shotbanner.jpeg

October 14, 2005

The Nation: "Accuracy Is For Peasants"

No slander is quite as dull-witted as the "chickenhawk" slur that some on the not-excessively-gifted wing of the American Left are frothing over - the notion that some supporters of the war didn't, or aren't, serving in the military. (Never mind for a moment that the vast majority of people actually in Iraq support the war, and a strong minority would like to see the "chickenhawk"-criers eaten by mice).

The Young Republicans and other similar groups come in for an extra jolt of froth; nothing makes a campus "radical" angrier than seeing a campus conservative under normal circumstances. I've questioned for a while now whether Campus Republicans go on to serve in the military in disproportionately higher numbers than the rest of the campus population (anyone have the numbers?), but it's irrelevant, since it's not an argument that's designed for the opposition to win in the first place; if 90% of war supporters suddenly donned BDUs and jumped on a C17 bound for Kabul, the bleating hearts would pule "SEE? 10% didn't go! Hypocrites!"

Whatever. It's a dumb argument on so many levels.

And that's even if the left reports the argument correctly.

Enter The Nation.

The Nation - the semi-official organ of the people who think Howard Dean isn't far enough to the left - in their piece "The Young Chickenhawks", "cover" a pro-liberation rally in Minnesota:

The even more zealous YAFers have made it clear that they not only support the war but are openly hostile to those who oppose it. Their rowdy prowar rallies have attracted plenty of press. In March 2003, CBS news reported on a YAF event held in Minnesota at which the chapter's executive director Chris Hill had strong words for antiwar activists: "The top of the antiwar movement is led by communists, and I will call them that," he said. "Unlike these communists, we have truth on our side.... We say to those who oppose this war, Go to France." Hill's YAF chapter has also publicly denigrated antiwar demonstrators as "cowards." All of this raises the question: If opponents of the war should go to France, shouldn't Hill--and other members of YAF and College Republicans--go to Iraq?
Right.

And if you don't go to medical school, you'd better not talk about health. If you're not a lawyer, you have no right to natter on about the law. If you're not a trained botanist, stay out of your garden.

The Nation digs into the various activists' pasts (emphasis added - please note both instances, they reappear later in this post)...:

Indeed, YAF chairman Erik Johnson, vice chairman Darren Marks and fourteen other national officials have posted brief autobiographies on YAF's website. According to these bios, not one of them has served in the military or has any intention to do so in the future. YAF official Chris Hill told The Nation that he had been a member of his university's Navy ROTC program and the moderator of a blog where he offered advice to aspiring soldiers on how to obtain a military commission. But he chose to seek a master's degree rather than join the armed forces. Asked about this decision, he said, "But I know people over there, and that's a fact." Does it undermine his group's prowar position if all the YAF higher-ups are unwilling to participate directly in the war? "I don't think so," Hill replied. "You don't have to be involved in something to believe in it."
...but still misses a few points.

Chris Hill copied me on an email he sent to The Nation:

Regarding your October 12th article in which you quoted me (The Young Chickenhawks), your reporting is ignorantly poor at best. You seem to make assumptions without taking people - namely me - at their word. I WAS in the Navy ROTC program because since then I have graduated and been commissioned an officer in the United States Navy. I am going into naval aviation (read: high potential for combat situations). It just so happens the Navy desires their officers to have a high level of technical proficiency, thus they send a few individuals to graduate school each year.

As a member of the Armed Force, I can make no public comments regarding the US's foreign policy, hence my hesitation to acknowledge my current position due to the fear of being misquoted or used for propaganda. I made no comments indicating I was not in the Armed Forces, I’m pretty sure I never used the words "and that’s a fact," and, by the way, I’ve never moderated a blog. I see now that even though I tried to remain silent on some issues, they were still used for propaganda.

I would appreciate an immediate correction, at it seems you desire to slander my name, the cause of conservative organizations in America, and the Armed Forces. Thank you.
Good luck on that correction, Ensign Hill.

But Chris' point is a good one; the hard left isn't going to let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good ripping yarn.

Anyway, the fact is that for the left to exercise their vaunted integrity, anyone crying "chickenhawk" had better be planning to move to a Moslem theocracy like Iran, or perhaps North Korea; since their appeasement policy would sentence millions of people to life under brutal dictatorships, they should be willing to live that life themselves.

Unless they're "chickendoves", of course.

I'm waiting to hear from Chris Hill.

Posted by Mitch at October 14, 2005 07:10 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Chris Hill is an exceptional individual, and I proudly call him a friend. We spent many hours counter-protesting the anti-war idiots.

Also, the Campus Republicans have seen 7 members enlist in the military since the war. The UDFL has not any to my knowledge, whereas the U-Greens actually have one.

Operation Chickenhawk (or "yellow elephant") is a poorly disguised ad hominum argument that proves nothing. Of the members of the Campus Republicans not serving in the military, there are three asthmatics and three knee surgeries, leaving few even fit for military duty. Yet that still doesn't matter. The left is trying to make an argument by attacking the people who they oppose, rather than by attacking the opponents argument.

Such strategy is doomed in my mind, and demeans the activities of those who are serving in the military now.

Posted by: Marty at October 14, 2005 09:59 AM

Ok,

First, you all have your "treehugger","femi-nazi", "Bush-hater" epithets, so yeah, Hypocrite is the right aphorism :).

Second, why would you expect folks who oppose the war to enlist?

Third, on what basis do you determine that the vast majority of those in Iraq support it? There are certainly plenty of admittedly anecdotal accounts of soldiers who feel it is improper and illegal (Pat Tillman comes to mind). As well, I know, personally, of several very veteran soldiers who are opposed, but still their because it is their duty.

Third, the term chicken-hawk is more than fair, in that so many, in reality nearly all, of the proponents of this war in the administration ducked/dodged or otherwise hid from duty in Vietnam. Further, MANY of the folks I hear talking about Iraq are unready, and probably unwilling, to enlist in the war they support. They are ready to have OTHER peoples sons and daughters go, but not theirs, or they themselves.

So sorry Mitch, but Chicken-Hawk is pretty accurate. If you don't like the heat... and more than that, if you want civility, I think constantly labeling those whom you don't like with things LOTS more offensive and irresponsible than chicken-hawk (all liberals are traitors comes to mind) begets an in-kind response, and deserves it.

I served 12 years in the US Army and Reserves, being told that I hate my country, that questioning/desenting during a time of conflict is providing aid and succor, questioning a wontonly dishonest, politically driven administration is strictly hate, that all liberals are lazy and LOVE welfare because of it, etc.. is such spin and overstatement that I don't much have sympathy for complaints from the right about the left painting with too broad a brush. It's not entirely accurate, and it's undoubtedly unfair to some, but it does not say that ALL republicans are chicken hawks, like you all say ALL (or nearly all?) are cowards, lazy, traitors. It is saying there are important, significant players, and like minded supporters, who sponsor this war, yet who will not stand on the wall.

So sorry Mitch, I just don't have too much sympathy for those who sponsor war for others to fight, and I don't cry to much for their hurt feelings. If you want civil discourse, it starts with you (and me).

I'll engage in it, will you? Will your Blog start?

PB


Posted by: PB at October 14, 2005 10:36 AM

Amazing how incensed the right gets when THEY are the ones being labelled, instead of doing the labelling. Will SOMEBODY PLEASE cue the violin music?

I would not apply the aphorism "chickhawk" to the average non-serving war supporter; it is just silly along with similar terms. But I think it has merit when applied to administration officials who (1) are strong proponents of the war, (2) actively took steps (or had steps taken for them) to avoid serving, or serving in a combat role, and -- here's the clincher -- (3) have the arrogance to both ignore and actively discourage expert opinion which runs counter to beliefs which are driven by ideology and wishful thinking. I am NOT a proponent of faith-based military thinking, because reality gets in the way.

Lincoln was a great commander despite having no military background: he schooled himself in the subject and listened to his advisors. I also have no doubt that with some basic research I could find great political leaders during times of war who avoided military service.

I'm not seeing anyone like that in this war, just a bunch of arrogant poofs who have finally decided after two years to stop playing with the train set, and let the professionals run the show.

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at October 14, 2005 11:18 AM

I've gone off about "chicken hawk" on other blogs before and I'll do it again here.

The jest of chicken hawk is that right wingers are willing to vocally support a war but too chicken to actually face the results of their support - war. The logic being that you should fight in a war only if you support it.

But really, the chicken label should fall on those throwing chicken hawk. Because, by their logic you would also be absolved of any military duty by opposing war.

It is pretty cowardly, in fact the epitome of cowardice, for a person who supports no wars to suggest that support for war requires you to participate in war, because in effect they are insulating themselves from ever having to pay the price for the freedoms they enjoy. "We'll take it, you go get it," is the attitude they seem to employ.

Let's remember something else. Most seem to be hinting at forcing "chicken hawks" to the military because of their beliefs. Yet, many of them are or are ideologically aligned with the folks who burned their draft cards during the Vietnam war. Again, the epitome of cowardice.

The truth is, the left has nothing. Instead of something, they just come up with allegedly clever phrases like "chicken hawk" and "culture of corruption" that don't stick with the public because they are as bad at sloganeering as they are at leading (witness: Minneapolis).

This has been my kind rant on "chicken hawks." A much more vile and profanity-filled rant is available upon special request.

Posted by: Kevin from Minneapolis at October 14, 2005 11:21 AM

PB,

You may have been a squad leader in the service - but you are a colonel at the front of a brigade of strawmen.

"Ok,

"First, you all have your "treehugger","femi-nazi", "Bush-hater" epithets, so yeah, Hypocrite is the right aphorism :)."

Huh?

Tree-hugger is not an epithet. Feminazi is an apt desription of some identity-feminists. "Bush-hater" is perfectly accurate in many cases (do we not have the right to describe one who hates the President as a "Bush-Hater?" Is that not accurate)?

"Second, why would you expect folks who oppose the war to enlist?"

See my next post.

"Third, on what basis do you determine that the vast majority of those in Iraq support it? There are certainly plenty of admittedly anecdotal accounts of soldiers who feel it is improper and illegal (Pat Tillman comes to mind)."

Gallup polls of people in the service show overwhelming support - as do the record re-enlistment numbers among people serving or who have served in Iraq.

Of course you have anecdotes from vets who oppose the war; in any group of 200,000-odd people you have going to have a full range of opinions (unless they're 200K members of MoveOn.org...).


"As well, I know, personally, of several very veteran soldiers who are opposed, but still their because it is their duty."

Sure, so do I. Again - anecdotes that, if Gallup and the re-enlistment figures are to be believed, are outliers.

"Third, the term chicken-hawk is more than fair, in that so many, in reality nearly all, of the proponents of this war in the administration ducked/dodged or otherwise hid from duty in Vietnam."

But that's not who I'm talking about, and you know it. I'm talking about the common scum protester or chuzzlewit blog commenter (not referring to you, PB, by the way) who refers to regular schlub civilians who support the war *but* are not in the military themselves as chickenhawks.

" Further, MANY of the folks I hear talking about Iraq are unready, and probably unwilling, to enlist in the war they support."

Wow. And that anecdote has what margin of error?

MANY of the people I talk to at anti-war protests claim to have been kidnapped and anally probed by aliens, y'know.

"So sorry Mitch, but Chicken-Hawk is pretty accurate. If you don't like the heat... and more than that, if you want civility, I think constantly labeling those whom you don't like with things LOTS more offensive and irresponsible than chicken-hawk (all liberals are traitors comes to mind) begets an in-kind response, and deserves it."

Show me where I've called all liberals "traitors".

Now.

"So sorry Mitch, I just don't have too much sympathy for those who sponsor war for others to fight, and I don't cry to much for their hurt feelings. If you want civil discourse, it starts with you (and me)."

I am unfailingly civil in every possible way.

But while I support the war, one may not call me a chickenhawk; on 9/11, I was 38 and had two kids to take care of; if I'd been 25 and responsible for nobody but myself, I'd have joined (and be out by now); if they started recruiting something like the Norwegians' "Hjemevernet", where middle-aged guys take over rear-echelon jobs for the regulars and reserves, I'd be there in a heartbeat (but the libs don't want *that*, either!).

So no, PB, it is not only uncivil to call people "chickenhawk" without regard to their circumstances, it's inaccurate.

As inaccurate as everything as all the other lies the left stands for. (Hey, you did it. Why can't I have some of the hamfisted fun?)

;-]

Posted by: mitch at October 14, 2005 11:54 AM

Wow, lots of long posts. I will be brief. YAF is a joke, as is everyone who thinks they stand for anything more than self indulgence and arrogance. Fuck them all; we are taking over in 06 and will have the Malkin Camps running for all the Bush lovers. Boy, I love being 16.

Posted by: cheney's polyp at October 14, 2005 01:15 PM

And Mitch scores an INSTALANCHE!!

I keep waiting for Glenn to link to one of my fecal-centric posts, but I guess that kind of thing doesn't appeal to him. Elitist snob.

Posted by: Ryan at October 14, 2005 01:20 PM

Matthew 5

43. "You heard it said,
'Love your best friend and hate your enemy.'
44. "But, I am telling you,
Like your enemy and bless those who curse you
And do good to those who hate you
and pray for those who exploit you and leave you bare;
45. "So that you become the sons of your heavenly Father,
He who makes his sun shine on the good and the wicked,
And brings down the rain on the righteous and the abominable.
46. "For if you like those who like you,
what are you to be compensated for?
Do not even the revenue collectors do this?
47. "And if you greet your brothers only,
What good is that?
Do not the revenue collectors do this also?
48. "Be therefore mature people, like your Father in heaven is Mature.

Posted by: Wallace at October 14, 2005 01:33 PM

I don't get too worked up about stupid things and the "chickenhawk" argument is certainly a stupid thing.

(I will admit, though, that Jesse Ventura was right when he explained that anyone who didn't serve at the time they were the right age, counted as one, when the reporter was trying to say it was only draft dodgers. What does the draft possibly have to do with an ethic of service? He was wrong about it mattering, but he was right about the definition.)

As prior service I've got a couple extra years on the age limit for enlisting, and if it had been possible after 9-11 I would have done. The same reasons that I separated from the service still applied, four minor children. Still, if I had a skill they really needed I might have, but I don't. The chances I'd have passed the physical are next to zilch, so even those things don't matter. The military doesn't need me, it needs young, fit, soldiers. Or else it needs older soldiers with *relevant experience*. I've got none of that.

What I *can* do is express my belief in the GWOT and my opinion that military service is desirable, honorable, and worth the sacrifices. My children aren't old enough to serve. When they are, they will chose for themselves, but they will know that both their parents approve.

The chickenhawk argument is so incredibly lame.

Posted by: Synova at October 14, 2005 01:56 PM

They're idiots. If everyone who supported the war joined the military, we'd have 75 million + in uniform. And that's just the _supporters_, not the "we started it, so we have to finish it" crowd. Well someone has to stay here, keep the home front going, and pay the taxes. Not to mention bitch-slap morons who come up with ad hominems.

Of course, my question to the idiots is "if you really believe that violence is the wrong way, why aren't you in the Peace Corps?"

Posted by: ubu at October 14, 2005 02:16 PM

I have been trying to get Atrios to tell me whether or not he supported the war in Afghanistan for several months now.

In a lot of the arguments now used against Iraq, one of the most used is that we have not yet finished the job in Afghanistan. At the big peace rally in SF a few months back, after being called a chickenhawk, I asked one of the speakers a followup. I asked if her statment that the job was not done meant that she supported the war in Afghanistan?

She said yes. I did not ask her anything furthur, but she then went on to spend about 15 minutes explaining how she was not a chickenhawk.

http://haganah.us/haganah/index.html

Right now, I think volunteering for projects like Internet Haganah is almost as important if not more so than signing up for the US miligary.

Posted by: Cog at October 14, 2005 02:20 PM


if this is how the left looks at things then,

since they support cocksuckers does that mean they are all cocksuckers, i doubt it

i doubt if more than 98% of lefties are cocksuckers

Posted by: Jupiter at October 14, 2005 02:20 PM

"Lincoln was a great commander despite having no military background: he schooled himself in the subject and listened to his advisors."

No military background? The Black Hawk War doesn't count?

Recall that Lincoln's advisers were people like George McClellan and Henry Halleck, which goes a long way toward explaining why that particular war went on for about three years longer than it should have. This is your model of the right way to do it? No thanks.

Posted by: big dirigible at October 14, 2005 02:21 PM

Dirigible is historically illiterate if he thinks that Little Mac had a clue about how to run a war...it's no coincidence that the South was still there long years after McClellan was long gone, Blimp.
He did, however, pose one lesson today's Copperheads should learn from: When asked to run for President against Lincoln on a "peace at any price" ticket, he told the Democratic establishment of his day to get lost. He'd oppose Lincoln on the conduct of the war, but not on the need to finish it in Richmond; he viewed anything else as a betrayal of the nation and of the troops.
Too bad there's not a single public Democrat with Little Mac's integrity and patriotism today.

Posted by: DaveP. at October 14, 2005 02:33 PM

Bah! All of us war supporters can't go to Iraq...some of us need to stay behind to ensure that our absentee ballots don't get thrown away!

Seriously though, the best that the Left has any more is insults, not ideas. This is just further proof. I welcome their return to seriousness (somebody has to pose a credible threat to our horrible spending).

[BTW, 9/11 occurred when I was in my Senior year of Aerospace Engineering. I now work at a company you've heard making fighter jets you (should) know about. Hmmm, is that good enough for ya? Of course not. It never is.]

Posted by: bdog57 at October 14, 2005 02:33 PM

Matthew 5

9. "Blessed are the peace makers
for they shall be called the sons of God.

Posted by: Wallace at October 14, 2005 02:37 PM

Wallace,

Do me a favor please? If you must quote scripture, please stick to the KJV. Rendering "Be ye therefore perfect" as "Be mature" is an affront to those of us who know the difference. Thanks.

Posted by: bdog57 at October 14, 2005 02:42 PM

I was using Lincoln as an example of leadership: he had to trust to his generals because of his own knowledge gap which he speedily filled. He was not arrogant. He did not pursue wishful thinking.

If you're going to snipe, at least have the courtesy to address my core issues: the conduct of the post war period based on arrogant ideology, which flatly ignored and even threatened knowledgable experts. Something NO ONE has addressed, since they're all caught up in this name-calling thing.

"Oh, we're so above this chickenhawk thing, lets prove our superiority by calling them cowards."

Posted by: Bill Haverberg at October 14, 2005 02:42 PM

Ha. The reasoning that leads to the "chickenhawk" argument can be extended to say that unless you personally have been raped and murdered, you can't discuss the death penalty.

PS I would have enlisted after high school, except that I'm diabetic. Do I still count as a chickenhawk?

Posted by: DensityDuck at October 14, 2005 03:00 PM

Civilian control of the military has been an American tenet since the founding.

Civilian does not mean 'only ex-military.'

Anyone who uses the term 'chickenhawk' is either historically & Constitutionally ignorant, or a liar.

Posted by: David D at October 14, 2005 03:03 PM

The Chickenhawk argument attempts to discredit anyone who favors the war who didn't serve because they don't know the reality of war. But doesn't that also discredit opponents of war who never served? Maybe we should adopt Heinlein's model and only allow those who have defended the country to be citizens. I wouldn't be a citizen, but I'd feel more secure than I do now.

Posted by: AST at October 14, 2005 03:17 PM

For those interested, Lincoln might be a bad example of people who led in war with no military experience, but a great example is Nathaniel Green. General Green served under Washington in the Revolutioanly War. Green had no experience whatsoever, was a young man and a quacker, and learned about military tactics from books.

Posted by: Marty at October 14, 2005 03:24 PM

Matthew 7

21. "It is not whoever says to me, 'My Lord, my Lord,'
who enters the Kingdom of Heaven,
except whoever does the will of my Father in Heaven.
22. "Many will say to me on that day,
'My Lord, my Lord, did we not prophesy in your name
and in your name cast out demons
and in your name perform great powers?'
23. "And then I will declare to them that, I never knew you,
go away from me, workers of abomination.

Posted by: Wallace at October 14, 2005 03:51 PM

So if the major battlefield action returns to the USA, and it comes down to standing in your doorway with a shotgun, defending your family, what is the Left going to do about it?

Posted by: tspauldi at October 14, 2005 04:19 PM

For all of you defenders of the Iraq war, please explain the disconnect between the rhetoric leading up the war and the realities on the ground now. Before the war, it wasn't possible to discuss the likely outcome of invading and occupying Iraq because the war defenders would not acknowledge the occupation. That failure to acknowledge realities is a serious flaw and it has come back to bite you more that a few times.
Your outrage at being called "chickenhawks" notwithstanding, we have to come to grips with where we are now and how we solve it. The first step is to acknowledge the mistakes we, or rather this administration, and by extension, those that defend it, made. How many of you were parroting the reverse domino theory? Is that anything more than a wingnut fantasy at this point? How many of you were willing to call any dissent equal to or close to treasonous? Do you still feel that way? Whinning about the unfairness of it all may soothe you but it won't change the facts. This war was a bad idea. That doesn't mean all wars are a bad idea. That doesn't mean I admire and support Saddam. That doesn't mean I opposed invading Afghanistan. It simply means that the most likely outcome of this war for the US is a huge loss of American blood and treasure and a stronger and enboldened Iran. That's not a policy worth defending. You can call me all the names you like, tell me how wrong I am, smear and defame to your hearts content. It won't change these basic facts. We cannot occupy Iraq indefinitely and we cannot force an outcome that allows Bush and Co. to claim victory. Eventually we will have to leave and Iran will be in position to step into that power vacuum.

Posted by: nick f at October 14, 2005 04:19 PM

I've heard the left declaring "chickenhawks" don't accept responsibility for the consequences of war.

Yet, having grown up in the era of the Vietnam war peace movement I still struggle to find anyone active in that movement who accepts responsibility for the consequences of their actions. They need to know the history of the region and understand the disaster that came about with our withdrawal from SE Asia. With the blood of millions spilled in the aftermath of our departure, who bears the greater burden of guilt? The peace movement's perception that they hold a morally superior position is often one born of simple ignorance.

Posted by: Scott at October 14, 2005 04:26 PM

Nick,

Please wake up and look arround. The Iraqis are VOTING on a Constitution Saturday. What part of this don't you understand? The Iraq Army is growing and becomming better and better. They are taking over more of the burden. Everything looks to be moving forward. Just as PLANNED. What part of this don't you understand? If you stopped yelling it is all falling apart long enough to look around you could see the progress. Are we there yet? No. But nobody but idiots on the Left would expect more. Nation building ain't fast. This is going better than anyone has a right to expect. Boyh in Afganistan and Iraq.

The only people who insist we a failing in Iraq are people who will look a nothing but the bad that is happening. Just like you. If 8 mil out of 11 mil vote for the constitution You and the rest like you will call it a failure because it didn't get 100% of the vote. And the MSM will only interview those that voted against it even if it takes them HOURS and HOURS to find anybody.

Remember, no matter HOW MUCH YOU WANT BUSH TO FAIL, it is treason to try and make him fail.

Posted by: Dan Hamilton at October 14, 2005 05:29 PM

I think there's really two things that need addressing. 1) Nick is right, to a point. Things have not gone as planned, and we did a poor job of planning the occupation and post-war iraq. Those on Bush's Team who were responsible for these screwups, starting with Rumsfield, should be canned and should have been long ago. Having said that, progress has been made and the reasons that we went to war were the exact same reasons that Clinton continually bombed them with two major attacks during his presidency. Since we're not going to pretend that we don't really know the political affiliation of those who bash Bush, I'd say where were you in 1998, and the illegal bombing campaign in Kosovo as well. What was the exact threat that Serbia posed to us prior to Clinton trying to bomb them into the stone age?

I don't think Iraq is ever going to work. The people there, like the rest of the ME has no concept of the freedoms that we demand as a part of our existance. Religious rule, a particularly violent and oppressive religion at that, will prevent those people from ever embracing our way of life. I think we just have to do what we can in the meantime and slaughter as many of the aspiring jihadist as we can. Prior to leaving, let them know that if you mess with US interests, the devil is going to come calling for your ass. It's the only type of reasoning they understand.

As for the chickenhawk thing, it's third grade patheticism at best. I'll never forget attending an anti-peace rally in Ithaca NY leading up to the first Gulf War. All the stinking hippies were singing "all we are saying is give peace a chance". To which we responded "all we are saying is kick sadaam's ass". Some 60s draft dodger tried his best to menace me, which was laughable, and asked why if I was so for war why don't I sign up. I responded "I did, asshole". The mother of all battles turned into the mother of all walk-overs, so unless I'd gone to basic, been assigned to a unit and sent overseas in two weeks, I wasn't going to make it.

It truly takes a moron to call people chickenhawks for supporting a war while not serving in a country where the law of the land states that a civilian is the commander in chief of the military. There's nothing wrong with being a dipshit, unless of course you actually think you're smart.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 14, 2005 06:32 PM

Yeah! and those darn war supporters too! Hey, let me up the ante. Those who are feverishly arguing about how this current war is wrong, bad, etc, foreign entanglement, etc. I have a question and then a request. First the query: What of the past? WWI and WWII? If these are false wars about fake conflict so we will fight for the monied interests (Big Oil, corporations, ....uh, ok I guess it really boils down to ..The JEWS, oh and the Masons! Don't forget the Masons!) - OK. But now my request: Send my dead relatives back home. You know, the ones fertilizing France

Posted by: Californio at October 14, 2005 06:36 PM

Chickenhawk - schmickenhawk. As a 10 year vet, if you haven't served you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Iraq will be the next Korean economic miracle.

Posted by: red at October 14, 2005 07:11 PM

Unless you were in the military, you have no right to criticize what happened at Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: Nobody Important at October 14, 2005 07:23 PM

Lincoln did serve in the military, however briefly, during the Black Hawk War. He was an officer and had some concept of what it meant to send men to battle, to lead men, and what war meant to communities that had to fund and support them.

Just another way in which the leadership of the GOP is nothing like their forebears.

other points:
- one ROTC member doesnt account for the records of Cheney, Rove, Bush, and a host of other chickenhawks
- many liberals are in favor of just wars, simply not ones which are unnecessary, unjust, or well-planned
- somebody without medical expertise SHOULD NOT make health policy, and somebody without a law degree SHOULD NOT decide what the law is, and I would let an amateur gardener in my garden (if I had one) but I would not let them run my farm

Posted by: Exile at October 14, 2005 07:25 PM

The chickenhawk epithet is not an argument, it's an insinuation, one right up there with the notion that you can't support civil rights unless you're black. It's simply more unseriousness from some resolutely unserious people who've yet to demonstrate that they deserve the time of day from the grownup world. Although I must admit that there is a part of me that does appreciate a reference to Foghorn Leghorn every now and again, even if it is oblique.

Yours/
peter.

Posted by: Peter Jackson at October 14, 2005 07:51 PM

Dan Hamilton said,

"Remember, no matter HOW MUCH YOU WANT BUSH TO FAIL, it is treason to try and make him fail."

Make him fail???

That's like saying I'm trying to make the sun rise tomorrow.

For the record, I don't want Bush to fail... I just want him to go away and leave running the country to adults.

Posted by: Doug at October 14, 2005 08:00 PM

Ripping on Bush's National Guard services truly defines the stupidity of the "you're a chickenhawk" left. Flying military jets is dangerous business, much more so than commercial flying. Going to Vietnam in all capacities gave you something like a 3% chance of dying. 15 million served in country, over 50,000 dead. 3%. Flying the jets that Bush flew had a mortality rate of over 1%. So basically, Bush's cowardly draft dodging gave him 1/3rd the chance of being killed in service as opposed to actually serving in Vietnam. While it's still less of a chance, it's greater than smoking pot with Clinton and burning American flags and close to on par with the dangers faced by every hippies Rambo john kerry. If the morons of the left had ever read a book other than Peace at all Costs, they'd know that flying high performance fighters is a risky proposition.

Posted by: Jack Burton at October 14, 2005 08:14 PM

Jack, I think you're wrong about the potential of the Iraqi people to understand and adopt concepts of democracy and equality under the law. I know that you would *like* to be wrong, too. It's looking pretty good, really. Messy... but life is always messy.

I was going to say something to nick about the disconnects between stuff leading up to the war and what we have now, but he said, "we have to come to grips with where we are now and how we solve it." Which is what I was going to say. The only thing that *really* matters is *now*. What is done is done, and it can't be retrieved. But to this... "The first step is to acknowledge the mistakes we, or rather this administration, and by extension, those that defend it, made." No. To the extent that after-action reports are used to plan future campains, sure, but absolutely nothing is gained by "should haves." "Should haves" have exactly no value.

I see people here saying "more planning" or better or something... I'm not convinced. Have you ever known someone who overplanned everything? The trick is knowing that point where there's been enough planning and before so much time has past, and the situation so changed, that planning has to start over again from scratch. There's a trick to focusing on the issue at hand when it's time and saving tomorrows problems for tomorrow. There's a trick to knowing which problems *are* tormorrow's problems.

Sure, looking back we can pretend we know better, but even then we don't know. Uncertainty is life. We don't have to like that for it to be true.

What matters is now, what to do now, how to ensure victroy in Iraq, I liked that someone mentioned the Korean economic miracle (red, mentioned it) and that's what victory in Iraq will look like. It will look like freedom and prosperity. What matters *now* is how to get there.

Claiming that we could work on *now* if only *someone* would admit to being wrong-wrong-wrong... well, that speaks to priorities, doesn't it.

Posted by: Synova at October 14, 2005 09:00 PM

Things rarely go exactly as planned and, I would venture to say, never do in military operations (why so much time is spent debriefing in training). Pausing to admit one was wrong about something (like taking advice from the wrong people) during ongoing operations merely wastes time. Constantly assessing and moving forward in a positive way is the sign of a good leader. Set-backs happen. Good leaders pick themselves up and move out. Poor leaders ring their hands, or worse yet, freeze, thus losing momentum and quite likely the day.

Posted by: fingers at October 14, 2005 09:44 PM

Gee, Nick, on behalf of the entire United States I am sorry the military could not execute the perfect war. I am sorry the battleplan did not to exactly how you hoped it would. I hope the next war goes perfect in your eyes. For you, and you alone, are the sole judge.

One more thing...you compare this to which perfect war?

Posted by: Kevin from Minneapolis at October 14, 2005 10:15 PM

Gee, Nick, on behalf of the entire United States I am sorry the military could not execute the perfect war. I am sorry the battleplan did not to exactly how you hoped it would. I hope the next war goes perfect in your eyes. For you, and you alone, are the sole judge.

One more thing...you compare this to which perfect war?

Posted by: Kevin from Minneapolis at October 14, 2005 10:15 PM

Gee, Nick, on behalf of the entire United States I am sorry the military could not execute the perfect war. I am sorry the battleplan did not to exactly how you hoped it would. I hope the next war goes perfect in your eyes. For you, and you alone, are the sole judge.

One more thing...you compare this to which perfect war?

Posted by: Kevin from Minneapolis at October 14, 2005 10:15 PM

Gee, Nick, on behalf of the entire United States I am sorry the military could not execute the perfect war. I am sorry the battleplan did not to exactly how you hoped it would. I hope the next war goes perfect in your eyes. For you, and you alone, are the sole judge.

One more thing...you compare this to which perfect war?

Posted by: Kevin from Minneapolis at October 14, 2005 10:15 PM

Let's not overstate Lincoln's military "experience" in the Black Hawk War.

Lincoln volunteered in a company organized April 21, 1832, and was elected its captain. He served until May 27. Wow, a month!), when the company was disbanded. Lincoln reenlisted as a private and served until he was mustered out on June 16, 1832.

Posted by: JamesPh. at October 15, 2005 12:07 AM

The "chickenhawk" meme is simply a poor form of argumentation - it is purely ad hominem. It is a classic tactic of the left: if you can't defeat the message, attack the messenger. Anyone who believes that "chickenhawk" has any meaning is either an idiot or lacking in education.

I'm a Vietnam Veteran. Does that make me an expert on the war? Hardly. David Hackworth was an outstanding combat leader and Vietnam combatant, but he was completely wrong about the strategy of the war (even with his posthumous article in the current Soldier of Fortune magazine).

During the Vietnam War, it was really pretty simple: most protesters were chickens. Clear? They didn't want to disrupt their lives and risk them fighting for their country. And even with the draft, most Vietnam soldiers were volunteers, including myself.

Today, the left has a harder time making its arguments, because there is no draft to fuel the energy of the chickens.

One thing about the Bush National Guard service as chickenhawk duty that really ticks me off: when Bush was flying 100 series dangerous fighters (his did not have an ejection seat the worked at low altitude - one flameout and bye bye), my best friend was doing the same thing, and he died doing it - not in 'Nam, but in New Mexico. But he's just as dead as those whose names are on The Wall.

So I don't want to hear any more of this chickenhawk BS. It's just too painful, plus I don't like being remminded of how many stupid people there are in the country.

Posted by: John Moore at October 15, 2005 12:33 AM

A correction: the number of in-country US Vietnam War veterans is around 2.5 million.

Posted by: John Moore at October 15, 2005 12:34 AM

I wouldn't point to Lincoln's military career in any event. He was a laughably incompetent captain (in fact his men voted to dismiss him, and he was forced to carry a wooden sword - a mark of shame in the militia) while serving, by his own admission.

His performance as a president was stellar, but I must point out that Bill Haverberg's characterization of Lincoln's behavior is utterly incorrect. Far from deferring to his military officers, Lincoln felt no compunction whatsoever to overrule them (as was his right, and even his duty as president), and call in his own (often civilian) experts when he felt that they were incorrect or simply unwilling to give him the straight dope. Take a look at how Lincoln was instrumental in reforming army weapons procurement, or the creation of the union navy's blockade force as two (of many) outstanding examples. Lincoln certainly listened to the uniformed officers, but for better or worse (better in the case of sacking McClellan following Anteitam, worse in ignoring Winfield Scott at the beginning of the war) he felt comfortable overriding them as well. In many ways, his approach was similar to Bush's, though I am not trying to make any direct comparison.

In the run-up to the current war, there was a great deal of ill-informed commentary from many pundits, both in and out of uniform, from discussions of how the Army would be swallowed up in the 'Stalingrad on the Euphrates' that was being planned by Saddam in Bagdhad to the mass uprisings on the 'Arab Street' that would destroy neutral or allied arab regimes. None of this came to pass. There is no doubt that many of the rosier predictions about the post-war environment failed to materialize, but the inability to predict the future hardly qualifies as incompetence. I suggest that those who feel that the Pentagon failed in its planning for the post-war period (they DID plan, though many of the assumptions about what would lead to the post-war environment simply didn't materialize) point to ANY pundit (left or right) who identified with any accuracy the post-war environment that would be faced by our forces.

Posted by: Scott at October 15, 2005 12:49 AM

For all those who want(ed) to serve but were too old, too broken, or whatever: About half the states have state-only defence forces which have different medical and age qualifications than the feds. Generally their mission is to backfill the National Guard and help with disaster relief. It's military duty, just not combat. I thought I was too old/too broken too but I joined my state's DF and they even took me back at my old active duty rank. It won't resolve the emptiness of the chickenhawk argument but it might take some wind out of its sails.

Posted by: CPTOldFart at October 15, 2005 08:19 AM

CptOldFart,

I've heard of these things - Texas and, of all places, New York have 'em.

Minnesota doesn't.

Posted by: mitch at October 15, 2005 08:52 AM

I suggest that those who feel that the Pentagon failed in its planning for the post-war period ... point to ANY pundit (left or right) who identified with any accuracy the post-war environment that would be faced by our forces.
-----------------
How 'bout Clausewitz? and every other serious scholar or student of military history. After Berlin fell, for instance, it took some 7 years to finally put down the Nazi "insurgency."

By comparison, the fact the Iraqis are today voting for or against their first national constitution is nothing short of miraculous -- particularly in a region characterized by thousands of years of blood feuds and tribal antipathies. Pretty amazing, really, no matter how you cut it, which is why all this "chickenhawk" nonsense is so utterly irrelevant. Here the "debate" rages over which side meets some artificial ethical standard to opine about war and its consequences, while the Iraqis are embarking on the most historic, relatively peaceful revolution of our times --at the ballot box.

That some Americans object to being a part of this, or complain that the means by which so historic a moment was obtained and now demand the process be reversed, is just simply mind-boggling, especially considering the alternative.

Viva the new Republic of Iraq! Allah be praised.

Posted by: Eracus at October 15, 2005 09:42 AM

It will be necessary for the US Military to stay involved in Iraq and other parts of the middle east for a long time. Especially if Iran starts to threaten it's neighbors or the government of Saudi Arabia starts to loose it's grip on security of the oil industry. As has been noted many times (even by the enemy) Al Quaeda looks to the western MSM and its influence over western voters to help it win. Therefore, those chicken hawks who understand the importance of success in bringing peace and democracy to the middle east have an important role to play in this war. They are needed to fight the war here in America to counter the propaganda from the anti-war left and to sustain our will and determination to win. We need to have a survey - compare the anti-war to the pro-war groups to see which has the most children.

Posted by: zong ren at October 15, 2005 07:41 PM

Let's recap some stuff:

From the Nation:

"If opponents of the war should go to France, shouldn't Hill--and other members of YAF and College Republicans--go to Iraq?"

Mitch replied:

"Right.

And if you don't go to medical school, you'd better not talk about health. If you're not a lawyer, you have no right to natter on about the law."

And Exile replied:

"Somebody without medical expertise SHOULD NOT make health policy"

But you can still advocate good health without being a doctor, right? I think you missed Mitch's point Exile. Just because you don't make a profession out of it doesn't mean you are a hypocrite/chicken/whatever for advocating something. You can advocate and care about good health without being a doctor, you can say the law should be enforced without being a police officer, you can even vote for representatives regarding what the laws should be (e.g. whether or not to keep abortion legal), and you can support the effort in Iraq without enlisting. Calling anyone who supports the war yet doesn't enlist a "chickenhawk" seems like asinine name-calling. (To be far, I often feel the same way about the term "femi-nazi").


"and somebody without a law degree SHOULD NOT decide what the law is"

That would mean kicking out a lot of people in the legislative branch. Are you proposing some extreme form of judicial activism?

Posted by: Wade A. Tisthammer at October 18, 2005 03:01 PM

Let's recap some stuff:

From the Nation:

"If opponents of the war should go to France, shouldn't Hill--and other members of YAF and College Republicans--go to Iraq?"

Mitch replied:

"Right.

And if you don't go to medical school, you'd better not talk about health. If you're not a lawyer, you have no right to natter on about the law."

And Exile replied:

"Somebody without medical expertise SHOULD NOT make health policy"

But you can still advocate good health without being a doctor, right? I think you missed Mitch's point Exile. Just because you don't make a profession out of it doesn't mean you are a hypocrite/chicken/whatever for advocating something. You can advocate and care about good health without being a doctor, you can say the law should be enforced without being a police officer, you can even vote for representatives regarding what the laws should be (e.g. whether or not to keep abortion legal), and you can support the effort in Iraq without enlisting. Calling anyone who supports the war yet doesn't enlist a "chickenhawk" seems like asinine name-calling. (To be far, I often feel the same way about the term "femi-nazi").


"and somebody without a law degree SHOULD NOT decide what the law is"

That would mean kicking out a lot of people in the legislative branch. Are you proposing some extreme form of judicial activism?

Posted by: Wade A. Tisthammer at October 18, 2005 03:03 PM
hi