"I mean, my god, with the greatest military might in the history of the world, four years after "Mission Accomplished", you and your boys can't finish off a bunch of third world dead enders"

Wow, Arkin's military "expertise" sure has rubbed off on his readers... Do you know when Saddam was deposed? When the Iraqi's voted for a constitution? Quicker than America ever could [1776 vs 1783]

Do you even know what MOUT operations are and why the expected casualty ration is 10:1? Like the other lefty trolls posting here, you don't know enough about warfighting to even make a relevant point.

Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance.

You are a sick, sick man...and even your back-peddling shows that. You should apologize, and resign.

Rev,

"...just imagine if Saddam had attacked Iran after the U.S.A. surmised that Iran had WMDs (whether they did or not)? Instead of being turned over to a lynch mob, he would have been considered an American hero, and he and Bush 43 (like-minds) would be spending time together at Crawford. And, as a consolation prize, we would have okayed Saddam to take out Kuwait!" Glad to see that you are beginning to fully understand the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and learn how the world (not just the USA) really works. I don't however think Saddam would have been making the rounds in Crawford - you don't tend to lunch with people that have tried to kill your dad.

"The troops are doing what Bush told them to do (the decider) in spite of the will of the majority of Americans, however, that does not mean that what Bush told them to do was or is the correct thing to do!" Tell me, "Rev" really is short for Revisionist, right? We are there because the American people were OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of being there. Throughout the US, there may have been (and this is being extraodinarily generous) 10 million people that actively protested the war before it began. If my math is correct, that is somewhere around 3-4%. Even recently on a beautiful DC day, the anti-war demonstration could not pull out 1 million people. On the poll that really mattered, people re-elected Bush in order to keep the troops there (and if you are of the ilk that Bush was not really re-elected, the fact remains that he got somewhere around 50% approval in that poll). Congress voted to allow the troops to go there.

"And just over a decade later what did the USA do, invade and occupy Iraq? Double-standard? The fact is that both nations under their tyrannt leaders acted in a rogue manner. Bob, the whole world cannot be wrong." Aside from the fact that the whole world could in fact be wrong, it took only one veto in the UN to simultaneously make itself impotent and force a number of other nations, led by the US, to do the right thing. It seems your idea is that the whole world has to be in agreement for there to be "legitimacy" for a military action. I would submit that that borders on unrealistic. For things to work as you suggest means that the UN would need to be effective. Someday that might happen, athough its been over 60 years so far.

But Mr. Arkin is doing his job. What is the troops excuse? Why can't they beat a rag tag team of nobodies. Maybe the American people, who like to win, are just tired of watching the Washington Generals fight. Time to bring em home!

In my opinion, Mr. Arkin should have to attend sensitivity training for his anti U.S soldier rant. After that, fire him.

Fen, Fen, Fen,

Send Notskinner back to his liberal arts classes, but maybe you should go with him to take your ballet ones! I mean, my god, with the greatest military might in the history of the world, four years after "Mission Accomplished", you and your boys can't finish off a bunch of third world dead enders. How do you account for your poor performance in Iraq, and why should'nt the American people have the right to say "You're FIRED" and move on to a political solution?

I mean, man, you're embarrassing the country.

"Are you seriously saying that you find it easier to defend the US on the other side of the globe than here at home?"

Yes. You really don't understand the weakness of static defenses do you? Tell me, who is better equipped to fight

1) A Marine in Iraq with a Fire Team at his back and air support, or

2) A Mother in a NY shopping mall with mace in her purse and two kiddies in tow.

Are you guys really this stupid? Please PLEASE go back to your Performance Art Studies and leave the serious stuff to your betters.

"Do you really think that any terrorist goes "hmm, I guess we can't go to the US and attack there because the troops are HERE!"

Yes. Al Queda was forced to face us on the battlefield instead of our shopping malls, because we chose terrain in his own backyard.

Seriously, go back to your liberal arts degree or whatever innanities you normally busy yourself with.

... I am glad to know that the tyrant Saddam is no longer around to cause us trouble,

Bob

When I consider your entire argument, the only thing that you have done is to prove that when it comes to the rule of law, Americans have one standard for themselves and another standard for every one else and every other nation of the world.

Let's assume that all of the information that America received from foreign intelligence services in other nations had turned out to be true, it was still illegal for the U.S.A. or any other nation for that matter, to attack Iraq. By the way you are aware that the U.S.A. has developed a WMD or two itself? Is the USA willing to give up its WMDs, or its current development of WMDS?

Bob, do you recall what happened after Saddam illegally invaded Kuwait, apparently with the okay of the United States? To refreshen your memory, the same United States went in and drove Saddam and his army out of Kuwait given Saddam's illegal invasion of Kuwait.

And just over a decade later what did the USA do, invade and occupy Iraq? Double-standard? The fact is that both nations under their tyrannt leaders acted in a rogue manner. Bob, the whole world cannot be wrong. Bush did the same thing that Saddam did, interestingly enough only Saddam has been punished, well so far!

Saddam is a tragic figure who was supported and misused by the U.S.A. for a long time. I often wonder what Americans would have said about Saddam if he had done what America wanted him to do in the first place, attack Iran? We would probably have sent Cheney and Bush 41 over to shake hands, break open a couple of bottles of champagne, and supply him with more WMDs.

By the way, just imagine if Saddam had attacked Iran after the U.S.A. surmised that Iran had WMDs (whether they did or not)? Instead of being turned over to a lynch mob, he would have been considered an American hero, and he and Bush 43 (like-minds) would be spending time together at Crawford. And, as a consolation prize, we would have okayed Saddam to take out Kuwait!

The troops are doing what Bush told them to do (the decider) in spite of the will of the majority of Americans, however, that does not mean that what Bush told them to do was or is the correct thing to do!

I am not surprised at the American double-standard, and that is not to say that other nations don't often act in-kind, however, the fact is that America has also been getting away with Saddam-type behavior (moral equivalency) since its inception.

Until other nations are strong enough to confront the USA, I can gurantee you that the USA will continue to misbehave in the same manner that it is doing now, just like its rogue friend nations have done or are sitll doing!

Anticipating your answer: Do I hate Bush and the USA? Like the God of the Christian Bible (Proverbs 6), I hate liars and killers and I don't care who they are, or what nation they might be from!

As a veteran I am very dismayed by the phrase "support the troops." It is a meaningless phrase unless you add the important actions: a) equipping and manning the military for success; b) supporting VA hospitals for the wounded and disabled (for the next 50 years after each war); c)providing counseling services for post-traumatic stress (PTSD); d)supporting re-integration into US society after service.

This Iraq war has paid lip service to these actions, but has not made them a reality. Instead the Department of Defense continues to: a) send troops without proper equipment to the theater of operation; b) underfund VA operations now, and in future budgets; c) cut off PTSD services too quickly after return to the US; d) provide very limited services for re-integration of returning troops into US society.

Remember to question carefully what "support our troops" really means the next time you hear it or see it on some magnetic sticker on a vehicle.

What some of the so called troop "supporters" should remember is that poll after poll shows the troops themselves to believe that the war is wrong and favor pulling out.

Beyond that, I would ask all the soldiers that are writing in: Why is Iraq such a hard gig for you guys? You don't seem to have any problem with the planners, Rumsfield and Bush, so what is it? Why can't the most powerful military in the world subdue a tiny nation on the sands of a desert, armed with little more than slingshots and molotov cocktails? Your grandfathers subdued three of the baddest countries the world has ever known during WWII, and they did it under liberal leaders and in less time than you guys have had to handle Iraq.

Which is? If you're so enthralled with your Dear Leader and your conservative causes, couldn't it be that just like your Islamic conservative counterparts you just don't got the game?

It's just a tiny country, boys. They fire the coaches or the players in any other God-fearing captitalistic enterprise, shoudn't we fire YOU? (Oh, and by the way, I LOVE the troops!)

Mr. Arkin:

You admit your words were inflammatory and were written to intentionally criticize and incite those military troops who voiced their opinions regarding public support for the war. Consider the words - your words, "incite", "inflammatory" and "criticize", then add "arrogant" d "intolerant" - all your words used to express your opinions. And, now that you have been so cavalier with your words, you are seemingly taken back by the response. You must be an educated man, Mr. Arkin. I would simply refer to the words of a much less intelligent man that seem appropriate for you at this juncture - "Stupid is as stupid does". Forrest Gump

Posted by Fen:

"Don't get all emotional on me. Its obvious you don't understand the first thing about foreign policy or jihadist strategy. If we bring the troops home, the war will follow them here. But instead of jihadi's facing off against seasoned Marines in Iraq, they'll be stalking defenseless civilians in the shopping malls. Your turn to watch your children choke on their own blood.

Oh well. This country needs a culling anyway. Like a patient with gangreene, America will have to saw off a limb if Western Civ is to survive whats coming."

That's ridiculous, Fen, and you know it. Al Qeada represents less than 5% of what's going on there. This is a war between the Shiites and the Sunni's, and you know it. This is not a smart use of our resources, and, by the way, I thought our mission was to get rid of Saddam? I thought we were going to be greeted with flowers and that democracy would flourish? Are you seriously saying that you find it easier to defend the US on the other side of the globe than here at home? Do you really think that any terrorist goes "hmm, I guess we can't go to the US and attack there because the troops are HERE!" If they are so smart that they stay THERE when we attack there, why don't we outsmart by coming back HERE and waiting for them? Don't you see how stupid your argument is? And don't you think that little business of killing 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians just might, just maybe create tens of thousands of future terrorist we have to deal with for eternity, thanks to Bush.

If you're so right, why do all of your retired generals, former National Security Advisers, James Baker, Colin Powell, William Buckley, and Oliver North (too name but a few) all say your cuckoo for cocoa puffs???

You guys have FAILED to make your case for the continued war. You've lied at every point about its progress and prospects. Its rotten to the core, with a seed of lies. It's OVER, and you know it. It's just a matter of time.

Hey SEAN!

Enjoyed your reply to my various posts. It was fairly readable and I took a few things to heart. Bear in mind I was not saying the troops shouldn't be allowed to support the war, just that they shouldn't view those (that would be 75% of the American people you are fighting for) that disagree as enemies to be tarred and feathered as anti troop or anti American, which a lot of the posters here tend to do. Fair enough? Thanks for the comments.

To the people that say Bush started an illegal war for his own agenda, I merely pose this question to you:

when the world's best intelligence offices tell you theres weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Saddam is planning to use them, what do you do?

Sure, we were wrong to invade, as we later found out there was no weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to admit my views were wrong. But I'm not going to blame Bush and call for him to be arrested for the mistake. When they had Osama Bin Laden in custody, and we let him go, nobody blamed Bill Clinton for the terror Osama would later commit.

Why I now feel the original cause of the war was false, I am glad to know that the tyrant Saddam is no longer around to cause us trouble, I'm glad to hear the very very few positive stories that slip past the liberal media as well. I wish I could say I was brave enough to go to Baghdad and protect Americans. I am proud of every American soldier who risks their lives to keep us alive and able to write stupid blogs from our homes. Since we took the offensive, there has been no major attack on U.S. soil. That is an accomplishment that all the soldiers should feel proud about. All the armed forces should know that the comments made by the leftist are not the views of the entire country, and that there are many of us who feel extremely proud for what you do, and freedoms that you provide us each day.

I worked during the Vietnam War to bring soldiers home to their families when they touched down at Travis AFB Sacramento CA.
I swear I have a photographic memory and during those days NOBODY EVER SPIT ON A TROOP OR Treated them with the disrespect some of these letter writers purport. THAT is a disinformation campaign perpetrated upon the people of our nation to make us all join in the support of today's troops in some sort of mass feeling of guilt the story is supposed to inflict upon us.

Well those of us who were home and remember Nam don't buy it.

Mr. Arkin, you are quite prescient in your analysis of today's situation. The absolute Un-American arrogance of the troops and their generals and their phony illegal president have worn thin. I actually asked General Karpinsky if these troops would actually fire upon their own citizens if ordered to do so; and I reminded her that the SOVIET TROOPS REFUSED TO MURDER THEIR OWN PEOPLE. She told me that she was sad to report that today's soldiers are so brainwashed that they would indeed MURDER their own people.

If that is the case, just WHO are they loyal to? Their President apparently, and NOT TO THE PEOPLE.

In closing I wish to report to you, Mr. Arkin; that you are a TARGET of the RIGHT WING LETTER WRITING CAMPAIGN. They are put up to writing tons of letters, quickly and send them to you to overwhelm your mailbox and make other Americans think theirs is the ONLY opinion out there. The truth is that most people are working at their jobs and they won't get around to reading your article for a few days and when THEY want to submit a comment, the mailbox is full.

IT IS THEIR PLAN. They are organized and this is what they do. They have effectively SPAMMED your comment section. YOU are being watched and every time you write an article they will jump on you the same way.

I can't help wondering why is it they don't spend time reading those authors with whom they agree so that their morning coffee might be enjoyable instead of packed with the bile they spew at you?

Thank you in advance should you post this comment.

We are all sheep or shepherds. The sheep ignore the wolf that stalks them and pretend he does not exist. Sheep are passive and are not difficult to find. Like real life sheep, human sheep behavior is predictable. Hollywood, most universities, the theater and obviously the media are heavily populated by the sheep in our society. The least valuable human sheep sometimes ride in limousines and Cadillac's while lamenting the state of other less fortunate sheep.
Shepherds are usually fewer in number but just as easily found. Any place a sheep is found there is a usually a shepherd nearby. Sometimes it is fireman running up the stairs of the World Trade Center or maybe the shepherd is a citizen diving into freezing waters of a river to save another citizen he doesn't even know. Perhaps it is a politician who shepherds new laws through our congress to shelter homeless citizens. But the most obvious shepherds are the ones you describe as "the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people". The people in uniform and putting their lives in jeopardy for me and my 11 grandchildren are not just shepherds, they are my heroes and I hope my grandchildren grow up to be shepherds and leaders just like them.
Mr. Arkin, you are a sheep who, as a military writer, does not even understand the chain of command in the United States. If nothing else, that makes you intellectually dishonest. Every now and then a sheep tries to pretend he is a shepherd and you made an attempt to do so. Give it up and enjoy your lot in life. You are who you are and you will never be a shepherd. You will never comprehend what it takes and, like the sheep you are, you will probably deny the blinding flash of light and following radiation when it detonates in Washington. That is, unless those "arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people" are successful in preventing it from happening. (By the way, do you deny that the Holocaust ever happened?)
You owe our military, and the good people of Washington, a sincere apology for your arrogance. Your commentary has been consistently insensitive and callous toward our military....but the shepherds will be there for you no matter what.

Rick Gildea
Fairfax Station, VA

As the father of a Marine whose humvee was blown up by an IED three months ago, I have no words to describe the outrage I feel about your mercenary army column. My son is already a millionaire by inheritance, and he didn't enter the service for money or the outrageous beneficences you claim are being rained down upon him by a long suffering nation. He did it because he loves this country and he wanted to see just how much mental and physical challenge he could sustain in its service. I'm glad it is I and not he that encountered your condescending crap under the banner of what is supposed to be a reputable newspaper, you supercilious bastard.

Notskinner seems to forget.

Even hillery voted for the war. Maybe Notskinner also sang a war hymn.

The notion then that we should defer to the military to fight when and how and where they want is absurd. As the debate about the Iraq war demonstrates, war-making is a shared endeavor and the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people seem to be those who are wearing the uniform."

Mr. Arkin your comments are gravely flawed . The military operates at the pleasure of it's Commander in Chief. However once deployed, the military must be able to react and fight according to demands in the field. It can't be constantly looking for approval for every action from politicians with little actual combat experience or seeking acceptance from the folks back home. This would severely hamper their ability to wage war. The military should especially never concern itself with the ravings of activists with agendas that run in direct opposition to their mission and objectives as well the safety and security of the Republic.

Your bio states you served from 1974-1978 which happens to be the same time period that I served. Since the draft was discontinued in 1972 it would also mean that your enlistment was voluntary. This indicates that you are either a mercenary and thus speaking from experience or terribly wrong and deserve the hate mail you are receiving. From what I have seen of your physical stature and your recent apology it is obviously the latter.

I think it is actually a great thing for a socialist activists like yourself to speak out. Not just in a context of free speech because it forces everyone to confront the enemy within and see the fallacy of your twisted beliefs. We need to be able to address and articulate the nature of our devotion to the ideal of democracy,the republic and the vision we have for it's future.

ARichards
USN 1974-1978

Why don't you try putting on a uniform. See what it feels like. Now Understand son, that many a 17 year old died in battle, while many stayed home and were safe. Some one like YOU? Because of their sacrifice you can say, and write the the things you do. They didn't do it for the money, they did it because they love their friends and family's, and yes their country. Please choose your words carefully sir. What you say, and write can start Wars. Wars need soldiers. Soldiers come from family's that love them, and want them home safe. We don't need anymore wars...

Good for you, sir, for not letting this ridiculous Hero Worship stop you from proposing a cogent, legitimate viewpoint. Undoubtedly, you are the most hated man among the bumper-sticker crowd, but we'll never resolve this stupid war if the critics are constantly marginalized with the accusation of "undermining our troops".

And as an aside, I wonder how many of your critics will continue to support the troops so fervently when it becomes necessary to raise taxes to provide benefits for disabled veterans, long after the Presidential photo-ops at Walter Reed have ended? I guess only troops with intact spinal cords deserve our support...

It's hard to believe some of the comments people have written. I always try to check out your column because you seem to me to be the best military reporter/analyst around. Don't let foolish, thoughtless people discourage you. You have a large, appreciative audience.

Congratulations on achieving a new low in "hate America first". Your history is pretty disgusting and of course your association with the Washington Post is not surprising. NBC also seems to be more and more catering to the hard left in this nation and needs to do something to increase ratings. Of course NBC is your patron too. I sure hope one day your family will see that part you have played in increasing the danger to our men and women in uniform. I am sure that the Arkin extended family has some patriots in it and maybe even some soldiers. Arkin, you disgust me.

Have you ever written a piece critical of Al Queda, Terrorists, Communists, Socialists, French, American critics, the poor, the uneducated, the coward, the traitor? If not. Does this suggest who you are and why?

Your writing surely have caused the death of our Military Troops! It was read with interest. "NOT MUCH) You are pesonnaly a very sick individual.'

Why don't you go to Iraq and wright from the front lines.

p.s. Oh yes, bite me!

Thanks for exposing your ignorance. Nice interview for Fox and thanks for divulging classified information that people like you are not supposed to have access to. Thanks for putting American lives in danger. Maybe you can go over there and say that grabage to the troops themselves or maybe just a local base. That would be great.

Mr. Arkin-
It was interesting to read that you seem to feel it is ungrateful of our ignorant naive military pukes for not appreciating how privileged a status they have enjoyed. And this comes from a man in a line of work where you feel above criticism for violating the security of our nation, of breaking the law in your quest for a story and enjoy a virtual "sacred" right to be safe from prosecution; and indeed above criticism from the unenlightened you allegedly serve. Others risk it all for their duty as they see it. You claim the freedom to safely hide behind the first amendment while you bite the hand that protects you. You're an elitist snob hiding behind the protection of other elitist snobs who gather at parties and congratulate yourselves on your special wisdom. By the way; when the radicals you are shilling for finally get their way, you and your elite friends will be among the first with your heads in a basket. Unless the ignorant and naive ingrates in the military can save you.

Arkin, I can't wait till I get back to DC and visit the troops again at Walter Reed. Have you taken the time to visit any of troops and hear what they are saying? They are saying that the American people are being duped by the media because only the negative is being reported. There are many positive things happening in Iraq. I will make time in my itinerary to give you and any of your cronies the opportunity to face up and exercise your first amendment rights and hopefully the cameras will be rolling to show the world how you will stand up for what you say. There won't be any running from the cameras this time. I will engage and you will answer-what a spectacular show it's going to be; something similiar to what you would see on Arabic TV. I assure you, before it's all over, you and your buds will have a better appreciation for this great country and the people that choose to defend it. The first amendment works both ways!

What is most revealing about Mr. Arkin's comments are his belief that beltway perceptions are shared by all or even a majority of Americans, and his misconceptions of the United States military. Unlike many Americans, some of our ancestors left their homelands to escape the threat of dar-al-Islam,and millions of us know the hisory of Islam's bloody 1300 year old mission, because our families have lived it, died brutal, hideous deaths under it -- and we dread any victory that strengthens its resolve, advances its control, or gives it carte blanche to continue its horrific agenda. It is absolutely galling to read yet another pundit decry the freedom of speech of our armed forces, when negative stereotypes of our military men have abounded in the media for generations. Our military are not the mindless, emotionless, testosterone-hyped robots of Arkin's pseudo-intellectual, cliche stereo-type. Yes, when called upon they are trained to act efficiently as a unit taking orders -- the lives of all depend upon such discipline, but that does not preclude their individual brilliance and intellect in every academic discipline, diversity of talents, their creative genius, respect or compassion for their families, their neighbors, their co-workers, or the people in the lands where they are deployed. Mr. Arkin's hyperbole is shallow, cliche, naive and decadent -- encouraging the further corruption of pride in our nation, our medical, technological, social, agrian, and economic accomplishments and our sustainability of our way of life. He assertions do nothing to elevate our national discussion in those venues, and instead are narcisstic, self-congratulatory and delusional. Those who fail to study history: i.e., the mistake of allowing Congress to direct the Vietnam War, and the factual history of Islam, are doomed to repeat it.

Posted by: mark

"Wow our enemy has Americans fighting Americans. Let's break things down to the basics.We are at war we can all agree right? Now this country chose Bush for president. Our military has to follow orders,and their personal opinion on the cause must be held in check.Lets just get behind our troops stop fighting amongst ourselves get the job done and get the troops out of there!"

Yea Mark, you're right and that's the way it's supposed to work, but the loony liberals didn't vote for Bush, and the election was stolen, and Bush is dumber than them, and they are smarter than everybody else and they should always be in charge because they're just alot smarter than the rest of us, so it just doesn't count for them, according to them. Where do they say that anywhere? Well plainly, in their actions to sabotage this war effort.

And, of course, you can not under any circumstance question their patriotism when they commit treason.

Unfortunately, Bush has helped them, and hurt our troops, in a sense, by not being stronger in standing up to them, i.e. the press, liberals in general. He's taking too much crap from them. We need Ronald Reagan badly. If it was me being a lame duck, you'd hear me on national TV call them out, starting with Mr. Arkin here, and then hitting the politicians and others who have undermined repeatedly (Kerry, Kennedy, Durbin, Murtha, Fonda etc etc). NY Times also gets a MAJOR beating if I was President. They only released classified info. Where is the President's outrage over THAT?

Treason is what treason does!

I respect your right to your opinion, I even think you defend your position with some skill. That said, your entire argument is hollow when delivered by a man with no credibility relative to those he attacks. I am sure the DOD would be more than happy to let you embed with an American military unit in Iraq. I know for a fact that the Soldiers or Marines you observed would defend you like one of their own, so perhaps you should put some courage behind your convictions.
People are calling you arrogant and stupid because you refer to "obscene amenities" when you have never written your wife a free email on an expensive government computer while telling her about your harrowing day and that you cant wait to see her in five months. If you had spent less than 24 hours with any group of soldiers or Marines in combat you would realize how foolish "unanimity of thought and an unwavering regard for hierarchy" sounds when used to describe the entire military.
I don't think you sound foolish because of the content of your views. You sound foolish because you really dont have any experience to justify your opinion.

Gregory Rivaldi,
Captain US Marines

Sure pull the troops out of Iraq, show the world the "American People" inability to work together and support the decisions of their appointed leaders, which every citizen of 18 years of age or older had the right to vote in to office. Don't whine when the battlefield comes to American soil and your loved ones are destroyed by the enemy who has no morals, or value of human life or rights of others to exist.

Enjoy the freedom and security that you currently have. Everything comes to an end eventually. look at the Roman Empire.

So, Mr. Arkin, you are tolerant and NOT arrogant?? I guess so, as long as you truly feel that way. That's all that matters, right? The way YOU FEEL about it. Too bad you miss the opportunity to honestly report in an unbiased manner. Perhaps we could take you seriously then. And perhaps not denigrate your rantings as just more angry leftist fanatical reporting. I ask you to try to get in touch with reality and join the American people.....we're not so bad....we tolerate you.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
--John Stewart Mill--

We all have a role to play in this life. What is yours, Mr Arkin? In these times, we all seem politically polarized, but the truth is always somewhere in-between. I hope you are not so nearsighted and can learn from this gaff. Soldiers are people, Americans just like you and I. We make mistakes, so do they. They vary in opinions, patriotism, strengths and weaknesses just like we share. I don't question your patriotism and don't care the reason's for your views. I will just say, you owe our soldiers two things: 1) if you haven't been, go to Afghanistan and Iraq (I'm sure the paper will pay for the trip). 2) you owe our soldiers an apology - and please don't justify the damn thing - just be a man and apologize.
25 year Air Force Veteran

As usual in our history it's going to be the left that sees the light, while the right is dragged along kicking and screaming. The military does its mission, and God bless them for that. But when a Fox-news-watching public is happy to be lied to again and again, when their attitude is: "I trust the President when he lies to me," then the public needs to speak, as it did in the election. The only one who commands the troops is Bush, and Bush understands 0. This is a tribal war now, whether you want it to be or not. And our men and women in uniform will obviously keep knocking themselves out and dying as long as Bush pretends this isn't a tribal war, but that doesn't mean that we, the public, have to pretend this isn't hurting us and hurting the war on terror. Guess who attacked us on 9/11? Guess where they lived? How many in Iraq? 0. Strange, huh? Dictators like Hussein don't like religious fanatics like bin Laden. Gee. So: while you haul your fat butt to your car to put a bumper sticker on that says 'I support the troops,' hopefully stopping to eat Fritos along the way (too much sacrifice is not good for you), keep in mind that those who question the obvious cluelessness of our commander in chief may actually care about the troops as much as or more than you do.

Wow our enemy has Americans fighting Americans. Let's break things down to the basics.We are at war we can all agree right? Now this country chose Bush for president. Our military has to follow orders,and their personal opinion on the cause must be held in check.Lets just get behind our troops stop fighting amongst ourselves get the job done and get the troops out of there!

No one could pay anyone enough to protect the venomous speech you spew against each and every individual who has ever served in our armed forces. Those folks believe in your right to show your hatred of them. They have kept our country free so that you can criticize them. Thanks for enlightening us on exactly how you really feel about mainstream America. Does your enlightened response to them mean they don't have the right to respond to you?

I am sick to death of this constant hatred of our military. Do you want ied's going off in this country? Are you aware that these radicals want to kill all americans even the ones that cut our country, our military, our leaders. Where do you get off living your wonderful life here in the land of the free and not realize that you are entitled to it because of the sacrifices our military have made in the entire history of our country? You have a serious problem and need to stop this hate speech. My husband serves our country with honor and I believe I sleep peacefully at night because he is there. Some people can't see the writting on the wall becasue they don't care,you on the other hand can't see it because someone spoon feed you garbage and you swallowed it and then spit it out all over the media. You do have the freedom to say these things but it is only because our military has fought for you to be able to continue to have this right. So you see your arguement is a right given to you by the people you hate. Isn't that an ironic state of rightousness?

Mr. Arkin,

Here's the bottom line, coming from a military member:

If you really felt the way you felt when you posted your original post, be a man and stand beside it.

As a member of an ethnic minority, I'd much rather deal with a bigot I know than wonder about someone who's a closet hater. I'd rather deal with a military hater (masquerading as a bona fide military analyst, which credentials you cannot legitimately claim) like you in the open than deal with haters who masquerade as legitimate journalists (like most do).

You have the right to say what you say--my service, and that of my brothers and sisters in arms, guarantees that every day we wake up and put on the uniform. If we didn't believe it, deep down, we'd have to quit. We know what we are, we know that you are not representative of the majority of the American people. People like you simply provide other people like you with a platform which possesses a patina of legitimacy. Keep going with that assumption, it will be your undoing.

As for the Washington Post, New York Times, NBC News, et al--ever wonder why your ratings are slipping? This is why.

Do I like what you have to say? No.

Do you have a right to say what you say? Absolutely.

Does that mean that we don't have a right to be outraged? Absolutely not.

You loaded the wagon, now pull it. If you had true intellectual courage and REALLY felt you were in the right when you wrote what you wrote, then you'd man up and stand by it and say "to hell with the lot of you."

Instead, you're backpedalling, trying to get away from it. You've revealed your character for what it is. Doing so, you've rendered yourself as insignificant--intellectually, politically, and journalistically. We now know you for what you really are, and, frankly, I'm glad of that.

Were you to stand by what you originally said, I'd hate the content, but admire you for your convictions in the face of adversity. Now? You've relegated yourself to the trash heap of ideas and time. Say hi to Dan Rather and Peter Arnett for us.

I thought of writing an intelligent and rational argument about just how dangerous and how much damage the incessant criticism of the war is.
I know, I also did my time for an unpopular cause.
But, I realized any argument would fall on deaf ears. You have made up your mind are obviously not interesed in reasoned dialogue.
However, I am always amused by how the right of free speech never seems to apply to those who disagree with the Washington Post. You condemn the troops for speaking their minds. How dispicable of them, How ungrateful, How uppity.

Arkin, you are protected from personal attack by the terms of use of this blog. Nothing, however, protects our troops from your personal attack. Sorry, I can't tell you what I really think of you and your commments.

And the soldiers die so jerks like you can write bad things about them to further your political ends. Grow some brains. It must be tough living without a spine

what an arrogant, ignorant throwback you are. I went to SF State in the '60's and you make them look good. Do us a favor, RETIRE MORON !!!!!!

I'm currently overseas and missed this until catching CNN on AFN this morning. After going thru Mr. Arkin's postings and the many comments, I am sitting here really stunned. I am an Army retiree and my husband is still in so of course I am going to be biased.
I can't get over your view of the military. We never choose when, how... we want to fight. Our military leaders do their part in the planning process, but as we all know the ultimate decision is not with those in uniform. We execute the orders of those appointed over us and the President of the United States. Our voices are not heard like the civilian's are heard on the radio, television, and newspapers. We do not stage marches, sit-ins, petitions, or rally's, we vote. We are allowed to voice our opinions in a very public forum one time and we become "the arrogant and intolerant few who think they are above the people.."? Aren't we still "the people" when we are in the military? Thank you America for your prayers, donations, words of encouragement, and for all your support. Thank-you also for exercising your rights as Americans by expressing your opinions thru all the means afforded us. But, Mr. Arkin, I find it hard to believe that you ever had any direct connection to the military or positive view of it.

This is the saddest discussion I've ever seen. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Look at the venom you spew at your fellow countrymen, all over ideas you barely understand. If Mr. Arkin can't express his thoughts without all you nitwits screaming for his head or deriding "leftist" or liberal America, you should avoid reading it and get your butt back over to Rush Limbaush.com or wherever your fantasies of reality were first created.

Hmmmm...

"In the 30 years that we've had an all-volunteer force, this is the first war we've had where the justness of the cause is questionable and where we are losing and still could "lose."' -Willie Arkin

Lose? Are you serious? We would never "lose" this war. I must thank you for supporting my uncle, and my many friends that are overseas; they appreciate the kind words. I also wanted to thank you for the "tipping point". My decision: to not support NBC, or the Washington Post in any way shape or form until you are gone. You're already DONE, I'd like to see you gone.

It's hysterical that you call yourself a man of god. BWAHAHAHAHAA !!

Posted by: Libs R Moonbats of Diminished Capacity,

You might keep fighting, however, we are not in any danger of you or your kind ever winning.

Man of God, they said the same thing about Jesus ---they called him names like Baalzebub and your kind killed him as well!

Moonbat is just fine, however, I would prefer to be called Reverend Moonbat, or the Most Reverend Moonbat, or the Right Reverend Moonbat!

Yea, blame Bush and Cheaney but not the long list of Dems who voted in favor of going into Iraq. You need the long list and quotes of the Dems??

Listen no name apologist: Bush said and I repeat, I AM THE DECISIONMAKER!

Thank you Dianne. I could not have said it better myself. Best wishes to your son.

Fact is, Mr. Arkin, you appear to have some pretty thin skin. No matter how much you deride your detractors as arrogant, intolerant, boorish, or anything else you choose to make them, it doesn't in any fashion diminish the truth of what they are saying. You, as so many in the media, seem to think that yours is the only "thinking person's view" and the rest of us have been duped.

Personally, I think those predictably leftist media types such as Mr. Arkin are being played like an instrument by folks on the other side who realize that it is the hearts and minds of Americans, not Iraqis, that will determine the course of the war. Ironically, it is they who accuse people like me of drinking the Kool-Aid.

For the record, my son is a Navy ROTC student at the University of Notre Dame. He is a brilliant critical thinker studying history amidst the best and the brightest of this country, including those who hold widely divergent viewpoints. He, too, has refrained from the proverbial Kool-Aid of which Arkin and his ilk are convinced we are all imbibing.

Much as it somewhat nauseates me to know that fellow like Mr. Arkin are getting the benefit of the sacrifices of young men like my son, I realize that is what freedom is all about.

I don't have to like it, though.

Mr. Arkin, you are not fit to carry my son's bootstraps. You should be thanking your lucky stars that so many young men and women in this country are willing to disregard the snide arrogance of folks like yourselves and serve their nation regardless.

By the way, if you don't think the constant beratement of the commander-in-chief that has been spewing from the left has not had a negative impact on the current status of this war, maybe you ought to study a little history--and military strategy. You may believe your cause is just. That doesn't stop cause from having effect, however.

So, if the war is wrong and we need to pull out, than why don't the dems vote to stop funding the war and end it. the war is not Bush's war, not one person voted againstit nor will anyone stop funding to it, et al

Posted by: 92y

I am not an apologist for the Democratics in Congress, however, it would appear to me that you are asking the wrong question. Have you asked the Republicans who have been in power in Congress for about 12 years now why they allowed this injustice to take place?

The Democrats have only been in power for 30 days.

Besides, Bush has already, I have enough money to continue with my surge,

Besides, if they stopped him, he would simply do what Reagan did with the Contra's, and have them fund the war.

He would simply have Israel, or some other proxy to take America's place. The American people must demand that Bush stop this war, or we must insist that he be impached|

Dmitri: His "crime", such as it is, was apparently to suggest, however gingerly, that public support for this war is gone, and public support for the troops is not unconditional, especially if the troops insist on expressing political opinion that is undistinguishable from the ever dwindling neocon hard right.

ME: That was not his point...are you Arkin hiding behind the name Dmitri? That was some of the same smarmy language used by Arkin to not stand his ground. He reacted to an E4 saying that if you support the troops and you dont support the war, it does not make sense to me"...where you get this expressing opinion from the NEOCON hard right is beyond me...then he attacked that E4 on top of it...

Dmitri: If the military personnel drives itself into a deep political opposition to the civilian political views and insists that the policy should be defferential to their opinion, instead of the public will at large, we have a serious national problem.

ME: YEP, always a problem, specifically with a professional military...that is why the founders did not like standing Armies...however, that would mean we would have a small cadre military for the draft army for the wars...I AGREE...the question is do you and your leftist buddies (applies to the right too but they are not bringing this up, you are)? The only sure thing to do is get more liberals in the Army...and you aint gonna get them, and you know it, without a draft...

...still waiting for Arkin to step up and explain how 4 years in Europe as an S-2 officer [away from combat zones] qualifies him to be an "expert" on the military and homeland security...

Or is he already posting here as a sock-puppet?

Echo? Where are you Arkin? Show yourself.

Soldiers should not blame the American people for undermining the war or not approving of their job. It's not the job but the performance. If you fail, and the government wants you pulled out, that's the military's fault for using bad strategies, the executives fault for bad management (Rumsfeld really brought in a REVOLUTION in military affairs huh) and lying about the cost of fighting a war and not asking for how much money they actually needed and just getting less than that from Congress and pretending it's enough.

these arguments are tedious and dumb. Look at federal spending and the amount of money being wasted every year, and you can see that if the US government really supported the troops they would have spent more money on them (and wasted less) so that they all have bulletproof vests and armored humvees. Congress, the President, private business...none support the troops that much. The military...nope...they waste millions every year. This is about politics. If we lose troops and money fighting a losing war that enganders national security. We're losing a billion dollars every two days in the war. That's in addition to the 300 billion we spent on the military each year before 9/11, addon the nat security stuff after 9/11 and the wars and you have quite a big budget. Problem is that undermines future security. Waste lives and money now, you have less momey and lives to throw at the next threat.

Also, if you're a right winger (politician or citizen) that hasn't individually donated yourself, one of your family members, or your treasure to the military then shut up about supporting the troops (personal note: I have family in the military). When the Bush family donates more money privately to the war than they made off of it, we can start talking about supporting the troops.

Bush gambled with Iraq to increase our power, now people are asking us to gamble to lose power. Not even the neocons remember what they fighting for. They've started to believe the democracy ploy because now the war is costing more than the oil we're stealing so they can't claim were fighting for money or for stragic reasons.

Then there's the terrorism ploy. It's stupid. Our enemy in Iraq isn't the terrorists, it's Iran. Larger shiite population with Iranian cells at work. Essentially eventually Iran can turn Iraq into a shiite state and then eventually into a puppet state for Iran. Our relative power declines and their relative power increases. That's what's actually at stake here. A battle for empire with Iran. The Sunni Al Qaeda elements are not as big of a deal and not as big of a deal geopolitically. A shiite Iraqi government could clamp on down on them fine and will once we pull out, using more fascist means than the US military. Cuz that's how saddam kept order.

Anyways, a bunch of y'all are idiots. Thinking that media propaganda from jihadi's is the big deal and just because osama says we're cowards we have to stay in to prove we're not, misses the bigger picture. Security is about geopolitics. Iraq is about US vs. Iran not terrorists. So the real question is: how afraid are you of Iran. If you're very afraid, might be good to stay in and not let Iran win. If you think Iran is abunch primitive jihadi exemists that can do very little to us or the world, then no reason to stay in.

If Bush was smart he would have done more diplomacy to chill (notice chill not stop, because that might be impossible) Iran's influence in Iraq when the direction of the conflict and Washington's political reality on the ground were more uncertain. Once again he did not anticipate and prepare, just like he didn't for 9/11 or for Katrina or Afghanistan (which may be more important since it is where the terrorists that attacked us hid their organization and it's around china which is a large geostrategic threat and is trying to create a sphere of influence in asia which means pushing us out of central asian countries and themselves in. We shouldn't lose this one because afghanistan helps us contain china and we should be ready to incase they ever invade taiwan or threaten the sea lanes that the majority of the world's trade and oil flow through).

And for the blood guts and glory people of the Rumsfeldian school of "you go to war with the army you have, not the one want," who say we should support the troops as in support the war and who cares if we have the money for armored humvees and vests because to soldier is to bleed, I don't care. When it costs over a million dollars to train a soldier, I want as few of them lost as possible to protect that investment. You don't just lose the original investment, you also lose the cost of training a new one. And like I said before, money is national security because militaries cost money and they are our national security. Essentially there are only two reasons to fight this war strategically speaking: 1) CONTAIN IRAN 2) GET INFORMATION--ANY TIME YOU FIGHT A WAR YOU LEARN THINGS ABOUT YOUR OWN MILITARY AND OTHER'S SO YOU GET VITAL STRATEGIC INFO (BUT IN MY OPINION WE SHOULD ALREADY HAVE THAT)

anyways, anyone know why there's so much talk of nat sec and terrorism but so little talk of grand geo-political strategy. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees. I mean we're talking about a war on terror but we're not talking about the strategies to win it. As if "stay in" is a strategy. Or "cut and run" is a strategy. Neither side presents one. There are potential winning strategies but I'm anti-war because I don't expect Bush to think of any of them, try any of them, or to successfully implement what he tries. How can Bush who ran from war be expected to run a war? He couldn't even run New Orleans after Katrina well, much less another country, much less our country...

Soldiers should not blame the American people for undermining the war or not approving of their job. It's not the job but the performance. If you fail, and the government wants you pulled out, that's the military's fault for using bad strategies, the executives fault for bad management (Rumsfeld really brought in a REVOLUTION in military affairs huh) and lying about the cost of fighting a war and not asking for how much money they actually needed and just getting less than that from Congress and pretending it's enough.

these arguments are tedious and dumb. Look at federal spending and the amount of money being wasted every year, and you can see that if the US government really supported the troops they would have spent more money on them (and wasted less) so that they all have bulletproof vests and armored humvees. Congress, the President, private business...none support the troops that much. The military...nope...they waste millions every year. This is about politics. If we lose troops and money fighting a losing war that enganders national security. We're losing a billion dollars every two days in the war. That's in addition to the 300 billion we spent on the military each year before 9/11, addon the nat security stuff after 9/11 and the wars and you have quite a big budget. Problem is that undermines future security. Waste lives and money now, you have less momey and lives to throw at the next threat.

Also, if you're a right winger (politician or citizen) that hasn't individually donated yourself, one of your family members, or your treasure to the military then shut up about supporting the troops (personal note: I have family in the military). When the Bush family donates more money privately to the war than they made off of it, we can start talking about supporting the troops.

Bush gambled with Iraq to increase our power, now people are asking us to gamble to lose power. Not even the neocons remember what they fighting for. They've started to believe the democracy ploy because now the war is costing more than the oil we're stealing so they can't claim were fighting for money or for stragic reasons.

Then there's the terrorism ploy. It's stupid. Our enemy in Iraq isn't the terrorists, it's Iran. Larger shiite population with Iranian cells at work. Essentially eventually Iran can turn Iraq into a shiite state and then eventually into a puppet state for Iran. Our relative power declines and their relative power increases. That's what's actually at stake here. A battle for empire with Iran. The Sunni Al Qaeda elements are not as big of a deal and not as big of a deal geopolitically. A shiite Iraqi government could clamp on down on them fine and will once we pull out, using more fascist means than the US military. Cuz that's how saddam kept order.

Anyways, a bunch of y'all are idiots. Thinking that media propaganda from jihadi's is the big deal and just because osama says we're cowards we have to stay in to prove we're not, misses the bigger picture. Security is about geopolitics. Iraq is about US vs. Iran not terrorists. So the real question is: how afraid are you of Iran. If you're very afraid, might be good to stay in and not let Iran win. If you think Iran is abunch primitive jihadi exemists that can do very little to us or the world, then no reason to stay in.

If Bush was smart he would have done more diplomacy to chill (notice chill not stop, because that might be impossible) Iran's influence in Iraq when the direction of the conflict and Washington's political reality on the ground were more uncertain. Once again he did not anticipate and prepare, just like he didn't for 9/11 or for Katrina or Afghanistan (which may be more important since it is where the terrorists that attacked us hid their organization and it's around china which is a large geostrategic threat and is trying to create a sphere of influence in asia which means pushing us out of central asian countries and themselves in. We shouldn't lose this one because afghanistan helps us contain china and we should be ready to incase they ever invade taiwan or threaten the sea lanes that the majority of the world's trade and oil flow through).

And for the blood guts and glory people of the Rumsfeldian school of "you go to war with the army you have, not the one want," who say we should support the troops as in support the war and who cares if we have the money for armored humvees and vests because to soldier is to bleed, I don't care. When it costs over a million dollars to train a soldier, I want as few of them lost as possible to protect that investment. You don't just lose the original investment, you also lose the cost of training a new one. And like I said before, money is national security because militaries cost money and they are our national security. Essentially there are only two reasons to fight this war strategically speaking: 1) CONTAIN IRAN 2) GET INFORMATION--ANY TIME YOU FIGHT A WAR YOU LEARN THINGS ABOUT YOUR OWN MILITARY AND OTHER'S SO YOU GET VITAL STRATEGIC INFO (BUT IN MY OPINION WE SHOULD ALREADY HAVE THAT)

anyways, anyone know why there's so much talk of nat sec and terrorism but so little talk of grand geo-political strategy. Talk about not seeing the forest through the trees.

FEN: I served from 1991-2003. US Marine Corps. 3D & 2D LAR BN. Funny how you Lefties denigrate anyone who hasn't served as chickenhawks who's opinions should be discounted, the those that have serverd as liars [or mercs] who's experience should be ignored, and then whine about us violating your free speech.

ME: Amen...so afraid of other opinions these lefties...dont talk if you have not been in a war (just FYI I have been in 3) and if you have been in a war, u are a merc/Nazi/moron/baby killer and we should not listen to your opinion and oh by the way, the merc/Nazi/moron/baby killer intimdates me (said in a whiny voice of Arkin)...we should be grateful for Arkin, he let the mask drop and we are seeing his defenders...adn we are giving them a spanking on 1st Amendment rights.

Right after 911 I emailed a friend who worked in NYC..i labeled it "baby killer 6" and she was like why did you say that...I told her, I will be a hero (which I am not) for serving now...and in two years I will be a baby killer with the MSM leading the way...and although the NYT has really tried hard, we are not "baby killers" yet...but we must be on teh lookout for the Arkins everywhere they pop up...and USE OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DESTROY THEIR ARGUMENTS.

Someone responded to Rock...here is what he said

"Give it a rest Rock, how can you apologize to him and then attack him again? Your problem Rock is that you put the troops above everyone else, there human just like us.

ME: However there is one difference between them and you...YOU sent THEM to Iraq and Afghanistan. They did not hitch a ride over there, they were ordered to go there by this goverment which is YOUR government, warts, wars and all. This war is your responsibility, you pay taxes, you elect to continue to live there...it is your war and you SENT that TROOP there...that is why he DESERVES YOUR UNFETTERED SUPPORT.

guy speaking to ROCK: "Some are heroes and some are mercenaries, some are fathers and mothers, some love killing other humans, and some will be will hurt for the rest of there lives to take another life.

ME: What a bunch of nonsense. It matters not what they are to include the guys who are natural born killers...YOU SENT THEM TO THE WAR...THEY DESERVE UNFETTERED SUPPORT.

guy who wrote to ROCK: "You go after Arkin for generalizing, when you are just as guilty and hypocritical by placing the troops above all criticism. I'm sick of people saying the troops are all good or all bad, they are is both, but mostly everything in between."

ME: In supporting the troops you are doing the ONLY MORAL DECENT thing there is to do...THEY DID NOT GO THERE BY THEMSELVES, THEY WENT WITH YOUR TAX DOLLARS BY YOUR GOVERNMENT....Take some responsibility or start the revolution or DONT pay your taxes...but quit saying that they are there because that is where they wanted to go...

guy who wrote to ROCK: "Those who support the troops by wanting to bring them home, want them to live and those who support the troops by keeping them in the cross fire of a civil war, don't seem to want the troops to live."

ME: Reread your statement. That is a pacifist statement. The only way to support troops in the above nonsense is to not send them anywhere to fight...I am sure you were against Killing all of those SERBS in the 90s werent you?

"He'll get the blame because instead of fortifying instruments and tactics that actually could prevent another bomb or attack, he has wasted a trillion dollars on a war that had nothing to do with 911"

You really do not understand the weaknesses of STATIC DEFENSES. In short: you could spend trillions of dollars on "fortifying instruments" and I would still be able to smuggle a nuke [nay, an entire Battalion] into the US. Defenses always fail, they cannot be strong in all places at once - any sports team will tell you the same thing: doesn't matter how good their D is, they must go on the offensive.

Please go back to your Modern Art studies and leave the serious stuff to those who understand it.

BTW, still waiting for Arkin to step up and explain how 4 years in Europe as an S-2 officer [away from combat zones] qualifies him to be an "expert" on the military and homeland security...

Or is he already posting here as a sock-puppet?

Echo? Where are you Arkin? Show yourself.

"Fenazi, Actually I agree with you. It was obviously very easy to brainwash you once, it wouldn't be that difficult for the Islamic right wing terrorist to brain wash you again. After all both the Christian right and Islamic right are extremist organizations"

1) Thanks for calling me a Nazi again. Keep it up, maybe you'll convince me to join up with them. Defending the constitution and your freedom of speech? Geez, what was I thinking when I made that oath?

2) I'm not a Christian or even spiritual. I do, however, know a few Evangelicals. And from what I've seen, its not much to see how the spiritual types will seek out whatever religious expression exists and is available to them.

Thats whats so funny about your kind - you think the biggest threat comes from the Religious Right. And yet, its Islam that's burning women for showing too much leg. Its Islam that beheads the athiests. Its Islam that buries homosexuals alive. And you and Sorkin and your "Studio 60" crowd just look the other way. Hypocrites all.

Poted by Rock,

"Mr. Arkin,
My apologies for calling you a nasty name in comment to your article. However, I must voice my extreme disappointment that a member of such a powerful institution as the Washington Post would stoop to the level you have over the past few days.
I guess I'm just cut from a different bolt of cloth than you because I'll never insult the troops and I'll never stop supporting them.
For me to have utterd a nasty epithet at your personally was wrong, I apologize."

Give it a rest Rock, how can you apologize to him and then attack him again? Your problem Rock is that you put the troops above everyone else, there human just like us. Some are heroes and some are mercenaries, some are fathers and mothers, some love killing other humans, and some will be will hurt for the rest of there lives to take another life. You go after Arkin for generalizing, when you are just as guilty and hypocritical by placing the troops above all criticism. I'm sick of people saying the troops are all good or all bad, they are is both, but mostly everything in between.

Those who support the troops by wanting to bring them home, want them to live and those who support the troops by keeping them in the cross fire of a civil war, don't seem to want the troops to live.

The only debate that matters is how to end this war. Not the childish "who said what". Staying the course has cost more American lives than 911.

Posted by: Fen

"Hah. If you think the Christian Right is bad now, wait till they convert to Islam. Try speaking "truth to power" when the consequence is a beheading, liberal coward."

Fenazi, Actually I agree with you. It was obviously very easy to brainwash you once, it wouldn't be that difficult for the Islamic right wing terrorist to brain wash you again. After all both the Christian right and Islamic right are extremist organizations. The Atlanta Olympic bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing were perpetrated by right wing Christians. The only domestic terrorist's attacks in the United States over the last thirty years have come from the Christian right. I wonder who the real enemy of the United States of America is?

Mr. Arkin,

My apologies for calling you a nasty name in comment to your article. However, I must voice my extreme disappointment that a member of such a powerful institution as the Washington Post would stoop to the level you have over the past few days.

I guess I'm just cut from a different bolt of cloth than you because I'll never insult the troops and I'll never stop supporting them.

For me to have utterd a nasty epithet at your personally was wrong, I apologize.

Posted by: Douglas Rife

"Hey, turn-about is fair play. I remember how the media and the liberals (is there really any difference?) lionized the 9/11 anti-Bush widows and Cindy Sheehan and treated their positions as unassailable. Those who did disagree with them were judged not by their arguments but on whether they, too, were victims. Well, by the same measure, you, Mr. Arkin, are unqualified to have an opinion on the war since you aren't fighting it."

Dougla$$,

A free press is just as important if not more important to this countries freedom. It's Nazi's like you that want to take that freedom away.

Hey, turn-about is fair play. I remember how the media and the liberals (is there really any difference?) lionized the 9/11 anti-Bush widows and Cindy Sheehan and treated their positions as unassailable. Those who did disagree with them were judged not by their arguments but on whether they, too, were victims. Well, by the same measure, you, Mr. Arkin, are unqualified to have an opinion on the war since you aren't fighting it.

Posted by: Fen

"Is it true that Sarin was found in Iraq?"

Sorry none was found, it wasn't sarin in the report, someone misspelled sand. It was just lots of sand found in Iraq and I have thousand of videos and photos to prove it.

Mr. Arkin,

Just like you have the right to your opinions, however wrong I may feel they are. So do the soldiers have the right to criticize the continual left wing press coverage of the war and soldier(s) as a whole. I think you Mercinary slip pretty much sums up your feelings for the miltary as a John Kerry lover. You have your right to speak and I will always support that but making it sound like the soldiers don't have that right or should somehow be thankful for you talks seems to speak to one sided freedom of speach.

Roger

And don't forget the Iraqi Liberation Act. signed by Bill Clinton. Clinton talked and talked about deposing Saddam, but if was Bush who had the balls to actually do it.

Well Joe,

Looks like alot of Dems will have to be impeached as well.

We're over there for a plethora of reasons (U.N. violations, human right's violations, etc.). Keep in mind that an Iraqi General has laid out how Saddam moved those WMDs in - and I'm willing to be an General in Saddam's Air Force knows more than you or I do about the country's WMDs.

As a former U.N. chief weapons inspector said: "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

But I think perhaps the best way to explain to liberals why we're in Iraq is to quote the same people you all have voted for:

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others.

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others.

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983″ -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

TRUST ME, the list goes on and on and on and on...

"Is it true that Sarin was found in Iraq?"

Yes, its true. I posted a few paragraphs here the AM, with details and sources, but Arkin and the Wapo deleted it. How telling....

I'm reading the posts here, and I want to try to make something that I believe clear. "Supporting the Troops" has nothing to do with supporting the War. Anybody whom thinks the 2 are the same are crazy, or purposefully obscuring the issue for political purposes. I think this war was a big mistake. I am thankful everyday that I have the fortune of not having to endure the situations that our servicemen endure. Do I support the Troops? I don't even know what that means. I think that we should either fight War as it should be fought, or we should come home. I think that we should either withdraw the troops and deal with the consequences, or send in another 100,000 or 200,000 thousand, and deal with the consequences. Since, I'm not willing to put my life on the line for "victory in Iraq", I certainly can't ask others to, so for me, I think we should bring em home, immediately, through hell or high water. I think our current course of action will result in more deaths, which could be or could have been avoided by either not going to war or, at this juncture, doing what is necessary to "win". Whatever "winning" is. Is winning toppling Saddam, is it establishing a stable democracy? is it rooting out and destroying extremism? I am a staunch democratic liberal, whom believes W should be impeached and put on trial for high crimes. For lying to take us to war, for manuipulating intelligence, for utter incomptence as CIC and in this execution of his duties as CIC. For Violations of Geneva, for Abu Graive, violations of FISA. For all these things, I vehemently dispise of this administration. As to the supporting the Troops, I think we should have developed plans for possible post war scenarios, such as nation building, and occupying Iraq, fostering diplomatic relations. I think that we should do whatever is necessary to complete whatever our "objectives" are, so that the Troops can come home to their families, or rather never have to leave their families. What are our objectives? Can anybody define them? For everybody who wants to stay in Iraq (Who wants to stay in Iraq, anyway?) what is our exit criteria? Real criteria, not "until the mission is done", are what this war and government have lacked from the begining, what were our objectives going in, our criteria for exit (good and bad), alternatives and contingencies while we were there, et cetera. Nothing, none of it anywhere to be found, and the Democrats hold the bag, getting ready to be blamed for every outcome. The only outcome that the democrats won't be blamed for is the psychological trick outcome, the one where we don't withdraw, where we don't take any action, to bring this mess to a conclusion. I support the troops, I just don't support the war. Impeach the President. Bring the Troops home.

rev. MOONBAT,

You have shown your true LOONY LIBTARD, USEFUL IDIOT ignorance AGAIN:
"If they EVER used it"

What EXACTLY did Saddam use to kill 100,000's of his OWN PEOPLE?

WASN'T IT SARIN AND MUSTARD GAS?

And, we will NEVER quit fighting against the moonbat psychopath's such as yourself and DON'T YOU EVER FORGET IT.

It's hysterical that you call yourself a man of god. BWAHAHAHAHAA !!

Regarding possible deleted posts.

Try using "find" (ctl + f) to find your old posts using a keyword that you may have used. Also, the TOS says you have to "sign" your posts which I means any unsigned posts can or will be deleted:

"Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed."

You don't have to use your actual name and can just put anything in the "Name" field.

Fen,

First off, thanks for your service. Semper Fidelis!

And indeed the censoring of non-moonbat post's here is NO surprise, but I absolutely had to make sure it was pointed out CLEARLY for all to see.

I still don't see my post that Arkinhole is blocking. Must have hit a nerve or two, eh Arkinhole?

"Washington Compost and Arkin Are CENSORING FREE SPEECH HERE! Post's being deleted and blocked. LEFT WING HYPOCRITES!"

And this surprises you WHY? The irony of the MSM supressing free speech is old news. Censorship of ommission is their greatest sin - if it doesn't dovetail with their agenda, you won't hear about it. Note the Lefty ignorance of Sarin & Mustard Gas found in Iraq. Ask any lib who follows CNN who Primakov is or what Sarrandar is and you'll get a blank stare. I'm still amazed at how ignorant and uninformed the Left is. They're sheep, being spoonfed propaganda by AP/Reuters/NYT et al.

To be fair, I HAVE noticed WaPo trying to balance their reporting with fact, but then they support light-weights like Arkin - military expert based on 4 years in the S-2 in Euopre during peacetime? What a joke. Has he even been in a combat zone? That must be why he thinks the sand and dirt I slept in for the last 12 years were "obscene amenities".

Fen,

You're 100% correct, the little lib girls couldn't handle losing an election and they've turned into rabid animals to get back in power. Political power at ALL costs is their mantra.

Bunch of INTOLERANT FREAKS!

Washington Compost and Arkin Are CENSORING FREE SPEECH HERE!

Post's being deleted and blocked.

LEFT WING HYPOCRITES !

"We are one fractured country thanks to you know who and his form of politics, and some of us simply will not support unjust wars, no matter which aggressor nation or military is involved"

We are a fractured country because you and your kind [the Left] sabatoge our foreign policy to gain political traction. You've been throwing a temper tantrum since you lost the election in 2000, basically opposing everything Bush does because you're not in power. Selfish brats.

"America has Right-Wing Fascists (including the fascist wing of the church)"

Hah. If you think the Christian Right is bad now, wait till they convert to Islam. Try speaking "truth to power" when the consequence is a beheading, liberal coward.

"who are at war with everyone else inside and outside of the nation who do not go along with their less than subjective viewpoints."

Oh please. We just ask that you don't support the enemy's objectives against our sons and daughters the way you did in Viet Nam. Millions of cambodians were slaughtered because of your profound moral corruption - sloganeering "give peace a chance" to make yourselves feel better about your selfish lifestyle.

Get over yourself.

From this day forward.....prospective future enlistees!

There is a new dynamic in America (it is not your fault, however, we cannot predict who might assume the mantle of President of the United States in the future), and you are being served notice.

It should be absolutely clear to any person who decides to join the American military from this day forward that he or she might not be supported by all of the people back home. We are one fractured country thanks to you know who and his form of politics, and some of us simply will not support unjust wars, no matter which aggressor nation or military is involved. WE WILL WORK INSTEAD TO STOP IT!

Next, any future leader that decides to simply throw the American military into harm's way with the assumption that the American people will simply follow suit and jump on board, he or she will be as wrong as are current leader is.

THIS IS NOT A PEOPLE's WAR (American People), this war belongs swifty to Bush and the fascist wing of the Republican Party. The Pope has his own military, The Bushtanistas` would do well to get their own band of crusader fighters, and not attempt to inveigle or use the one that the American people finance in DEFENSE of this naiton.

George Bush in his flatulence, has caused America to be just as sectarian (it would appear) as Iraq hav been for generations. They have the Sunni's, Shiites and others.

America has Right-Wing Fascists (including the fascist wing of the church) who are at war with everyone else inside and outside of the nation who do not go along with their less than subjective viewpoints. I say to them in the words of George Bush to, bring it on!

Hopefully, we will not be reduced to taking up arms against each other someday. However, it looks like we may be headed in that direction, particularly, if future administrations are anything like the current unabated, unskillful, unmerciful, inchoate and ungodly one that is currently in power.

Shame on the woefully ignorant, who put them into power - the same groups, should be the ones to extricate him and his from power!

Come out of hiding Mr. Arkin, we will not let the other side harm you given your 'Troops' article we have your back!

Small little news item for LIBERALS:

Sarin gas and Mustard gas ARE INDEED weapon's of mass destruction.

Don't believe it? Just line up about 10,000 moonbats and we can prove it to you first hand.

Coward,

You wouldn't have any thing to worry about if they ever had them of if they ever used them, that kind of stuff only works on people with a nervous system and brains! And you clerly have neither!

Speaking for all Moonbats in the world, don't you ever give up?

Small little news item for LIBERALS:

Sarin gas and Mustard gas ARE INDEED weapon's of mass destruction.

Don't believe it? Just line up about 10,000 moonbats and we can prove it to you first hand.

How to deal with Sectarianism in your country....use American consultants?

The one thing that the Maliki government has done right was to allow the number one sectarian nation in the world to advise them on how to deal with disparate groups of citizens within the nation of Iraq(-:.

Here are a few excerpts from the American Government Handbook on Sectarianism:

1. Choose sides, preferably the lighter against those of darker hue
2. Make sure that all 3 branches of government, local governments, sheriffs departments and all of your institutions understand that the government favors one side and one side only, those of the lighter hue, and that they are to follow suit.
3. Make sure that all of the wealth of the nation is controlled by the favored side, the majority of the members of the government are a part of that side.

4. Make sure that all of the laws of the nation discriminate against those of the darker hue
5. Be sure that the Press, clerics and the general public understand the lesser of the two is solely responsible for his depraved condition
6. Redline or 'partition'; there should be only certain areas where those of lesser value can live or travel.
7. If you can, create a District for the Federal Government, and do not permit the citizens of the lower estate, have any Representatives who participate in government to help them better their conditions; and if you can, create a Ward 7 or 8 within that governmental district.
8. Make it illegal for those of the darker hue to enjoy public accommodations, and or have two separate sets of accommodations for each group
9. Make certain that all other institutions, educational, housing and employment, understand that the opportunity structures of the new nation of Iraq were created, with American backing, for those who share favored status with the US backed government. .
10. Create a strong propaganda campaign of deniability, and if anyone ever asks does the government favor one side or another, be certain to deny it.
11. Force all of the second-class citizens to live in the worse parts of town, work in lower-scale jobs, and if possible create a minimum-wage system and ensure that most of them receive the minimum wage.
12. Do what you can to keep them out of positions of authority and ascendancy.
13. Oh, and build plenty of jails, because most likely they will not like the rules and the accommodations that have been proved for them by the government.
14. Make sure that the government's side has military superiority over the other side.
15. Finally, build in structural barriers, so that one side can never fully pass over to the other side!

And after you have implemented these standards, for God's sakes, change the name of the country to something catchy like, The United States of Sectarian Iraqi Citizens or something like that! Mr. Bush and the Red States of America will do all that they can to help implement this plan, and see that you get it of the ground. And if none of the above works, take back their manumission papers, because after all they are still slaves to the government and the flavored class!

P.S. And create a congress, and when you do call it Bi-Cameral. There is one side for the Bi's, and one side for the Camerials(-:

"You've got us pinned down in the godforesaken desert a half a world away. This is why your conservative whack jobs do such an awful job running the show! You don't THINK. You don't ANALYZE."

Don't get all emotional on me. Its obvious you don't understand the first thing about foreign policy or jihadist strategy. If we bring the troops home, the war will follow them here. But instead of jihadi's facing off against seasoned Marines in Iraq, they'll be stalking defenseless civilians in the shopping malls. Your turn to watch your children choke on their own blood.

Oh well. This country needs a culling anyway. Like a patient with gangreene, America will have to saw off a limb if Western Civ is to survive whats coming.

Better brush up on your Sharia... let the minorities, women, and homosexuals know their days are numbered. And don't bother asking this Marine to defend you. I'm tired of the selfish parasitic appeasement weasels on the Left. You don't deserve to be free. I will enjoy watching you supplicate yourself to Islam.

"Is it true that Sarin was found in Iraq?"

Yes. Over 500 munitions containing Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found throughout Iraq. Some were degraded, some were not, depending on the way they were stored. These were part of the old [pre gulf war]WMD list that Saddam admitted to UN that he possessed, and that he had promised to destroy.

They are not the WMDs we were looking for [we think most stock were destroyed or hidden in the 6 months we spent chatting with UN, or moved to Syria via Primakov's "Sarrandar" SOP]. But it shows that he developed WMDs and hid them from the UN, and that he would have restarted his WMD program after the Lefties here lifted UN sanctions.

It was civilians, not the Generals, who started this war. The Commander in Chief, his service Secrataries, most of our representatives, all decided to send in the troops. The military is used only to support and enforce those civilian made decisions. For the troops to do their jobs properly, which includes being willing to give their lives "for the cause," they must believe that the cause is just and that their nation fully supports their efforts. Would you expect anything less from them? When they respond to your criticisms, that is just another extension of the troops defending their leaders and their country in a cause they have been told is right and necessary, and that they themselves have embraced, as they should.

If you have a problem with that, I think you should consider the alternatives and maybe tell us how you would like our troops to behave when they are asked to go to war by their civilian leaders.

Bill,
You've done an admirable job for the Wash Post: you have increased its readership for something other than the Sunday coupons and blizzard of