WaPo "expert" demonstrates where his area of expertise lies

In receiving ass-kickings.

William W. Arkin, styled by the Washington Post as their military expert, has demonstrated precisely how well he understands both the military and the Constitution of the United States, and it's impressive... if he were a newborn.

In his blog entry, The Troops Also Need to Support The American People, he wrote this little gem:

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope 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.

In other words, the troops have expressed opinions, and We are not amused. Off with their heads!

But it goes downhill from there.

You should to read the article, first, then let it sink in, but then go over to Armed Liberal at Winds of Change, Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive, Fuzzy Bear's Fuzzilicious Thinking, Ace of Spades at AoSHQ (yes, twice!), Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters, John Hinderaker at Power Line (two of his, too!), John at OpFor, and even Chris Muir's cartoon strip, Day By Day. But mostly, try to read the comments at the original article's site. Michelle Malkin has exerpted a few and put together a texty-roundup of other good sites to read, for those who don't want to sully their computers by further visiting Arkin's site .

Update: Add Rick Moran at RWNH and Dan Riehl at Riehl World View to the must-read checklist, today.

And another thing: in Arkin's now-removed "apology" piece, responding to the reactions to his original screed, he made this interesting remark:

I was dead wrong in using the word mercenary to describe the American soldier today.

These men and women are not fighting for money with little regard for the nation. The situation might be much worse than that: Evidently, far too many in uniform believe that they are the one true nation. They hide behind the constitution and the flag and then spew an anti-Democrat, anti-liberal, anti-journalism, anti-dissent, and anti-citizen message that reflects a certain contempt for the American people.

I do have to wonder what's wrong with a soldier -- or any other citizen -- having the belief that his (or hers) is the "one true nation," as Arkin puts it? Isn't that what patriotism really is?

If you don't believe that your nation is ultimately the one with the right answers, why in hell would you choose to defend it at all, in words or in body, here or in other lands? Why would you even stay in such a country you could not support, for that matter? If you lack faith in your own land and its people, shouldn't you be looking for a new address, in, say, Venezuela?

And, by indications in the last sentence, it seems to me, what we have is a clear case of projection. I could be wrong, though. I am certifiable, myself, after all. But at least I acknowledge how nuts I am. And I can usually spot the loony ... they say it takes one to know one.