http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2007/02/07/easy-on-arkin/ Dr Dolman's place in cyberspace Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:34:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2007/02/07/easy-on-arkin/#comment-15 Fri, 24 Aug 2007 18:00:23 +0000 http://astropolitics.org/blog1/2007/02/07/easy-on-arkin/#comment-15 “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. “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.

]]>