Washington Post Columnist Insults America's Armed Forces

No Place Remains in Which Peaceful Men May Do What Peaceful Men Do

By Daniel Doyle, published Feb 12, 2007
Published Content: 29  Total Views: 12,502  Favorited By: 20 CPs
Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites
Rating: 3.0 of 5
 
Font
 
Font
 
Grab this
Our world has become a place in which even the peaceful have no voice in the oceans of discord. People who have looked and seen are influenced to doubt what they have seen. Many think to announce actions taken by assertive men as fear-stricken and profile them with descriptions of panic and even accuse them of a predisposition to do violence. By that very orientation I know the anti war crowd is incorrect. I have known Soldiers and Marines all of my life. They are the most peaceloving people on earth. In the name of fear those who see that lines must be drawn and stood steadfastly upon some think to do harm to the principals upon which the warriors of our society must now stand affixed shoulder to shoulder. Making war is not violent. What happens when war must be done and is not is what is violent.

Some in our world would rather rip down the principals upon which society has been built in order to establish a mock peace. No peace exists anywhere if the principals of peace and that which characterizes it is not upheld and mightily defended everywhere.

When some think to do death, make war, or otherwise dismantle the fabric with which society has been established they must come to public scrutiny. A determination must be made as to whether or not they wish to serve a public good or a self devised agenda of their own for selfish reasons.

Such an occurrence has arisen at the Washington Post. A columnist at the Post has written and subsequently had published by the Post an article that discourages the people who know things other than what he knows and causes them distress in that theirs is a job of sacrifice and selflessness for little or no financial gain. For them to prevail they need from us impeccability with our word. We must support them to bring them home. They do not want to come home until the job is done and they cannot do the job if we do not support them. How would a writer like it if someone came in the middle of their work and disturbed them from completing their work? A warrior's work is no less valid because an argument can be imagined against the validity of that work.

 
Share
 
Save For Later
 
Publish Yours
 
Print
More by Daniel Doyle
View all »
Washington Post Columnist Insults America's Armed Forces

Banner Of Michigan Troop Support Event

Credit: Dan Doyle

Copyright: Enduring Freedom Ride

You may also like...
Other topics: 
Takeaways
  • William Arkin of Washington Post Calls US GI's "Mercenarys"
Did You Know?
William Arkin Of The Washington Post Insults US Troops
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 14 of 14
 
 
Paul, did you read all of Arkin's defensives and back padaling? That was the basis of my point. You know there are people here at AC who represent things I detest, at least they hold their ground, you never read Musall explain himself, you never read Sexton back-pedaling all over to try and explain his occasional bout with random brainfartage...Arkin was a textbook wimp after he got all puffy and chest-uppy-ness with the Post article. People like that need to be thumped. I thumped him. I don't care about his opinion, or his emotional posture or his platform built of emotion and personal erred sentiment...I was simply sickened by his back-padaling. That's what I was writing about here. You are a better word pedaler than him. I respect you more. You never back off, you will give a thought, you will do as a thinking man does, but your word is something you take responsibility for. Arkin was just a wimp. I'd love to have a round with him in public. Anyway...keep grins. Stay in the fight.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/26/2007 at 1:02:00 PM

 
Daniel, I don't believe necessarily that those I served with were unprofessional--only that their reasons for being there had much more to do with personal neccessity or a some desire for stability or adventure, etc, rather than with platitudes and cliches about defending freedom. In fact, your portrayal of military people as this heroic class of folks serves to grow the divide in understanding between the military and civilians, thereby resulting in people thinking all they must do to support the troops is slap a magnet on their cars.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/22/2007 at 8:02:00 AM

 
(He'd hate Hillary)...because that is a mean person. She'd nuke his ass...but that's another story.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/22/2007 at 6:02:00 AM

 
Thank you for popping in, Paul. It sounds like the unit/military/branch you were in was different than mine. Every single person I served with was proffessional to the core. As for Kerry's latest "joke" blunder...I guess you would have to remember the sentiment and elitist fundamentals spread around during Vietnam in order to 'really know' whay kerry meant when he shot his mouth of about school and troops and so forth. And, Paul, there was not one thing supportive of 60'-70's era Troops that spewed from Kerry's mouth when he spoke of all their crimes...of which he later said he never really did commit, only others did. Kerry does what he does in order to build himself a platform from which he can stand and taunt his self-fulfilling case. If he ever represents the best we have to offer...I may learn to use "eh" after every point I make...or call people "senor". Right now, I just look for who Osama would like for US influence...then I oppose that person. He'd hate Hillary...because that

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/22/2007 at 6:02:00 AM

 
It is amazing to me that people like John Kerry, who has for the most part worked to further the well being of American servicemembers, is bashed by conservatives for disparaging the troops. Anyone with a brain could see that teh most recent attempt to bash Kerry was unfounded and that he was clearly attempting to joke on Bush. Also, his anti-war activitities following his 2 TIME VOLUNTEER SERVICE IN VIETNAM, was done in solidarity with the troops. Anyone who reads his speech before the Congress in 1973 would know that he was blaming the US governmnet for placing troops in a hellish situation, not blaming or betraying his brothers. Virtually every one of his boatmates attested to his brevery and leadership, yet a bunch of Swift Boat Liars get credibility. This whole thing makes me sick--criticize Kerry for many things, but not his service or dedication to troops.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/20/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
One more thing for all you conservatives--how is it that you guys constantly talk about insults to the troops and not supporting the troops, but never point out how conservative Republicans and Dems in Congress constantly vote to the detriment of veterans interests? How about pointing out how those same conservatives vote in favor of massive spending for various weapons programs that only enrich weapons building corps, while defunding & underfunding the VA budget? Then these conservatives turn around and posture as if they are the ones "supporting the troops", while denoucning those who wish to remove them from harm and prevent the misuse and abuse of US servicemembers. Honestly, the conservative habit of hiding behind the troops is despicable.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/20/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
and military legacies

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/20/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
I forgot to add college money to teh list of reasons for service.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/20/2007 at 9:02:00 AM

 
The bottom line is that Soldiers, Marines etc, do not decide where and when they will fight, so supporting them and the wars they are sent to fight are indeed two seperate things. I think in order to fix the disconnect there should be some sort of mandatory service for all.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/20/2007 at 6:02:00 AM

 
Daniel--I would guess based upon those I've worked with and encountered in the military, that a minority, maybe less than 25% are there to protect and defend. Most are primarily concerned with the steady paycheck,or the benefits, or the adventure adventure, the women, or simply because they haev nothing else to do. Whehn they are called to action, they are simply doing their assigned job, following orders and hoping to get home safely. Therefore, the American military is indeed made up of mercenary-type idividuals. I read Arkin's piece and it seems the only real point he was making is that the whole concept of "supporting the troops" has become so distorted that a giant disconnect has occured between the troops and the American public, and I totally agree. Politicians (Republicans)have simply used this "support the troops bullshit to shield themselves and their decisions from scrutiny.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/20/2007 at 6:02:00 AM

 
Ms Priddy, I am joyful that you read this. I hope you found the fire.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/15/2007 at 2:02:00 PM

 
Very thought provoking piece.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/14/2007 at 1:02:00 PM

 
Jeff, not that you have brought to the table only one interesting point, but for now, a mercenary works for money. A soldier works for defense/protection of an ideal or a principle. As for the ridiculous assertion that there is some personal gain for GW Bush and co., Jeff, where were you for the ten and more years that the Iraqis were "begging" us to help them rid themselves of Saddam? And, where were you when William Clinton signed into law in 1998 the law under which GW Bush was given the power to do as he did. Clinton signed the law that stated that the US had a goal to eliminate the government of Saddam Hussein. I don't expect you to like it, Jeff, but that is not the point. And, I am sorry for all of my spelling and semantics errors. I am really not very good at this stuff... I appreciate your forgiving and helpful nature. :

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/12/2007 at 6:02:00 PM

 
I assume you are talking about "principles" and not "principals" So I must ask, by what principles are soldiers and mercenaries differenitated? I would say that a just soldier operates in defense of what he/she holds dear, usually nation, family, freedom. A mercenary operates in defense (or support of) the causes of others. I would also argue that Iraq is not a just war, but an action in defense of an Administration whose motivations are for pride and profit, not because of any threat against nation, family, or freedom. So although the wording may not be what some want to hear, the fact is that what America is doing in Iraq is more enforcing empire than protecting freedoms.

Add a Comment

Posted on 02/12/2007 at 3:02:00 PM