Deborah Howell, the Post ombudswoman, has a piece up on l'affaire Arkin.
It's a reasoned, establishment take on blogging, is appropriately critical of Arkin - even though she understates the loathsomeness of what he said - and includes one gem that needs to be held up and examined.
Arkin is unrepentant about two things: He works for The Post. Period. And he said he is "probably one of the best-known and respected anti-military military bloggers."
I hadn't seen that before, but it pretty accurately sums him up, doesn't it? So - two questions fall out from that exposition. How in the world can the LA Times or other news media justify calling him 'a military analyst' (as opposed to 'an anti-military analyst')? And what an interesting story he himself must be. Someone who has built a career and spent his life closely studying something he seems to hate so much. And what is it that he opposes? Note that his commitment isn't general - to the issues of appropriate or inappropriate French or Russian military policies or actions. It's not about demilitarizing the world. It's aimed squarely at diminishing the role and effectiveness of the U.S. military.