It would be funny if it weren’t so predictable; Duncan Black (Atrios) has been waving the “chickenhawk” meme again.
I thought I’d beaten this to death and put a stake in it. It’s an immoral position, a politically naive position, and one that undermines our polity. Plus it’s just plain rude.
But let’s play the hand out a bit. As I noted before, as a fellow liberal, I’ll bet he supports higher taxes on the rich (see this Google search).
When Duncan asks his paymaster, George Soros, or his candidate John Kerry, to voluntarily pay higher taxes – because it’s a policy he supports – he can open his mouth try and intimidate a bunch of GOP kids into silence without being such an obvious hypocrite.
I’m sure Soros could easily write a check for $10 – $20 million, and in seriously encouraging him doing that, Duncan could provide leadership that might actually crack open the taxes issue.
I won’t be holding my breath.
I say let’s go the Heinlein route – if you don’t serve in the military and come out with an honourable discharge, you can’t vote. I trust that will make Mr. Black happy, and end the debate.
AL, One of the things that surprises me about the “chickenhawk” argument is that it ignores the obvious support for the war by the troops, veterans and their families. If you take the argument of Atrios and others to their logical end they should all support the war because the troops do. And they should all enlist as well, if they want to have a voice in future questions of war and peace. Or they should just shut up!
(I understand of course that they would deny that is their argument…that since they will not serve, they will not ask others to and therefore they have more integrity etc but I don’t think that line is logical or consistent. For example, I will be curious to see what these folks say the next time we are considering another “humanitarian” mission like Somalia or Bosnia…will they recuse themselves from advocating such a deployment because they have never served in the military?)
Similarly, one would expect that one shouldn’t call the fire department to put out a fire unless you were a fire fighter yourself. And as a medical researcher, I expect that I and my colleagues alone should be eligible for medical treatment. Who in the hell needs division of labor anyhow?
Remember, there are many theaters of action in the GWOT.
The terrorists have either made, or were coerced into making, Iraq the key front on the GWOT.
For some reason the hard core left continuously attempts to make the domestic front preeminent. They feel that the efforts in the Middle East are diversionary and duplicitous. I cannot understand why they go to the mat to support a socialist agenda in a capitalist society during a shooting war. My guess is that they view our enemies in the GWOT as rather backward and ineffectual – and thus not very dangerous.
They are fighting the past war. Losing the ‘culture war’ at this point, under these circumstances, is a finality. And they will lose…
By the way,
The limousine liberal left can elect to pay their income taxes using either the 1040EZ or standard 1040 forms.
No law changes necessary!!!
Simply put, they do not have to hire expensive tax attorneys to perform tax management services. PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE. Stop playing the game like the biggest pig in the trough – Arriana Huffington paid an amazing $700 in state income tax in 2002…
Its no longer merely an irrational position, Joe. Its a completely dishonest one as we know that Atrios has no intention of being bound to it in any sense. Its use is no better way to mark the despicable.
Also, to hold peacenik positions is to advocate decisions that may also have life-or-death consequences, including getting our troops killed in some future-war-not-prevented.
So these chicken-doves should not be allowed to be ‘anti-war’ unless they themselves have served in combat…
The real question is whether or not the majority of those hurling around the “chickenhawk” slur chose to serve in Kosovo, Afghanistan, or other morally unobjectionable conflicts (because isn’t the main difficulty so many people are having with the war in Iraq that it is “immoral” and “illegal” and they’re not going to sign up to fight “Bush’s war for oil”?).
The answer, I suspect, is that they did not. But I’m sure there’s a good reason for that, after all.
As I recall, the Kerrys weren’t exactly going ocverboard to pay their share of taxes.
Ah yes, here’s the “Drudge Report piece that notes the 12.4% figure for billionaire Theresa Heinz Kerry in 2003”:http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/heinkz.htm
The official release comes out at 19% for John Kerry alone. “CBS News reported both Kerry and Bush’s returns”:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/13/politics/main611620.shtml but mysteriously left out ONLY Kerry’s percentage… which, at 19%, would have been the lowest figure. According to the article, the Bushes paid 31% and the Cheneys 20%.
Is there such a thing as a “Chickenthief”?
My take on the subject.
I think the main thrust of the “chickenhawk” argument resides in the fact that our standing army is not large enough to complete the task at hand. Also, it is mainly directed at the pro-war commentators who should encourage enlistment among their listeners with at least as much zeal as they whipped up support for the action itself.
Their position of prominence arguably made the war possible, so they should use that same position to help the war effort in its enlistment goals. To do otherwise, after it has become apparent that we do not have enough soldiers, is to purposely sell the armed forces short.
Every liberal who wants to encourage college-age Republicans to join the military CAN ACT NOW:
1. Demand that military recruiters have appropriate access to all schools and institutions that receive public funds.
2. Demand that ROTC programs be admitted to all accredited universities, public or private.
3. Repudiate the fascist politics that drove out (or burned out) ROTC programs in the first place.
4. Give ROTC cadets the same protection from campus harrassment that every other student and group expects.
5. Demand state and federal laws to prevent university officials from suppressing ROTC recruitment, or from revoking credits for ROTC courses.
Now I don’t expect Atrios, or the rest of George Soros’ organ-grinder monkeys, to join this worthy project. They are as serious as diaper rash.
But the liberal Jason Elliot is calling for returning ROTC to Columbia, and furthermore, is calling on liberals to consider the previously unthinkable: join ROTC and increase the number of liberal officers in the military.
Hopefully this offer will not extend to the likes of Atrios, who is temperamentally unsuited to command and would be a prime candidate for a Douglas Niedermeyer Purple Heart, but if some of the better class of liberals followed this course they would get a new perspective on the military. And a new perspective on people like Ward Churchill.
Just because someone has never been in the military doesn’t mean they can’t oppose or support any conflict. This is not, at least in my not so humble former Marine opinion, the point. This has nothing to do with stifling debate. If some chickenhawk is shamed into silence, he can be grateful he is still alive to be shamed, unlike over 1700 others who put _his_ money where _their_ mouth is. If he really believes what he is saying and still has no intention of signing up and _still_ feels shamed, I would say there is something very wrong with that picture.
You have to understand what a chickenhawk is. A chickenhawk is someone, of appropriate age and health, who vehemently supports a war effort but will not otherwise involve themselves. Tom Delay avoided Vietnam, saying that there was no room for him, Dick Cheney got his college deferments.
Young men and women today who say they support the war in Iraq and believe it is good and right and just should be signing up in droves. There are men and women in the service today who are being stop-lossed and extended to fill the boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, men who are coming home in pieces who want to go back to be with their units…
If they don’t sign up, these young chickenhawks, it doesn’t mean their opinions aren’t valid or that they have no right to express those opinions, it just means they’re chickenhawks, as far as I’m concerned one of the lowest, most selfish life forms on the face of the earth. They willingly support a policy that will undoubtedly send some people to their deaths but are not willing to risk it themselves. People like that are one reason I support a draft. I would imagine that were there a draft these people would quickly reconsider their positions. Besides, a two year stint in the Marines wouldn’t, in and of itself, kill anybody. Hell, the Army already offers 15 month enlistments.
People who do not support the war can not, by definition, be chickenhawks. This brings me to Pablo Paredes…
The fireman argument is empty. To argue that the logical extension of this is that only firefighters can benefit from the services of firefighters is to denigrate the service of the troops. Firefighters go home most nights. While their service involves risks, they are in no way comparable to serving in Iraq. Comparing the service of the troops to firemen or medical researchers is an insult to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line daily and to those who have come home in boxes or in pieces. It is a sad excuse used by chickenhawks for not signing up and helping those troops for whom they espouse support. This is part of that whole “the military is just another job choice” mentality that causes my stomach to curdle.
As far as taxes are concerned, I’m all in favor of paying more, but I’m no one’s chump. Taxes are rent we pay for living in this country. You can’t live in the penthouse and pay basement rent. I’ll pay the penthouse rent, but I’m sure as hell not going to pay your share, too.
My taxes go to pay for the war, one that I believe is illegal and immoral. Why should they? Pro-lifers don’t want federal tax dollars going to pay for birth control, and they don’t, why should my taxes pay for an illegal war? The only reason I don’t mind my taxes going to the war is because the money is supposed to be used for the troops. Of course we saw how well the money was used when families had to buy body armor for their kids.
>>People like that are one reason I support a draft. I would imagine that were there a draft these people would quickly reconsider their positions.
Ok, now someone on this blog is proposing instituting *SLAVERY* in the name of *FREEDOM*. On July 4 no less.
I expect better from a member of the Brotherhood. Noble paladins aren’t supposed to advocate slavery, even of stupid young punks.
>>My taxes go to pay for the war, one that I believe is illegal and immoral. Why should they? Pro-lifers don’t want federal tax dollars going to pay for birth control, and they don’t, why should my taxes pay for an illegal war? The only reason I don’t mind my taxes going to the war is because the money is supposed to be used for the troops. Of course we saw how well the money was used when families had to buy body armor for their kids.
Marine, you are under no moral obligation to fund operations you dislike. In fact, you have a positive obligation to stop funding those things you find immoral. Success in this endeavor will not be easy. Good luck.
scroff: Firefighters go home most nights. While their service involves risks, they are in no way comparable to serving in Iraq. Comparing the service of the troops to firemen or medical researchers is an insult to the brave men and women who put their lives on the line daily and to those who have come home in boxes or in pieces.
On September 11th, the FDNY suffered a higher casualty rate than any unit in Iraq. Very many of them did not come home even in pieces. Avoiding repeat scenarios of this type is kind of what the WoT is all about. In case you were wondering.
Service in some divisions of the NYPD or LAPD is considerably more dangerous than typical military service. Military service varies widely in the level of danger, depending on the type of duty. All beside the point.
why should my taxes pay for an illegal war?
The war in Iraq is not illegal. The sovereign government of Iraq is recognized by the United Nations, and its right to defend itself from insurgency is likewise recognized.
The fact that you are an “ex-Marine” does not change any of these facts.
1. Demand that military recruiters have appropriate access to all schools and institutions that receive public funds.
2. Demand that ROTC programs be admitted to all accredited universities, public or private.
3. Repudiate the fascist politics that drove out (or burned out) ROTC programs in the first place.
4. Give ROTC cadets the same protection from campus harrassment that every other student and group expects.
5. Demand state and federal laws to prevent university officials from suppressing ROTC recruitment, or from revoking credits for ROTC courses.
Now I don’t expect Atrios, or the rest of George Soros’ organ-grinder monkeys, to join this worthy project. They are as serious as diaper rash.
I don’t want to speculate on what Atrios or other successful American businessmen would do, but I think that 4 of these 5 points are perfectly reasonable. Point 3 is unreasonable because it is a) impossible to do effectively, and b) pointless.
Let us see, I have three fraternity brothers who either plan to or have gone into the military [not including myself]. One went to Navy OCS, another went into Army armor, and the third plans to join the Marines.
Common characteristics? All 3 are diehard Republicans.
The bottom line Scroff is that all you want to do is call names. That tells us where you are coming from.
Scroff, thanks for the visit – for those who don’t know, he’s one of the posters at the ‘Operation Yellow Elephant’ site I’m happy to publicly mock on this holiday.
And scroff, you nail the attitude with your own words:
“As far as taxes are concerned, I’m all in favor of paying more, but I’m no one’s chump.”
Why is standing behind your principles with personal – as opposed to political – action something that would make you a ‘chump’?
I’m suggesting that political action is good enough for the pro-war, and it’s similarly good enough for the pro-tax.
But that would undermine your point, wouldn’t it?
Folks, go click though to scroff’s site, read what’s there, and make up your own minds.
Thanks, A.L., but I don’t need any more of that mentality.
Horatio: Point 3 is unreasonable because it is a) impossible to do effectively, and b) pointless.
Actually point 3 is a prerequisite for the other four points. It makes no sense for liberals or leftists to encourage anyone to consider military service while they heap abuse on those who do.
Assuming of course that they are serious, and not just engaging in gratuitous ankle-biting. Or is that an unreasonable assumption?
Horatio is probably right about #3 – it will just be part of the long march to take back America’s publicly funded universities, and restore balance and debate to the current “one-party state environment”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/005993.php where “extremely qualified”:http://ecityblog.blogspot.com/2005/07/natelson-qed.html professors “have to sue in order to be allowed to teach”:http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/06/law_school_lets.html – if they’re conservative – while “charalatans like Ward Churchill”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007056.php get widespread passes. Your American tax dollars, at work.
>>Ok, now someone on this blog is proposing instituting SLAVERY in the name of FREEDOM
So, I see. If you serve your country by choice it’s noble and good, but if it’s because of a draft, it’s slavery. If you go fight and die in an illegal war in Iraq because you want to, it’s all well and good and you’re a hero, but if you do it because you are drafted, it’s somehow slavery. Last I knew, slaves weren’t paid. And I’m not sure where freedom came into the whole thing. I guess suggesting service to the United States stirs up a whole pot of resentment on this site. Interesting.
>>you are under no moral obligation to fund operations you dislike
I am under a moral obligation to obey the laws of the country in which I live, whether I like them or not. I may work to change them, but I am obligated to obey them while they stand. That isn’t a new concept, is it? Or are you saying that we are free to choose to obey or disobey those laws as we see fit? Interesting concepts you guys have here.
>>On September 11th, the FDNY suffered a higher casualty rate than any unit in Iraq. Very many of them did not come home even in pieces. Avoiding repeat scenarios of this type is kind of what the WoT is all about. In case you were wondering.
I know what the FDNY losses were, over 340, including a good friend of my brother. I also know what the WoT is reportedly all about, which is why I get so confused when I hear about young supporters not signing up to help avoid repeat scenarios of this type. I guess they don’t care enough to do anything more than send cookies or stationary or walk up and down outside military bases.
>>The war in Iraq is not illegal.
It certainly is.
>>The sovereign government of Iraq is recognized by the United Nations, and its right to defend itself from insurgency is likewise recognized.
Fine, then let’s let them defend themselves.
>>Common characteristics? All 3 are diehard Republicans.
Thus, none are chickenhawks, what’s your story? Party affiliation has nothing to do with whether or not one is a chickenhawk. It just happens, as far as I know, that most are Republicans. There are many Republicans in the military, more than half.
>>The bottom line Scroff is that all you want to do is call names. That tells us where you are coming from.
Really? Who did I call a name? DeLay? Cheney? All those brave young men and women who adamantly believe we should have troops in Iraq but who won’t actually be one? When I was younger we had a different name for them… cowards.
>>he’s one of the posters at the ‘Operation Yellow Elephant’ site
Please link to one of my posts at the ‘Operation Yellow Elephant’ site. I do recall commenting at “Jesus General”:http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/ , but I have also commented at many other sites. I suppose then I can claim to be one of the posters at Winds of Change! Oh, goody.
>>Why is standing behind your principles with personal – as opposed to political – action something that would make you a ‘chump’?
I don’t know, why don’t you ask the chickenhawks…
btw, which principles are you referring to here? Me not minding paying taxes? I pay my taxes, how many chickenhawks are in the service?
>>I’m suggesting that political action is good enough for the pro-war, and it’s similarly good enough for the pro-tax.
Well, hell. Let’s all do political action! Let Bush go fight his own wars! C’mon! We can go walk around outside empty military bases and support… um, who would we support if no one who supported it was there to support?
>>But that would undermine your point, wouldn’t it?
My point that Americans should be willing to serve in the conflict that they support for the country they supposedly love and fly little flags for and have wonderful little holidays to celebrate? No.
>>Folks, go click though to scroff’s site
Thanks for the link…
>>read what’s there, and make up your own minds.
OOOh, What’d you see there? What awful awful things are there? The pictures of the Marine Corps birthday? Perhaps it was the pictures of my cute little kitten? Maybe it was the behind the scenes pictures of HBO’s OZ that did it… Or maybe it was our opinions! Want to have debate and discourse? You’re more than welcome. Be sure to go to The “Veteran’s Memorial”:http://www.anywhichway.net on the front page when you come in.
>>Thanks, A.L., but I don’t need any more of that mentality.
Talk about stifling debate… LOL! Sure, you guys go ahead and debate yourselves. I don’t know what you’ll debate, though… you all seem to be cut from the same cloth.
Thanks for the warm welcome, folks!
Oh, btw, Horatio, I agree with your ROTC and recruiters post, but I’ll see your ROTC and raise you a draft. Of course, we’ll also have to let alternatives to enlistment people sit in recruiters offices, too, just to even the playing field. Maybe a few Veterans for Peace guys would be willing to do it.
>>So, I see. If you serve your country by choice it’s noble and good, but if it’s because of a draft, it’s slavery.
Not necessarily. If you serve your country by choice, you have made an ethical decision, for good or ill. If you are drafted, someone else has imposed their will and ethics on you. One of the first ethical duties of a slave is to break free of their masters.
Any organization that attempted to draft me would have, in my eyes, immediately forfeited any legitimacy or moral standing. In the event I could not escape being drafted and could resist the subsequent brainwashing, I would seek out an opportunity to shaft my enslavers in the most spectacular way possible. Given my particular skills it’s possible the military would be foolish enough to station me next to equipment that would blow up REAL GOOD.
>>If you go fight and die in an illegal war in Iraq because you want to, it’s all well and good and you’re a hero, but if you do it because you are drafted, it’s somehow slavery.
IMHO the Iraq war is a gigantic cluster-&^%$, but I don’t object to people going over there to help, provided two things are true:
1. They actually do help. Killing people who don’t need killing and robbing people who don’t need robbing doesn’t help.
2. They don’t steal my property in the process. This rules out just about all current USG military personnel and most of the contractors.
>>Last I knew, slaves weren’t paid.
People who resist the draft tend to be imprisioned. People who are drafted who later try to leave tend to be shot.
>>you are under no moral obligation to fund operations you dislike
>>I am under a moral obligation to obey the laws of the country in which I live, whether I like them or not. I may work to change them, but I am obligated to obey them while they stand. That isn’t a new concept, is it? Or are you saying that we are free to choose to obey or disobey those laws as we see fit?
Yes.
When people abdicate their responsibility to decide for themselves what is and isn’t moral, ESPECIALLY to the “law”, Ye Liveliest Awfulness is sure to follow. The most gruesome atrocities usually are backed by the proper paperwork.
T.J. – One of the first ethical duties of a slave is to break free of their masters.
The Stoic philosopher Epictetus would disagree with that, saying that the first ethical duty is to find happiness even in slavery.
Epictetus was an actual slave, so by the logic of the Chickenhawk Fallacy (which is, as Peter Beinart put it, “denying that intellect can transcend experience”) we have to take his word for it.
There’s another, more direct way that Atrios and his fellow travelers are hypocrites on the “chickenhawk” charge: Remember how angry liberals were at Karl Rove’s suggestion that they weren’t supportive of the war on terror? Well, let’s apply the Atrios standard – if you support a war, you will sign up to fight it. So has Atrios signed up? Has Markos Moulitsas re-enlisted? (He evidently served in peacetime at some point) Or do they not support the war on terror, just as Rove suggested? Which is it?
“Link here”:http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?p=178
A few of these points have already been decided. The American Revolution was ‘committed’ by heroes – who chose to 1) refuse to pay taxes levied by Great Britain unjustly (Boston Tea Party) and 2) defied the British laws sufficiently to fight for independence.
A truly unjust tax, or law, is argument against loyalty.
But: No, personally I believe in staying within the system.
And you boys are forgetting that all of those women who did not fight in Vietnam were relieved of making that decision by a draft that did not include their sex. I guess we are all chickenhawks.
Those who oppose the war in Iraq and dare to call supporters “chickenhawks” should head down to the recruiter and volunteer to serve as a Pashtu or Urdu linguist. They’ll never set foot in Iraq, but their services are needed in the hunt for UBL.
That is, unless they are fundementally against the hunt for UBL.
This thread seems like much ado about nothing… with some more important topics scattered throughout.
1) The chicken-hawk label is just as valid as any other label describing any other group of people. The question at hand appears to be “Is it being correctly applied?” I will leave that to others to answer as I have seen it argued both correctly and, I believe, incorrectly. From my perspective (prior active, current reserve) it would legitimately applied to those who strenuously advocate sending others into harms way for their own benefit while being able, but unwilling, to further the effort themselves. That being said, if the best thing that you can do for the effort, because of your physical limitations or personal situation (more on this shortly,) is to stay home and directly support our families and political processes, so be it. But Do It. Don’t let the freedoms that we are serving to protect be stripped from our families while we are gone.
2) Private institutions should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they will support ROTC. This is called freedom. Public institutions, incl. those that accept public money, should not have that choice. That is called either “being part of the system” or “business” depending on where you stand.
3) Heinlein had it almost right. But it will never happen. So we work with what we have.
4) Conscription….. Might be good for some of the individuals conscripted, but I would not want to share a foxhole or a patrol with anyone but a volunteer. We already have to deal with some murderers rolling grenades into tents. Why invite more? The fact that we are an all volunteer force is one of our greatest strengths and one to be guarded as long as possible. While the army is having difficulty right now, a portion of it can be directly attributed to the, hopefully minority of, bad/disingenuous recruiting tactics that are in use. (Yes, I dealt directly with this before I came back in as a reserve.) As well as the constant gong banging by the (Doom and Gloom sells!) media.
5) Thank you all for paying your taxes. I personally feel that they are way too high. The Federal govt. should not be taking taxes for programs that are not outlined in the Constitution. But they are. And it is incumbent on us all to control or replace our representatives and correct this travesty.
6) Firefighters to Military is a bad comparison. Firefighters can quit at anytime they want without legal prosecution.
7) Slavery? In respect to the military, even conscripted, this would be inaccurate. Indentured Servitude would be, and is, much more accurate.
8) Guiding this nation is like sailing a large boat or designing a data base. Those with the clearest vision and understanding of where they want to wind up will get closest to the mark. She does not change directions on a dime and has a lot of momentum built up. We are unlikely to see any changes that we may advocate. They will only be realized by future generations, and that only if we build/encourage a framework for them to carry on. The “conservative” think tanks of the 70’s and 80’s have had some success as well as the neo-liberal influence in the government education systems.
I hope that this contributed to the debate.
William
I’m a chickenhawk, and I’ll cheerfully confess to being something of a coward (though signing up for the military simply isn’t an option at the moment; I have a PhD I’m committed to finishing, and I think I’d serve the human race better as a scientist than a soldier). However, 2 points:
(1) I can live with being a chickenhawk easier than I could have lived with opposing the toppling of a brutal, genocidal torture state.
(2) Opponents of the war had the chance to serve as human shields, protecting innocent iraqis from western bombs. (Some of them did, and I respect those people for the risk they were prepared to take for their convictions.) By the “chickenhawk” logic, only human shields should be permitted to complain about all the iraqis killed in the war.
I took a look at Duncan Black’s (Atrios) commenters. What a gaggle of chickenSQUAWKs. Almost all capons w/ a few hens.
There are places where soldiers are granted more rights and privileges than noncombatants. They’re called “dictatorships.”
By the “chickenhawk” logic, only human shields should be permitted to complain about all the iraqis killed in the war.
Actually, much as I dislike the stupidity of the “chickenhawk” logic, I don’t think this is really a valid comparison. Merely complaining about deaths wouldn’t logically require a commitment, only prposing any actual action against them. So, for example, only those willing to become human shields have any right to call for organized opposition to the American invasion. Or to lobby Europe to intervene to stop it, etc.
To me, however, a more illustrative approach would be to point out that, by the “chickenhawk logic”, only veterans, those actively in the military, and those planning to join can call for intervention in Darfur, Zimbabwae, or anywhere else. Likewise, only those planning to give up everything to work on the front lines against poverty can rightly speak out against it. So the whole “Live 8” bunch are raging hypocrites, “chickendoves” perhaps? And only those in the foreign service, or planning to sign up, can justly call for diplomatic solutions to problems. Only heads of state and government economists may morally discuss the agenda of the G8. Only those working towards becoming CEOs or mutli-millionaires should suggest agenda items for the WEF, etc.
In other words, drive home the point that the “chickenhawk argument” is simply one example of the ridiculous position that only experts can suggest policy. Strange that the Left would want military policymaking to be resticted to the military, but there you are…
Liberals don’t like “labels”, or so I am told. Or maybe they just don’t like being identified.
If we all work together, we could implement a Heinlein society. After all, if a “chickenhawk” cannot meaningfully debate the validity of the war on terror in Iraq, it is only a small step to “if you haven’t served honorably in the military, you have no right to speak about war”. From there is is only another step to “if you have not served honorably _in combat_, you cannot hold office or vote”.
Dwight.
You are forgetting that the “Chickenhawk” argument is not a serious or even an honest argument. Its a hypocritical and childish “so there” sort of thing at which point they can dismiss any contrarian view to “Chickendove’s” viewpoint. Afterall, Chickendoves do not require any credentials to be a member (only to oppose the war), yet to be a hawk, your street credibility can require more than having a current valid military relationship. As Pat’s Rick idicates, you must specifically serve to exacting and often migrating criteria so that only the most exceptional hawk can be freed from the chickenhawk label. Thus the Chickenhawk canard is designed to manufacture a quorum to the Chickendoves favor since, for example, very few people currently in Iraq are directly able to engage the anti-war Chickendove in situ, which guaruntees their “airtime superiority” against arguments supporting the US-led effort in Iraq.
Therefore, calling for all chickendoves to show their “I was a Human Shield after the first day Iraq was attacked,” is more than an acceptable retort. Afterall, fair is fair, and it brings the dishonesty of their argument into sharp relief so that you can exert your mental energy on debating more reasoned and honest skeptics on the war.
THe War is over. Bush fought a war for oil and we lost. “Those of you who are not jeebus neocon chickenhawks should read this”:http://mattstover.blogspot.com/2005/07/can-i-just-say-here-how-wonderful-it.html
The rest of you who are cowardly white christian believers should not bother, just stick to the Rovian message machine talking points.
This incarnation of the ‘chickenhawk’ meme has less to do with whether war proponents are qualified and everything to do with the current recruiting problems the military is having.
Some folks, such as Josh Trevino, are concluding that the all-volunteer military has been pushed to the breaking point by the Iraq war in specific and the Bush administration in general.
The question becomes: Does someone who is unwilling to serve have a moral right to advocat a return to the draft or military policy that makes a draft necessary? That, unlike the old ‘chickenhawk’ discussion, is a perfectly legitimate discussion.
Thanks for the reminder Cain! I almost forgot to go download my VRWC(c) podcast with the Rovain subliminal mind control messages.
In the case of the draft being reinstated, willingness really wouldn’t matter, would it?
Yes, chickenhawks have as much right to comment on the draft as anyone else. Or perhaps the only people allowed to comment should only be of the ages eligible for the draft, say those between the ages of 18 and 26. Can we please get those Democrat senators to shut-up about reinstating the draft now?
Except now we actually run the risk of losing the war without further troops. When we lose next year, you have only your cowardly chickhawk selves to blame.
Huh??
“Any organization that attempted to draft me would have, in my eyes, immediately forfeited any legitimacy or moral standing. In the event I could not escape being drafted and could resist the subsequent brainwashing, I would seek out an opportunity to shaft my enslavers in the most spectacular way possible. Given my particular skills it’s possible the military would be foolish enough to station me next to equipment that would blow up REAL GOOD.”
Says about all one needs to know about this low life eh?
You guys get pretty whacked out when the obvious is pointed out to you don’t ya?
Let’s recap this entire idiotic thread shall we?
1. People who support the war emphatically are under no obligation to volunteer to serve in that war (assuming they are of a viable age). Despite the fact that we don’t have enough troops available to fight the war.
2. A draft is bad, really really bad. Even though we are fighting a just and absolutely necessary war and don’t have enough troops to prosecute said war effectively even with the over use of reservists.
3. Should, by some incredible circumstance, a draft were instituted… People who loudly support the war should have no qualms about committing treason and sabatoging the military’s war effort if they happen to be conscripted for it.
Geez! No wonder you guys feel we don’t need any more troops! To think otherwise would obviously cause your heads to explode.
DaveBo… TJ is a radical libertarian who thinks the US Congress is an illegitimate organization (and, incidentally, is very much against the war).
Though I might suggest to TJ that refusal to serve and acceptance of a jail cell for sticking to your conscience is a better course of action than doing things that will get you a firing squad, and brand your position as evil rather than morally-driven.
bq. Yes, chickenhawks have as much right to comment on the draft as anyone else. Or perhaps the only people allowed to comment should only be of the ages eligible for the draft, say those between the ages of 18 and 26. Can we please get those Democrat senators to shut-up about reinstating the draft now?
You see, I would maintain that anyone who is able but unwilling to serve and advocates FORCING others to to serve in their stead and risk life and limb is by definition a cowardly, hypocritical jackal, and truly worthy of the term ‘chickenhawk.’
Geek (#37) think more clearly. If said person is eligible to serve, and they advocate such policies, it follows by strict logic that they are making themselves eligible for said forced service.
And your point disappears in a puff of logic, dying of suicide from its own internal contradictions.
“Does someone who is unwilling to serve have a moral right to advocat a return to the draft or military policy that makes a draft necessary?”
Joe:
You, in turn, should consider the very distinct possibility that the pool of draftees would be a narrower group than those currently eligible to enlist.
For example, during the Vietnam war the draft was restricted to 19-26 year old men. Compare that to today’s criteria, which allow 39-year olds to enlist.
Not to mention deferments and good old-fashioned family connections. . . .
And let’s not pretend that a draft would do anything but disproportionately target the young (don’t vote–screw’em!), the poor, the uneducated, and those otherwise unable to get out of service. Who’s more likely to get drafted, some kid from a farm in Iowa or a Congressman’s son?
Joe
The “chicken hawk” argument was truly idiotic for a long time.
However, it’s becoming much more relevent because of our troop shortage and the incredible steps the military it taking right now to overcome the problem.
In the not so distant past it was extremely difficult to enlist in most branches without a high school diploma or GED. The military has issued orders stopping discharges of service members who fail drug tests or have sever alcohol issues.
The fact is undeniable. The military needs bodies now and they are growing increasingly less concerned with the quality of the bodies they get.
So IMO it’s an entirely legitimate question.
Doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to their opinions and to voice them loudly.
But like the Dixie Chicks, they also have no right to expect others not to call them idiots for doing so.
Damn.
A.L. is a bigger moron now than he used to be.
That took some doing my man!
Congrats!
Now I’ll take another three years off before reading him again.
Oh, and Cain (#36)… thanks for reminding us of the democrat activist talking points, and displaying Liberal Tolerance(TM) for all to see. We appreciate it.
DaveBo (#42)… to summarize your misconception:
#1 and #2 are correct. “See this for why #1 is correct”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007130.php#c23 – it goes to the roots of citizenship and how the American system works. Re: #2, the Pentagon absolutely does not want a draft, and most of the people who do also seem to want America to lose. So you’ll pardon us for not taking that seriously. #3 simply ascribes a radical libertarian and anti-war position to the wrong camp.
So:
1. People who support the war emphatically are exercising their responsibilities as citizens to be informed and active participants in public debate, just like those who oppose the war. Neither has to enlist to validate its position, or to participate in political debate. The Founders worked pretty hard to make sure America wasn’t that kind of country (the word you’re looking for would be “junta”).
2. A draft is a bad idea. The Pentagon is very solid on that proposition, and so are the troops doing the fighting. Most of the people who seem to want a draft are folks who also seem to want America to lose. This doesn’t give us much confidence in accepting their recommendations over the expertise of those who would have to implement them.
3. We are fighting a just and absolutely necessary war, and we are concerned over the reserves issue. As is the Pentagon, whose position re: the draft has not changed. Some of us are beginning to see the days immediately after 9/11 as a key point in the war, due to the failure to declare war, mobilize the Guard for the duration of the conflict, launch a recruiting drive, and to stand up new divisions to give the US military some additional depth for theaters of opportunity and/or necessity as a necessarily uncertain war evolved. However, the war is on, nobody else was going to do this at the time, and we are where we are. We can’t rewind history, and can’t be certain what would have happened if that had been America’s course. All we can do is go from here, and work resolutely toward victory. On ALL fronts. Including the domestic one, which if done well will boost recruiting.
4. Should, by some incredible circumstance, a draft be instituted… you would find warbloggers evaluating the issue on its merits. Currently, most of us don’t think it has very many.
Joe:
Can we assume then that you think that the option of sending ground troops into Syria and Iran is off the table–at least until Iraq is stabilized?
Joe
“the Pentagon absolutely does not want a draft, and most of the people who do also seem to want America to lose. So you’ll pardon us for not taking that seriously.”
Freaking pathetic Joe. Those who want a draft, or most of them, want us to lose eh?
I’d love to see you attempt a justification of that little doozy.
But it’s good to see you’re hedging your bets on who to blame should we actually lose.
Which ironically enough can’t possibly happen unless we refuse to fund and man this war sufficiently.
Guess logical discourse and reasoned argumentation just won’t suffice when you’re argument is so weak.
By the way, if you hadn’t noticed…
Things are going down hill fairly quickly in that other little war in Afghanistan. But surely it would he a huge mistake to send in more troops.
Osama who?
Joe,
As to the Pentagon being totally against a draft..
Are you referring to the civilian leadership at the pentagon or the military leadership?
I’d say Gen. Eric Shinseki made his opinion on the matter quite clear during the runup to war. And we see where it got him.
Joe,
_I say let’s go the Heinlein route – if you don’t serve in the military and come out with an honourable discharge, you can’t vote._
i’ll go you one better and suggest the Niven route. Let’s say if you don’t serve honorably, you can’t reproduce. Sort of raising the selection gradient.
Or (David Blue), breeding for heroes.
😉
Geek… probably. Then again, neither was a realistic military option before we had a base in Iraq either.
“Can we assume then that you think that the option of sending ground troops into Syria and Iran is off the table–at least until Iraq is stabilized?”
To expand on that:
Syria’s regime could probably be brought down using what America has in northern Iraq – the regime is so internally unstasble and ethnically isolated, it wouldn’t take much. But then it would just become a failed state. Better to tie them down in Lebanon, use hot pursuit from Iraq, and work to engineer a coup by someone who will work close the ratlines to Iraq by noting how little it would take to essentuially get the Alawites toppled and ethnically cleansed out of Syria. Syria is a “distract and divert” holding action.
But just imagine if America tried to take on Syria with Saddam still kicking, and trying to go through Lebanon (don’t see a realistic Turkley option there, either).
Iran…. strikes me as a feasible option for ground invasion only if the full National Guard is mobilized like now, and only because the USA has Saddam taken care of and bases in Iraq. Other means may be usable instead, incl. a coherent incitement & revolution approach combining propaganda support, covert action, and associated force at the right moment. But the USA has been overly slow IMO in implementing any discernible Iran strategy, and it’s a major disappointment. We’ve been saying “faster, please” here for a long time now.
It is possible that the USA is simply out of options re: preventing Iran from going nuclear at this point, and missed the window. Actually, they were overly slow, period – screwing around for a year with the “global test”/UN farce continues to accrue big-time costs in a war that was on the clock from Day 1.
And you’ve seen my thoughts above re: the immediate aftermath of 9/11, and the missed mobilization opportunity. That opportunity is gone now, barring another major attack – so we have to figure out a way to win from where we are.
A good first step would be consistent bipartisan exhortations from political leaders for citizens to voluntarily enlist and serve their country in its time of need. But the strategy will have to improve, also (as it usually does at this point in a war).
“Syria’s regime could probably be brought down using what America has in northern Iraq – the regime is so internally unstasble and ethnically isolated, it wouldn’t take much. But then it would just become a failed state.”
Wow! Where have we heard this tripe before?
At least you added in the “failed state” caveat. What? No greetings with flowers and cheers?
A country with 3 times the population of Iraq and with a more motivated armed forces can be taken down by a number of troops insufficient to seal the border with said country from the last country we “took down”.
Are you really serious?? Where did you receive your strategic military training????
Re: #52… yes, Davebo, America should be very careful how many troops it sends to Afghanistan, and what their mission is.
If you really want to lose that war, and maybe the war as a whole, try falling into a “Soviet model” for fighting the war there and revolutionizing the country, and see where it gets you.
Tribal politics must be navigated (i.e. buying people off), warlords will have to be tolerated within broad bounds until the central government is powerful enough to claim progressively more authority (as Robin has noted here several times, that’s underway), and civil society will have to be built up via economic links etc. (one of the reasons the inter-city roads were such a big priority) and protected para-military reconstruction teams. And of course, you can’t invade Pakistan to deal with the source of many jihadis.
It’s a slow process that still costs America a billion or two per month – and trying to speed it up too much will either make it slower or reverse it entirely.
Davebo, while I think it’s a mite strong to say that those who favor a draft want us to lose I think it’s perfectly fair to say that their reasons for doing so are other than ensuring victory.
Charles Rangel has without doubt been one of the most vocal advocates for a resumption of the draft. Here’s a news report of an early statement of his on the subject. You’ll note that increasing preparedness or force effectiveness are not included among his reasons for a draft. Since he would apparently accept a less effective military for his stated objective of “equitable representation”, it’s not too much of a jump to say that he considers such equitability more important than victory (it’s also possible to infer that his objective is actually hobbling effective military response).
“Tribal politics must be navigated (i.e. buying people off), warlords will have to be tolerated within broad bounds until the central government is powerful enough to claim progressively more authority”
Nah Joe, these aren’t the issues we’re facing.
It’s all those Americans, veterans and otherwise, who want us to lose this global war on terror that’s the real problem.
At least in the Winds of La La world.
Perhaps invading Syria with the New England Patriots will push us over the top eh?
It’s well over 100 degrees here in the great state of Texas today so I think I’d better give this thread a rest.
This kind of bullshit gets nasty in the heat.
Wow, you even managed to drag out the Soros boogey-man (which I understand is code for “jewey jew jew” for the right these days).
How intellectually bankrupt do you have to be to ignore the fact that believing in “OMFG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE UNLESS WE WIN IRAQ NOW!!!1!ONE” and then finding that acting on that belief means screeching COMMIE! at professors from community colleges rather then.. you know.. perhaps getting off your ass and fighting for it is a bit incongruent dochnya think?!?
It means that winning Iraq isn’t do or die but a “nice to have” like wishing everyone could have a pony is a “nice to have”, but you aren’t willing to lose any skin over the principle.
Dave
So the drastic measures of reduction of standards, 18 month enlistment periods, and retention of those who otherwise would have been booted out of the military isn’t resulting in a less effective military?
At least with a draft we’d have tons of cash laying around that is currently being spent on enlistment bonuses, not re-enlistment bonuses mind you but initial enlistment bonuses.
I was lucky enough to serve five years in our all volunteer military and I agree, a draft would produce lower levels of professionalism and quality.
But what other options do we have?
I opposed the war in Iraq but that time has come and passed. Losing it now is not an option. So we have to take a serious look (and let me note nothing even close to that has occurred on this thread) at what our options are now and how to go forward to a victory in Iraq.
So, with those facts in mind, what do you suggest?
Here is a sampling of 2 weeks of Atrios headlines from last month. Keep these in mind when he attacks others for being partisan, questions anyone’s ethics, or trumpets fairness or honesty about one issue or another.
There Are No Moderate Republicans 2
The Stalinist Right
America: Still Better Than Murdering Head Chopping Terrorists!
America: Still Better Than Nazi Germany!
America: Still Better Than Stalin
George Bush’s America
Fred Hiatt’s America
Tweety’s America
James Taranto’s America
There Are No Moderate Republicans 1
Things the Right Wing Believes
Fcuk Tom Friedman
Gryn
Keep in mind this is the same crew that decided congress was primarly to blame for what they admitted to be a serious problem of our troops lacking necessary equipment and additional training.
It’s defend the status quo 24/7 here.
In other words, calm of no change.
DaveBo… taking down an unstable state ruled by 10% of the population whose religion is regarded dubiously by the rest (to put it kindly, hence Hama), and who survive thanks to an aura of fear built on an easily-puctured reputation for invincibility and the inevitability of their rule… no, not that hard. Hit their military enough times for them to lose serious face and be seen as weak, take the country’s infrastructure apart with airpower, and the Alawite regime probably ends. But it would end in massive internal strife, and the aftermath would be chaos.
Given the regime’s weaknesses, it would take far fewer troops to do that than it does to completely seal the entire border area (though that’s improving as Iraqi forces are doing more elsewhere, and al-Qaeda’s “hearts and minds” strategy continues to help us) against an intact Syrian enemy.
Again, the question re: toppling Assad’s “regime” is still “do you want to do this?” Right now, the answer is no. Iraq as opened some doors, as Lebanon’s Walid Jumblatt noted, and the consensus seems to be that it’s better to look for alternatives and try to widen the cracks.
What do YOU advocate with respect to Syria, DaveBo?
“What do YOU advocate with respect to Syria, DaveBo?”
You aren’t going to like the answer, but here goes.
With both Syria and Iran I offer the same stragegy. Coddle those who actively oppose the regime. Another option that would be nice is to create a satellite dish the size of half a pizza box that can be easily concealed.
Now I realize this seems like just sticking to the status quo, and to some extent it is.
But the only regime change that can possibly be acceptable to the populace is one that comes from within. You seem to think that no Syrian will get a bit of nationalist fervor seeing Damascus bombed. If indeed you believe that it’s a safe bet the only Syrian you’ve met works at the local Quickie Mart.
And I would ask you this. Why is Sistani in Iraq right now?
And how could the US make that fact work toward our advantage in the region?
We could also allocate covert funding for those who oppose the current regimes in Syria and Iraq including training and arming, but I think that’s a horrible idea.
But it has certainly been one method used by hawks in the past.
Joe:
The problem with a push for recruiting is that the invasion of Iraq has already accomplished what Bush highlighted as the main reasons for going to war–getting rid of Saddam and his alleged WMD’s.
The goal for the US in Iraq now is an orderly withdrawal that doesn’t lead to a failed state. Hardly inspirational stuff.
By the way Joe, you’ve mentioned our “bases in Iraq” several times over the course of this thread.
Do you really believe the US will get the opportunity to both bring a true democracy to Iraq and maintain sizeable military bases within the country?
I thought all along that this was the primary reason for the invasion, not oil. But I think you have to be totally clueless about the culture in Iraq to believe that both objectives can be accomplished.
Right up there with “There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq”.
Ooh! Ooh! Nice echo chamber!
Davebo (#67) –
You mean like in Germany, Japan, and South Korea??
A.L.
Did I just see someone compare Iraq to Japan (disarmed), Germany (co-occupied by the Communists) and Korea (ditto)?
I hope that the Domino Theory doesn’t make another appearance as well.
Geek (#70) –
bq. Did I just see someone compare Iraq to Japan (disarmed), Germany (co-occupied by the Communists) and Korea (ditto)?
Why not? It’s a good analogy.
The question is whether or not it is possible to successfully build a democracy while simultaneously maintaining military bases. The comparison A.L. offered is apt. We did in fact successfully see Japan, West Germany and South Korea into the sphere of democracies while maintaining significant military presence.
Interestingly, the two countries which were under US/Allied military rule the longest were the ones that became democratic more quickly.
(The Japanese had democracy imposed on them, Germany had it rebuilt/restored, but Korea had very little in the way of a democratic tradition, having been ruled either by kings or by invaders prior to 1945; their democratic institutions were and are pretty much home-built, though based on the U.S. model.)
In the case of _East_ Germany and _North_ Korea, it’s pretty clear that Soviet and/or Chinese occupations had a distinctly negative influence. By way of further contrast, look at how successful the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was for _that_ country.
bq. I hope that the Domino Theory doesn’t make another appearance as well.
Why on earth not? Do we _not_ want other countries in the region to move in the direction of liberty and democracy?
Or are you rather suggesting that 30-minute pizza delivery is an unworthy goal for that region of the world?