And I mean that literally.  Like a few other observant bloggers, I was suprised when this post appeared in his side bar:

A Note to My Readers on Supporting the Troops 

I swear that since it magically appeared I have seen it move in position at least once, and now it appears just previous to his much more insulting "second" post, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out.

Dan Reihl is fairly certain he did a late breaking time stamp change to artificially date it in between. 

However, most everyone who read his second insulting post, The Arrogant and Intolerant Speak Out - time stamped 9:39 AM can’t seem to recall the now middle post linked at top being there until sometime this afternoon.

Is Arkin pulling a John Kerry by back tracking, or attempting a triple flip that would put a world class gymnast to shame? The latter may be more true. 

Maybe he did, I cannot prove such a thing, nor will I take on that particular tast.  The truth is that for a small time blogger such a thing is easy, but for a high powered popular blogger, it is not.  People notice.

I will however, say that it is odd that this post is dated at 5:31 am, but the first comment is not until 5:47 PM

But to examine his post on face value, it is a suck up piece that apologies, kisses up the troops, and then blames them for the war.

Here we go again.  I just cannot resist responded to this train wreck of a journalist.

I knew when I used the word "mercenary" in my Tuesday column that I was being highly inflammatory.

And yet you used it anyway, in a purely flippant manner.  Is that the standards of journalism you employ regularly?

I intentionally chose to criticize the military and used the word to incite and call into question their presumption that the public had a duty to support them. The public has duties, but not to the American military.

Again, and I cannot repeat this enough, he completely does not get it.  The military is not demanding it.  They are asking for it.  Because they see the inherent conflict on the position of many of the more vocal anti war voices.

And they also believe in what they are doing, in a large part because they see it first hand, where as people like Mr Arkin love to filter the conflict into the worst light, as he does here.

So I committed blasphemy, and for this seeming lack of respect and appreciation for individuals in uniform, I have been roundly criticized and condemned.

Mercenary, of course, is an insult and pejorative, and it does not accurately describe the condition of the American soldier today. I sincerely apologize to anyone in the military who took my words literally.

Ah the Clinton/Kerry/Biden/Rangel defense:  I didn’t mean it literally.

Almost every day, we can hear or read someone in uniform saying that they are just doing a "job." We don’t necessarily take this to literally mean that they are only in it for the work.

Of course those who choose to wear the uniform do so because they are patriots and because they feel compelled to take up arms to defend the nation. What we take from their self-deprecating description that they are only doing their job is that they are not glory seeking, and that in order to make war and put themselves in the unnatural position of risking their lives and killing others, they have to focus on their profession, to do what they have been trained to do, to put aside the seeming inhumanity, to just "soldier on."

Sure.  While some may quibble with the word compelled, I will not.  Yes the word compel is better suited to the draft then to a volunteer force.  But some do have a compulsion to serve, from within and from their own love of freedom.

But at the same time some serve in non combat roles too, so making war is not the issue, service is.  But I digress.

When we in society make war and consent to war, we accept the righteousness of those who fight on our behalf with the knowledge that they are a part of an organized and disciplined military force that operates lawfully and chivalrously. We also accept that they kill only as a last resort, and that they are engaged in a just endeavor that in its existence and though their conduct presents the prospect of restoring peaceful relations once the enemy has been defeated.

A moving paragraph, but honestly it is difficult to take it seriously after all his vitriol on the radio today, and in his "second" column.

But he is wrong.  In war killing is not always the last resort.  Sometimes it is the first.  Sometimes it is the only means possible to achieve the objectives.  Again, for a military correspondent, he does not understand the military.

And the military does not give a fig about peaceful relations, at least not in a wider concept  The military has to be concerned with fighting and winning as its primary goal, and it has to do so in a single minded fashion.

Where it defers to the diplomats and the civilian leadership is to either tell it the fight is over, or to deal with what is left when the fight is over.  A victory by negotiation, as in when Saddam Surrendered is still a victory even if not a single bullet is fired.  The military announces our willingness to fight first.  Then it proves we weren’t bluffing.

That is the balance the military and its civilian commander have.

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."

No, I don’t think so.  We could have questioned any of the uses of the military, from the cold war escalations, to the Panama invasion, to the Greneda rescue, to Kosovo and Desert Storm.  In fact many did, we had protesters outside our gates at Travis in Desert Storm.

Those in uniform who think about and speak out about this predicament are rightly frustrated and angry. Many seem to find some solace in blaming the media or anti-war "leftists" or the Democratic Party or the liberals, or even an ungrateful or insufficiently martial American public.

Rightly so in many cases.  The media is biased and unfair for the most part, the Sheehanites are slamming the military as the enemy and praising the insurgent "freedom fighters" and the Democrat’s are demagoguing it mercilessly.

But if those in the military are now going to argue that we are losing in Iraq because the military has lacked for Ssomething, then the absence of such support should be placed at the feet of the Bush administration, Rumsfeld and company, and a Republican Congress — not on the shoulders of the American public, who have been nothing but supportive, even those who have opposed the war.

And here he completely loses focus.  The average guy on the ground sees us as doing very well and wishes more people here understood that.  The soldiers are not blaming the American public for the fact we "are losing".  They are upset that people assume we are when they are not seeing the whole picture.

What of the Democrats who supported the war in the flush of unity after 9/11?  Are they not culpable?  What of the media who distort the war by focusing almost singlemindedly on the bad, and ignoring the good?  What of the protesters who provide encouragement to the enemy by  glorifying them as the noble freedom fighters and labeling our soldiers the invaders and the aggressors?

When will you hold THEM accountable? 

Finally, the military as an institution needs to ask itself what role it plays in where we are today in Iraq. One of the reasons that the military is held in such high regard in our society is that we love and expect the honesty and toughness and professionalism of those in uniform. We expect the generals to know what they need and to speak forthrightly and without hesitation. We expect politicians and spinners to deflect responsibility and blame — not the military.

I hope he is not suggesting that politicians are not blaming enough…

Granted I do not thing the war has been fought the best way possible.  The present surge is a case in point.  Sending a 20k troops in is pointless.  Double them instead.

When I hear soldiers and war supporters expressing their frustrations about the American public or the news media, something doesn’t quite seem right — even when the soldiers and war supporters aren’t talking about me. I know that those in uniform would like to bring the war to an honorable conclusion, but are they blaming those who are against the war and the news media for having tied their hands under a Bush administration which is certainly the most warrior-oriented in the past 20 years? Is there no space for respectful acceptance of the possibility that people who also love the nation and care about our security think that the country is wasting national treasure - lives and money - on an unwinnable cause?

Again, he is filtering their frustration to fit his prejudice.

In the middle of all of this are the troops, the pawns in political battles at home as much as they are on the real battlefield. We unquestioningly "support" these troops for the very reasons that they are pawns. We give them what we can to be successful, and we have a contract with them, because they are our sons and daughters and a part of us, not to place them in an impossible spot.

But not everyone does Mr Arkin. 

And no offense, but it is the nature of war and of the military to face impossible spots, like the beaches of Normandy and overcome anyway.  No one ever won a war by playing it safe and easy.

In our instant and globally wired world, these very men and women are additionally burdened by their access to our debates and words. This is a difficulty of our modern world, but I completely reject the notion though that we undermine them or support the enemy by debating at home.

I also reiterate my core point, which is that military attitudes should not serve as a censor of the civilian debate at home, either literally or through intimidation.

And they do not want to stifle debate.  They just want clear messages.

In the end, it is Specialist Tyler Johnson who deserves a thoughtful and respectful answer, and in my original piece, I failed to give him one.

Spec. Johnson said "you may support or say we support the troops, so you’re not supporting what they do, what they’re here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don’t make sense to me."

Spec. Johnson, everyone supports the troops. But if supporting the troops comes to mean that we cannot raise questions about the military, about how wars are being fought in our name, that we cannot criticize those in uniform, can’t protest, can’t write, can’t demand better, then what kind of country do we have?

I know you are out there every day risking your life, and for that I am grateful. But I just can’t stand by and do nothing when I can see that your risk is no longer being matched by a commitment or a plan or the prospect for victory or a just ending. I can’t be silent when I can also see that you are a pawn in a Washington political tug-of-war that has become more about the Bush legacy and future power here at home than about Iraq.

 And here he is clearly patronizing and pander and puffing himself up with self righteousness.  He is not whining, he is not complaining and insulting anyone, he is fighting FOR them, he is defending their safety against the evil Republican politicians.

I don’t think anyone saw anything of the sort in either of your hatchet pieces.

Spec. Johnson, I also firmly believe that you are wrong if you believe that Iraq represents the difference between freedom and slavery for all of us in the future. I understand, and respect, that you think it. I understand, and respect, that that’s what keeps you going. I’m just asking you to understand that different people have different views of the world, and that those views don’t mean that they are un-American, anti-American, or contemptuous of the military.

Sigh.  What is going on in Iraq may not be as far reaching as your absurd characterization. 

And winning in Iraq will not ensure generations of peace for America. 

But losing in Iraq, retreating and showing AQ our lack of will and resolve, will energize an already ruthless and determined group of radicals who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals.  They will kill any who stand against them, and anyone who stands in their way, whether man woman or child; soldier or civilian; or even Infidel or Muslim.

By granting them victory we will also grant them tacit permission to continue their harrassment and brutality against us.

The stakes in Iraq are still huge no matter how you measure it.

Mr Arkin.  One question.  You claim we are losing.  Do you want us to win?

 Riehl World View, Blue Crab Boulevard, Power Line, Media Blog and Outside The Beltway  also noticed the new "middle" article.