE, in the food fight, let’s not lose sight of Arkin’s clear and unequivocal concern. It is a vitally important one.
American soldiers in uniform, have no business wading into public, democratic discourse, particularly when it regards our use. Whenever we do, no matter what our position on an issue might be, we erode to some degree the sacred and fragile trust between the nation’s soldiers and the body whole of its citizenry. When we take a side, or even hint at taking a side, we put at risk the trust of those (not in uniform) who might see things differently. Worse, when others who do agree pile on – as in this case, what the Malkins, Hindrakers, Morriseys, and now O’Reilly’s out there are now doing – that overall trust risks still more erosion yet. Michele, Jon, Ed, Bill, thank you for your support. I mean that, humbly and sincerely. Please respect, however, indeed demand from us, that whenever we are in uniform, we soldiers take extra care to remain apolitical. The strength of our military, and ultimately its ability to support and defend the Constitution, rests on this requirement. That was Arkin’s original and primary point, which unfortunately, has gotten completely lost in the melee.
February 9th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
“I’m all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn’t for them to disapprove of the American people.”
I don’t see any reference to wearing a uniform in Arkin’s opening statement. I would venture to say that “those who wear the uniform…” is commonly accepted parlance for members of the armed forces, and firmly believe Arkin meant his phrase in these terms. With respect to Pace’s valid concern, Pace gets Arkin’s argument totally wrong. Arkin wasn’t attacking the soldier’s “poor” judgement to state an opinion wearing their uniforms, he was attacking them for having an opinion at all. Arkin dislikes the fact that soldiers can have an opinion contrary to the civilian majority opinion. If the soldier’s wanted to bug out and the majority of American’s were pro-Iraq war, I sincerely doubt Arkin would have written this column.
I might point out that in a war zone, its likely (I have no experience in this matter) that most military members would rarely, if ever, be out of a uniform of some sort. Also, if the soldiers were interviewed in the one or two civilian T-shirts they had in theater, it would have likely not presented a good image or even be news-worthy. Iraq soldiers deployed may only have the ability to express opinions to newspeople while in uniform.
I have never subscribed to the belief that soldiers cannot also be citizens. Few would be so bold as to say that frankly, but Pace’s “apolitical” admonishment comes close when the soldier is on duty 24/7. Stating an opinion while in uniform as you stand guard on a busy street corner, or taking an hour to get chow, etc.. is a far cry from wearing class-A’s at a socialist rally while on leave. We need to understand this in context.
And Arkin never even considered this issue when he attacked those sworn to defend him.