I do not know how much time Mr. Arkin has spent with infantrymen.

I do not know how much Mr. Arkin truely knows about Iraq, Twelver Shiaism, the Mahdi, and the beliefs of Mohammedan Jihadists.

But I know that I lived with a platoon of grunts for 5 months in Summer of 2005.

I have read the writings of Seyyid Qutb, the histories of Al Tabari and more treatises by Mohammedan Jihadists than I care to recount.

I also know that when a soldier complained about the lack of armor in Iraq during a Q&A with former Sec. Def. Rumsfled, the media cheered.

I have personally seen and heard first person accounts of a Washington Post reporter trying desperately to get enlisted Marines to complain about the war. 

This reporter, during opertion Green Back in Jolan park in Fallujah, went from young Marine to young Marine asking them leading questions, coaxing them to complain about the lack of armor, the futility of the effort, anything.

It pissed the Marines off they knew what she was doing.

But when enlisted men complain about the public's lack of support for letting them win the war on terror, and NBC's Richard Engel files it in a report, Mr. Arkin thinks "that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people."

Why the disconnect?  Why the outrage at the soldiers and even more at Mr. Engel for filing the story?

Because it goes counter to the narrative that bringing the troops home is the best way to support them.  It is contrary to a narrative that most of Mr. Arkin and his colleagues hold dear and it assualts their charade of a sacred cow that they support the troops.


In my time with the grunts I learned something very important about them--they see things very clearly.

The infantryman looks at how hard Al Qaida, the Iranians, Shia militias others are trying to get them out of Iraq and reaches the only logical conclusion--Iraq is the central front in a war against those who hate and want to destroy America and everything the West stands for.

For if Al Qaida wants the U.S. out of Iraq, and because nothing Al Qaida does or wants is good for the U.S., leaving Iraq before Al Qaida is defeated is not good for the United States.

These men see the facts, they have made the logical calculation and see the mission as important enough to put  life and limb on the line to accomplish it.

And for that, they are labeled Mercenaries by Mr. Arkin. 

And when the Mercenaries complain that the public is not supporting them, Mr. Arkin says that as good little mercenaries they should not back talk their betters.  After all, the troop supporting public stood by them through Abu Ghraib and Hiditha--right?

Never mind that the mercenaries see the war protestors who use Abu Ghraib and Hiditha to decry the efforts of the merecenaries.  Never mind that mercenaries see hours of TV coverage devoted to two incidents while none of their daily successes are noted.  Never mind that the mercenaries have been coaxed by reporters to complain about the war.

The mercenaries see clearly what is happening and have clearly expressed their views.

The clarity of thought that Mr. Arkin hates so much is the one that exposes the left's sacred cow of supporting the troops as a charade.

If a young infrantryman clearly sees the need to defeat the Mohammedan Jihadists and wants to defeat the Mohammedan Jihadists, how can ordering him not to fight be supporting him?

There should be a new slogan to counter the support the troops charade--Let Them Win.

Support independent filmmaking in Iraq, Buy a DVD

---