We wonder if the journalists writing in Rolling Stone and Salon know anybody who's ever served in the military. Oh, they might have grandfathers who fought in World War II -- or they might have grandfathers who fought in the First Gulf War -- but do they know anybody, do they have friends, who served in uniform?
The most bizarre story appeared in the news this past weekend, including in this newspaper. According to some writer for Salon, the junior senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, really never was a Ranger. Even though he was a Ranger.
Then other magazines like Rolling Stone picked up the original story, accusing the senator of lying about the details of his service, based on the first story. Till the mainstream media had to run with it, sometimes in an attempt to explain.
For those of us who know the difference between a major and a sergeant major, let us state with confidence that should you tell the average Ranger having some suds at a bar outside Fort Benning that he's not really a Ranger, even after he shows you his Ranger tab, you might come out a few teeth lighter. Those who've spent any time at all in uniform know that it's commonplace for those who've attended Ranger School to be called Rangers.
However, the recent media "investigation" presents another narrative: that because Tom Cotton never served with the 75th Ranger Regiment, he's not a real Ranger.
That's akin to telling somebody with airborne wings on his chest that he's not really airborne because he didn't serve with the 82nd or One-Oh-One Airplanes. And that's another way to lose a tooth.
We wanted to make sure we weren't assuming too much, so we called a friend who's a former full-bird colonel with two tours of wartime duty. His considered military opinion: If you serve in the 75th, you wear a special beret to tell yourself apart. But anybody -- anybody -- who makes it through Ranger School is a Ranger. Period.
The Rolling Stone article actually used the word "only" when it described Tom Cotton's training. As in, he only went to Ranger School, and didn't serve in a wartime position with the 75th. To use the word "only" when describing somebody who graduated Ranger School says a lot about the writer. And nothing good.
For a little cherry on top, Ranger School was also described as something "literally anyone in the military can attend." Well, we suppose literally anybody can apply. And perhaps get through the front gate. But after a few hours, "literally anyone" in the military would achieve muscle failure in the upper body and perhaps cramps in the lower. A few weeks of that usually separates the Rangers from the masses.
According to our story on Sunday's front page, Salon has targeted Tom Cotton for years. And for his opponents, Tom Cotton presents a target-rich environment. The man doesn't exactly shrink from controversy. He tells it with the bark off. He practically barks it with the bark off. The senator can be criticized for a number of things.
But making a distinction between a Ranger and a Ranger, of somebody who deservedly wears the insignia and somebody else who serves in a particular unit, might show just how desperate they're getting to find a chink in Tom Cotton's considerable armor. Or maybe these writers just don't have enough experience around the military ranks to understand many of its definitions.
Here's a hint for future reference: A lieutenant colonel can call himself a colonel even though he's not a full colonel. A brigadier general doesn't have to use the word "brigadier." And a Ranger is a Ranger is a Ranger.
We suppose that's enough of a defense for Tom Cotton from this corner. He can handle himself. After all, he's used to being under fire.
He's a Ranger.