Andrew: I have seen very little backlash, fwiw. I was at the march on Saturday, and truly, I saw none of that at all. I did, however, see a variety of vets and soldiers against the war, relatives of people over in Iraq, etc., and zero anti-soldier sentiment. If Josh Sparling, or whatever his name is, really did experience it, he must have been in a very different place than I was in.

And this time, I think a lot of us will not just let people who start to go that route go unchallenged.

As I said in some earlier comment here, I have heard soldiers say, on TV, the kinds of things Arkin quotes: that we can't support them without supporting the war, etc. I respectfully disagree. If Arkin had stopped after he made that basic point, that would have been fine. The rest, imho, was not.

"this column by William Arkin"

It's not a column; it's a blog post on his blog.

"and every other 'rape and murder,' which are apparently so common Arkin doesn't need to be specific"

There were enough alleged mass murders and rapes that I had stopped tracking them as exceptional enough to be blog-worthy after the first ten or so, by mid-last-year. There have been several guilty verdicts so far. I'm reasonably sure that neither you nor I could name all the cases off the top of our head, so it seems unreasonable to expect Arkin to able to.

"...while it's true the higher-ups at Abu Ghraib did get away scot free, the soldiers involved went to jail and that we don't yet know what happened at Haditha but the investigation is continuing."

It's not "continuing"; it concluded with charges, and the trial is proceeding. Naturally, some or all may turn out to be found completely innocent; but that charges have been officially made is worth mentioning.

"But, I'm sure Arkin lives somewhere soldiers cannot afford to live, and he is well-insulated from ever actually having to meet any of the soldiers he apparently delights in running down."

I take it you're completely unfamiliar with his work, given how constantly he mentions visiting soldiers, speaking with them, and hearing from them.

Although it shouldn't be necessary, let me emphasize for clarity that I offer none of these points as comments on Arkin's post, or points in it; I'm simply offering these points, standing alone, on their own.

I saw the CBS interview Arkin refers to on YouTube. After a quick Google search, I found a news article 18 days older that quoted others in Apache Company expressing opposite sentiments.

I concluded, in my comments about it, that it "proves soldiers can have different opinions. Who woulda thought?"

I don't think it will get so ugly towards the troops. A lot of the anger troops felt late in the Vietnam War was generated from the young who faced the draft. And a very few incidents like Kent State and My Lai clearly didn't help.

Sure, some words will chafe now and then, but I think most folks are much angrier about the hubris of folks like Cheney and Bush than with the troops because of the .0001% of troops who've crossed the line.

Hilary,

I have little doubt that you and people like you would stand up against such things. But I think that it's still inevitable we'll see more of this as time goes on. The fact is that a lot of soldiers do feel that you can't support the troops if you disapprove of their mission, and that feeling will be seen as sufficient to justify demonizing the soldiers as Arkin as done.

Kevin,

I do hope you're right, but I think that people tend to seek out more targets over time when they're angry, and soldiers are a very convenient target.

Also, Hilary, I'm curious: do you think Sparling is lying, because that's certainly the impression I get from your syntax.

Andrew: I have no idea whether Sparling is lying (or in some other way not representing what happened accurately.) It was a very big march, and we were plainly at different parts of it. I will say two things.

First, he seems to have encountered a whole lot of people who have not only treated him badly, but done so in ways that are very unimaginative, since they recapitulate a lot of things that were supposed to happen after Vietnam. (Calling him a baby-killer, etc.)

Second, having watched the FreeRepublic video of their counterdemonstration, all I have to say is: I am confirmed in my view that there are jerks on all sides of all issues. There were people at the march who were behaving like jerks. That said, I don't think it would be right to take what happened to people who kept yelling things like "why don't you get a haircut?" and "what have you done for your country lately?" as indicating anything about people's attitudes towards soldiers generally. Iirc, someone in the video called Sparling an a**hole; I would not have done that, and I think people who do say things like that to strangers at demonstrations are wrong, but I think it's not just possible but likely that the person who said it didn't mean 'soldiers are a**holes', but 'you, Joshua Sparling, in particular, are an a**hole.' I don't say this because I (do or don't) share the judgment, but because that's the best read of the video I can come up with.

That said, there aren't many people in that video, on either side, who make me think: dang, I wish I had had the character and nobility to do that. I do wish I had been in that part of the march, because I have a tendency to try to engage people I disagree with in situations like that, and who knows? it might have helped. At any rate, I wouldn't have lacked for people to engage with.

Hilary,

If there's one thing we can agree on, it is the omnipresence of jerks, as I noted a few days ago.

As for Sparling, maybe he is just making things up as he goes along, or trying to provoke people into saying things they shouldn't. All I know is, being called a 'babykiller' is not a myth, because it has happened to me.

Andrew: on behalf of, well, sentient humanity, I apologize. Sheesh.

Possibly one way to say what I was trying to say above: having watched the video, I could perfectly well understand why some of the soldiers might have spit on some of the protesters, and why that would not constitute evidence about their views about civilians generally. Same in reverse.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: