Iowahawk launches his “Equal Time” feature with a formal debate on the blogosphere’s current hot topic: Should Washington Post Military Analyst William Arkin Be Beaten Like the Repulsive Sack of Sh-t He Is?

In this debate, Mr. Hawk will argue against the beating of Mr. Arkin.

The Iowahawk View

Washington Post Military Affairs correspondent William Arkin recently stirred controversy with a blog post that termed active duty soldiers “mercenaries” who are “indulged” and given “obscene amenities” who should be “explained… why it isn’t up to them to disapprove” of anti-war opinions. After the initial dustup, Arkin responded to critics by calling them “arrogant and intolerant,” and after time for reflection, termed soldiers “worse” than mercenaries, and secretly harboring desires for a military coup.

Some policy analysts have proposed that in response, Arkin should be beaten for being the repulsive sack of sh-t he is. We at Iowahawk strongly disagree, and for a number of compelling reasons. First, unlike his critics, Mr. Arkin is a civilian and professional journalist, and as such is uniquely entitled to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Secondly, Arkin’s subsequent hospitalization would impose an economic hardship on the already financially-strapped Washington Post, as well as his other employers at Greenpeace, the Institute for Policy Studies, Human Rights Watch, NRDC, Vanguard of the Proletariat Ski Shop, and Jaamat al-Islaam. Third, the only benefit his beaters would receive is a temporary cathartic sense of satisfaction, which must be weighed against the potential risk of skinned knuckles and boot stains.

In short, beating William Arkin like the repulsive sack of sh-t he is would not only be illegal, anti-business and messy, it would potentially bolster his point about intolerance.

Read the rebuttal, the rejoinder, and the final word…