My comments are in italics and underlined.

I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States. (lets me guess, if there was national attention to what you were doing, and how many people misunderstand what it is you are doing and how you do it, you would not be a little miffed?)

I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.(I guess no one is guiding your pieces and what you write about, I guess your bosses have nothing to do with your subject matter or what you say, righ?t I can say from personal experience that ALL of the soldiers I have talked to (more than 3) have expressed the same opinions as those in the NBC piece)

I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform(like they are not supposed too? “even those in uniform? What are they some type of sub-class to you?) 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. (Let me get this straight. Its OK for you and others to disapprove of things, but other American citizens (the soldiers) are not permitted. You mean that they don’t have the same rights you do?? You condescending little ass.)

Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.

Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for." (and it isn’t??)

First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing." (Maybe not such a bad idea. Maybe if the critics got a view of all the other things going on in Iraq other than just the violence, they may have a different view. How about you Mr. Arkin go to Iraq and live with the troops for a month and see what it is they are really doing. Spend that time between different units like a front line Company, then maybe a Public Relations unit and a medical unit. Never mind I take that back, you would not fit in. They are trying to accomplish something positive, not negative.)

"You may support or say we support the troops, but, 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," Johnson said. (What is supporting someone? Giving them a toothbrush is not supporting them. Standing behind them and what they feel they are doing is supporting them. A persons sense of worth is measured by what they feel, not what others feel.)

Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. (did your friend bother to ask if he volunteered to go back for a second tour like many are? If he had he may have found many return because they feel they are making a difference. What a surprise for you I am sure.) He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way." ( I can understand his point. I like you but hate your job and what it stands for. Now that’s what I call being a hypocrite.)

Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said. (I don’t necessarily agree with this one, I think no matter what people back home feel about what our soldiers are doing they are doing many great things and helping thousands of Iraqi’s to live better lives.)

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect. (Again you little pompous ass, you talk like the American Solider is a sub-class that has to earn anything from you. I can most assuredly state that most of them could give a rats ass what you think of them.)

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order. (You arrogant moron. You act as if those incidents were common place and the American Public judges all service members by those isolated incidents. Guess you are above any wrong doing, ever, right? Also how dare you assume(you know what that stands for) to speak for the American People, not all of us feel the way you do, thank Goodness)

Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon. (Actually they are. How about the incidents of soliders being attacked here at home because they are soldiers, and at that demonstration in DC, how about the spitting? Its happening, you just choose to ignore it, like many other things.)

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage(You have to be kidding! Have you seen what they pay?), take care of their families (would you be so kind as to tell me how you are taking care of the families?), provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene (What ??) amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way(NO YOU DON’T), and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead (no that’s what the enemy(read terrorist) want you to do, they want you dead, its only the soldier standing in the way why your not.), defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war(OK you really didn’t say this did you? Who elese would you want to fight the war, you? No that’s a funny image. Of course we should leave the war to the warriors. Not some desk ridden reporter that has no clue what he is talking about.), and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society? (They have not asked you to stop speaking, or even hold your opinion, they want you to stop blasting it out over the airwaves and print, since that only helps empower the enemy. They want you to stop telling one side of the story. They want you to use your paper to give fair and impartial reporting. Where are the reports on the over 3000 projects (schools, hospitals, water treatment, electric and other) that they have help build? Where are your stories of the Iraqi’s our medical soldiers have helped? Where are your stories of the farmers that our soldiers have helped? That’s all they ask, fair reporting, not one sided anti-war hate that shows your lack of professionalism to your trade.)

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations( I pray your not including yourself in that group). In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people. (Huh? You have lost your train of thought.)

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work. (They are not mercenaries, they ARE doing the dirty work and dying because of it. Not you, funny part is they are not the ones bitching about it. You would think that those paying the ultimate price would be the first to say what they are doing is not worth it, yet you don’t hear that, why not?? Because they feel it is worth it!)

The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it (you mean you don’t. There are plenty of those that want to and actually volunteer to go back and do more dirty work again and again.). But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.

I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve (most are probably better educated and more street smart than you are or will ever be.) and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq(only in your eyes. They feel they are doing much and want to do more.). Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.

America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. (We don’t need to ponder any such thing. There are some of us that know without our soldiers we would be watching busses explode in the streets of New York, we would have schools being taken hostage, and other wonderful events. It’s the soldiers that keep this from happening. There is no other way to do this.) I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.