Redstate

Comments are below. Present me with your budgets, O meme-propagators! Because of course, policy prescriptions such as the ones you are offering have consequences and it is high time you spell those consequences out with cold, hard numbers. Draw up your own Budget for the United States and tell us how to implement your plan to have all of us "chickenhawks" serve. Tell us where you will get the money to accommodate a military as large as the one you say that you want.

Sacking various European countries with a much smaller military comes to mind...It worked for the Romans...

If all propents of the war must join the Army in order to avoid hypocrisy, does that mean that all propents of gay marriage must become homosexual?

I meant, of course, "proponents" not "propents"...

that you don't mention is the lower tax revenue that would be generated if all of us joined the military.

So what I want to know is how the propagators of the meme propose that we pay for a 60 million-plus person armed force.

60 million people leaving the private sector taking military jobs that probably on average pay MUCH less, would result in MUCH lower tax revenue unless those who remain, pay EXHORBANTLY more money.

Those who resort to the argument should be prepared to pay 10 times more in taxes, if not more than that just so the government will have the same amount of revenue coming in.  And of course this doesn't include all the new expenditures for equipment, training, and pay of all the new soldiers.

I'm tired of?  The folks who control the presidency, the House and the Senate, who have rigged every rule, changed every custom and run the place completely the way they want, blaming the minority for what's going wrong, and specifically for not coming up with alternative budgets, policy proposals, etc.

Hello?  YOU RUN THE $&##(* PLACE.  You're in charge.  For better or worse (mostly worse, IMO), what you say goes.  Don't whine and complain when stuff starts going bad; figure it out and fix it.  Of course, fixing it would require admitting that things aren't so great in the first place, which is something this administration is pathologically incapable of.

You know what, posts like this are why I despair of any kind of real political dialogue, either in the real world or in the blogosphere.  I used to be able to come here and read interesting stuff, maybe not that I agreed with, but thought-provoking, interesting stuff.  Lately, however, the group think and defensiveness and automatic rejection of all things not Bush worshipful has gotten kind of sad, actually.  It's turning into the right-wing equivalent of Democratic Underground.  It's become Powerline with diaries and comments.  Unfortunate, but I guess that's just the way it goes.

I'm sure this will result in a million troll ratings and probably Doverspa will finally get his wish and ban me, but so be it.  But this much is true -- I mourn the passing of what this place was, and have no use for what it's become.

See ya.

I agree that the 'chickenhawk' arguement is a bad one.  However, we are facing a large military shortage right now.  If that shortage continues, something will need to be done.  Who do you propose serves?  To me the answer is clear, if somebody is forced to serve as a result of this war, it should be those who supported it from the beginning.  Why should others pay the price for your mistakes?  Why should I serve in a war which I never wanted, don't believe in and don't think that it should have ever happened.  

And while I do believe in civilian control of the military, and I do believe that those who haven't or aren't serving can have an opinion on military matters, I also believe that you need to ask yourself that if you aren't willing to risk yourself for a cause, can you really ask others to risk themselves?  The answer may be yes, but I think you have to ask the question.

increase in Chickenhawk type rhetoric from the left it became necessary to address it.

Also, in case you don't realize, and i'm sure you do, Democrats are on all of those committees and the minority has quite alot of power in stopping legislation.

Many of us are equally frustrated by the seeming lack of ability to do much of anything in Congress.  Many of us blame our congressional representatives for not taking full advantage of the situation and actually "doing" stuff, and fixing things.  But, such is the way Congress works, because each elected official is not responsible to the party as a whole, but to the local individuals who elected them and will hopefully, in their minds, reelect them.  Thus they get distracted and don't hold to the party line on many issues, and fight amongst themselves for pork for their districts/states.  Also, the Congress is not controlled by the presiden, as I am sure you know.

There was a good discussion of this found here: Is there something wrong with the GOP?  http://redstate.org/story/2005/6/28/171129/792

Ok, just to point out the weaknesses of this argument and not necessarily argue for the "chickenhawk" slur:

(1) This month the Army apparently met its recruitment goal. Numbers, to my knowledge haven't been released, so who knows what the goal was or how far over they went. However, for the year they're still likely going to fall short. They need soldiers and Young Republicans are being told that their sacrifice of "time" is like the soldiers' sacrifice. That sort of rubs the wrong way at a time when recruitment levels aren't generally being met (again, I know June is a recent exception), you know?  

(2) This is probably the most important one: 60 million Americans wouldn't be in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces would be the same size -- or rather as big as it would be if recruiting goals were met -- but if goals were exceeded the Armed Forces would have the cream of the crop to pick from, and would be a stronger, smarter, more able force. No one can deny that'd be a good thing.

(3) I don't see why Bush voters should all enlist based on the chickenhawk slur. Many might be somewhat against the war -- or at least not all out in favor of it -- and so it makes no sense to assume a Bush voter is for the war. And they likely voted for Homeland Security, or a social issues, or for the tax cuts and not necessarily for the War in Iraq. So. My conception of the chickenhawk slur is that it's used for people who actively keep American forces in Iraq with their actions yet refuse to spend time there themselves. Most people who use the chickenhawk argument aren't talking about Bush voters, they're talking about public and strident war promoters.

(4) Bloggers aren't going to enlist anyway, so as you note it's just rhetoric.

Again, none of these are really arguments for calling people chickenhawks, but the argument against it provided here -- and I've seen it elsewhere as well -- is a little insufficient.

Can't we just have a public service requirement already? So that the functions troops perform over here at annexes, depots, training facilities, shipping & handling, etc. could be handled by volunteers, freeing up our troops to defend us?

those who are gung ho about the war but would never want to proactively contribute. This applies to any war. I think the claim goes too far and is used against too many well meaning people. Nonetheless, there are many who like talking tough from their living room while others go and fight.

Is anybody actually suggesting that 60 million people enter the military?

What does bother me is that, after watching all the partisan shrieking about how liberals can't defend America we have these huge recruiting shortages.  Obviously conservatives aren't so hot on defending america either.  Personally I'm serving in local gov't so while I'm not dodging bullets at least I'm doing something useful besides shooting my stupid mouth off.

but don't discount emotion in politics.  People tend to get real pissed when of the most vocal supporters of the war, as well as absolutely ALL of the architects of the war, not one has served or has children serving.  You have to admit, it's an uncomfortable problem, and it is not one that will easily go away by making extremely abstract arguments like "oh so you mean all 59 million Bush voters should go to war, hey what programs are you gonna cut."   That is enough of a stretch to me.  I can only imagine some Dad who sent his pride and joy and all he got back was a purple heart and a folded flag, listening to you and Jonah GOldberg go on about the "101st fighting keyboarders" and how noble and wonderful our purpose over there is etc. etc. and finding out that of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, WOlfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Libby etc. etc. not one ever served in combat although all were of the right age and not one has kids in teh service even though many have children of the right age to serve.

Sorry, but you go tell that dad that he has no right to feel anger at chickenhawks because of some bizarre argument about 59 million people and anti-poverty programs.   It's about emotion...or don't you know, since Bush won largely on emotion, you know, wolves in the woods and you make me "feel" safe and "security moms" yadda yadda--and you won't do so well to dispell emotion with long stretches of abstract logical analogies.  

Plus, come on, I think people are referring specifically to you, P, and Goldberg and Ramesh and the whole gang who have been the most vociferous, the most prone to using patriotic, stirring language that conjures up a tear in the corner of one eye and old glory flapping ... but none of you will actually grab a weapon and go.  It seems to indicate that your support for the war, or at least the extreme intensity of your enthusiasm for Bush's Iraq policy, is due to the fact that none of Bush's decisions affect you personally.  It's easy to be for a war when the thought of your own death and dismemberment is not actually crossing your mind every hour or so.  I don't think people are referring to 89 year old women in Alabama or whatever when they make the chickenhawk argument about how supporters should go.  The chickenhawk argument is aimed right at you Pejman, and the rest of you, who spend most of your time praising the president and how great everything is going and how noble our cause is but not a one of you will go even though you easily could.

Finally, a word of advice.  Alot of people buy into the chickenhawk argument, at least a little, because of its emotional appeal.  When too many kids start coming home in coffins and with plastic hooks instead of limbs, and all you ever see in terms of the most vocal support for the president is people who've never gone through that, bush voter or no I think you might want to be careful calling this reaction "stupid."   It plays right into the elitist "ooh I'm a blogger so I'm smart and also I'm really patriotic even though I'm so smart I never enlisted" gut reaction alot of people will have.  My goodness, it is so elitist, you almost sound like a democrat.   Have you ever considered that the reason 60% of the public think Bush's policy sucks in Iraq and even more don't trust him to fix things is not because they are mindless sheep who are brainwashed by the insidious liberal media that only reports on carnage, but that they, us, the unwashed masses some of you love to self-identifiy with when it is convenient, actually have common sense, and know when something smells bad coming out of Washington, and they smell it with this President?  That these poll numbers are not some giant mistake but actually the fair verdict of the American people, and that alot of that verdict is precisely because the chickenhawk argument has tremendous emotion resonance?  

Has it ever occurred to you that calling those who share this emotional resonance "stupid" and suggesting that (as another poster did) that if you question the war you ought to join the insurgents...that this is the highest form of elitism, and incredibly stupid rhetoric in of itself?  Why not take people's concerns at face value?  WHy not fight the chickenhawk argument by organizing a number of your comfortable college-educated Heritage Institute interning national review reading internet blogging military-age colleagues to actually sign up for active duty, and then blogging from Baghdad, rather than hiding behind your keyboard and calling everyone who doubts the war stupid?  

I would think that a couple posts from your new digs in Iraq or Afghanistan would go alot further towards shutting the chickenhawk argument up than this mumbo-jumbo about "you're all stupid for feeling this way".  Don't you think that a bunch of you ditching your precious Georgetown lives for sand, blood and sweat would knock off about 5% at least from those negative poll numbers?

Think about it.  A major expose on CNN "conservative bloggers determined to put their money where their mouth is"  Wolf Blitzer interviewing PFC Mike Krempasky from inside the green zone "yeah I still do some blogging but less than before because I'm so tired at the end of each day from cleaning up body parts in the 120-degree heat while ducking RPGs, but I know how important it is for all REdState readers to know I really mean it when I say I support the war"   it would go alot further than more of the same vague rhetoric from the President towards shoring up support for the war.

Wikipedia even defined it so:

an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war will be less likely to support a war.

Anyone who uses the term doesn't want a conversation.  It kills debate and it's a shutdown tactic.  I lean libertarian on comment threads but, to me, use of this insult is a bannable offense.

Since when did a vote for Bush in '04 become tacit approval of the War in Iraq?  Last I checked, Kerry was also for the war when Bush initially presented his plan and he later supported a continued occupation of Iraq until the job was done.  Does that mean a vote for Bush or Kerry was a tacit approval of our invasion of Iraq?  Were there any other issues in this election to consider?

That said, in a poll done during the election, Some 60% of Iowa voters polled went to Bush while only 40% of those voters supported the war.  Many people suspect that if Kerry had come out firmly anti-Iraq he would have won.  Some suspect he would have won a landslide.

As for the chickenhawk arguement, its liberal bullplop to counter the conservative "You're either with us or your with the terrorists" garbage.  The logic follows that if you were really for the war (by unquestioningly supporting the army and the administration) than you'd be whole heartedly behind the idea of enlistment - be it enlistment of yourself or your friends and family.  If you're not for enlistment, then you're a hypocrite who's willing to let poor little black kids from Detroit and impoverished white kids in Arkansas and second generation immigrants looking to get ahead in the world get blown up in your place.  The chickenhawk arguement becomes an issue of class conflict.  The rich get tax cuts and revenue from lucrative investments in the military industry complex while the poor get suckered out into the dessert to "die for their country".

you replace:

tax cuts and revenue from lucrative investments in the military industry complex

with:

lucre from the military industrial complex

You make yourself appear intelligent while using a fancy, French-sounding word louded with connotations.  Works wonders.

Loaded.  Always funny to make a mistake while impugning someone else's intelligence.

such a bad thing for my poor, impoverished white husband from Arkansas.  The Bush tax cuts haven't been so bad for us either.  It meant an extra vacation between flights to the desert, where he was more than willing to die for his country.

Before you shoot your mouth off again, you might want to try to gauge your audience a little better.  You won't find many "chickenhawks" here.  Many have done their service to this country.  Have you done yours?  

There are several factors which make it difficult to minimize the use of private contractors within Iraq and other hostile areas, primarily the fact that they are, indeed, life-threatening. This is not to minimize the dangers which face volunteer forces in the same or other areas, but rather to highlight the differences that are afforded each when spoken of by the public at large, and in the treatment received by the federal and other United States governments.

Labelled condescendingly as mercenaries, or guns-for-hire, private contractors are not given the same status or structural support at times that may be provided to volunteer services. In perhaps the most abject comparison, the death of the former does not receive the same attention and respect as the latter, even though the absence of life is the same throughout. For this do I credit private contractors, and in the professional skills which they have acquired in order to be acknowledged by the Pentagon as needy thereof.

Unfortunately, the discord which has been created between compensation levels for private contractors and volunteer services has widened as members of the latter retire or are otherwise discharged, and realize that the skills which they were trained to utilize may still be of marketable value to the government. Rather than step out of retirement, these individuals have taken advantage of the American capital system so as to receive more money for the risk invested in their activities than their volunteer counterparts.

Note that I am not arguing against the existence of a difference in payment between those who have contracted themselves into the volunteer services and those who are marketing their skills under the use of a private corporation. I am specifically against the amount of difference that has been allowed to exist in circumstances such as those presented in Iraq and Afghanistan, where a member of the volunteer services performing the same duties as an independent contractor might be receiving substantially less. Should the volunteer services be considered the highest form of duty an American citizen can partake for the nation, this attitude should also be reflected in the compensation levels determined for that risk.

By raising the wage levels received by volunteer soldiers, the recruitment levels would begin a slow rise, followed through with a lesser percentage of those volunteers deciding to return to the private sector (either within armed forces or other areas). A blanket raise of wages would also benefit the volunteer forces as a whole via the increase in morale that has begun to slide during the course of continual risk exposure.

The only question therefore would be how to pay for those wage increases, which could be solved via minimizing the use of private contractors to those situations where extremely specialized skills are required. Aside from the current strains that have been placed upon the volunteer services, most of these situations would account for no more than 3-5% of the total activities which are conducted within Iraq (when speaking of combat situations).

In regards to redevelopment issues and private companies of those natures, many already employ their own private forces and take these costs into account when billing the American and/or Iraqi governments. Others would need to begin doing so, but such a situation would create a more competitive marketplace for such services, thus driving down the costs incurred by our own federal government. As such, both the above savings and these could be shifted towards better compensation of our volunteer services and/or sign-on bonus packages.

Despite what Nancy Pelosi says, the war is still on in Afghanistan, and we have over 16 thousand troops there as well. So those on the left that dispute Karl Rove's comments need to sign up and request being sent to Afghanistan.

Trevino wrote:

"They are the summer soldiers -- though few among them are soldiers -- who would rather their nation suffer defeat or humiliation, and the Iraqi people the crushing vise of tyranny, than see a successful conclusion to a thing with which they disagree."

I'm confused. It's not okay to critisize pro-war Americans for not fighting, but it is okay to critisize anti-war Americans for the same thing? Seems like of the two groups those in the anti-war movement's lack of service more genuinely reflects their ideological stance than the pro-war movement's.

Now, speaking honestly, I don't think someone's military service should ever come to bear on whether or not they have a right to critisize or support our country, military, etc.  We all pay for the military, we all vote, and we all think we are doing what is best for ourselves, for America, and for the world (opinions vary greatly on what constitutes "best" but that's democracy). I'm of the opinion that we should stay in Iraq until we can ensure the safety of it's citizens and the strength of it's government. However I also believe that the administration failed miserably in the post-war planning phase and their rose-tinted glasses are hurting the war effort immesurably.

Anyways, regardless of our personal opinions I think we can both agree that one's military service, or lack thereof, shouldn't exclude them from having an opinion and stating it, be it pro-war, anti-war, or somewhere in between. So I challenge the RedState regulars to put their money where their mouth is and condemn Trevino's equally "stupid" argument that the anti-war movement has no credibility until they have fought in a war.

But I went through the RotC program and came out worse for wear.  My grandfather was a merchant marine during WWII and my dad tried to enlist during Vietnam but was rejected for health reasons.  As it stands, I'm active with community service - I tutor high school students in english and math - when I'm not attending college.  I can't say I'd ever really want to enlist or even go for the officer's corps for that matter.  I'm a pacifist at heart and while dieing for my country sounds romantic, killing for my country does not.  I suppose that makes me less a chickenhawk and more a chicken.  Respect for life.  Lack of bloodlust.  Whatever.

That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet your husband wasn't enlisted at the bare minimum recruitment age.  I know a couple guys - friends and brothers of friends - who have been shipped off to Iraq or are en route.  Many of them don't support the war but they support the nation.  And they need the money to put them through college.  The military as a means to defend our nation and give our lower class citizens a chance at a leg up is excellent.  The idea that the US Army is a means of bludging another country for political reasons, not so much.

So while I congratulate you on making that chump change of a tax cut go the extra mile and on succeeding in military life where many have failed or died, I still don't support the war or the administration and it's policies and I stand behind my original statements.

I said "request on the enlistment form". Stop reading in things that aren't there, it isn't good for your sanity. I said request (of course you can request and be ignored and sent anywhere they want you, but that's a whole nother story).

(1) They need soldiers and Young Republicans are being told that their sacrifice of "time" is like the soldiers' sacrifice. That sort of rubs the wrong way at a time when recruitment levels aren't generally being met (again, I know June is a recent exception), you know?

I agree. There seems to be publicity push by the Administration to bolster support for the Iraq plan. I think a large part of that campaign should be encouraging an asking people to enlist.

(2) This is probably the most important one: 60 million Americans wouldn't be in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces would be the same size -- or rather as big as it would be if recruiting goals were met -- but if goals were exceeded the Armed Forces would have the cream of the crop to pick from, and would be a stronger, smarter, more able force. No one can deny that'd be a good thing.

I'm certain the Armed Forces would be more than happy to turn away recruits. As long as recruitment goals aren't met, the "60 million man army" is not a valid counterargument.

Those that use the reference are not usually taken that seriously anyways, even by lean, mean dean machine, liberals.

One who has served in a war certainly has a far better understanding on what the day to day life of combat is truly about. And for most that haven't, I think it would be a rather big surprise to find what they really think and what really goes on. "Saving Private Ryan" and it's depiction of the interaction of combatants can give you a glimpse, but nothing more, no feelings of the moment can really transgress the viewing screen to the non experienced.

But, the personal experiences and knowledge of the combat conditions of war does not make a picture of war. Mother's watching the telegram come to her home about her son and grieving with her sadness. People working in factories making arms. Innovators rethinking design, tactics and safety. Think tanks calculating the social impacts and odds of policies. Young men in wheelchairs motivated from the spirit of patriotism signs up as a church volunteer to provide special food, gifts, and offers of thanks to those troops who have no family and feel alone on the front lines. And then, that same soldier that can feel so alone, is taken in by his fellow soldier and made family in a way that even families can be envious of.

This is the cycle that runs throughout the entire picture of war, at least a glimpse of it. This is the picture when seen in it's entirety.

People generally understand what war is, and we instinctively know that we do not know how it feels without being there in the combat since. This is why we feel so compelled to thank our soldiers. In every other way, the supporter, the mother, the father, the sister, brother or friend is there with that soldier.

So, some people resort to using the term Pejman, big deal. They have an emotional breakdown in the course of argument, let them breakdown and offer them silence. It's not a big deal, if you don't make it one.

Wikipedia's counterarguments:

(1) The Founding Fathers explicitly designed the government of the United States of America so that the military would be subordinate to the will of the people through their elected representatives and the President of the United States of America who are answerable to the ordinary citizenry.

This one only applies to those complaining that congressmen who didn't serve don't have the ability to direct the military. In our case we are about citizens who are in favor putting an undermanned military in harms way.

(2) If only veterans can advocate war, then only veterans have the experience and moral standing to oppose war. This is ironically a militaristic argument made in the name of opposing militarism.

Again, the chickenhawk argument isn't about who has the right to advocate war, but whether you are morally responsible for those you put in harm's way.

(3) That civilians who are explicitly targeted in war should have the right to voice their views on the conduct of war regardless of whether or not they have served.

Another "advocacy" argument.

(4) That a majority of the voting public is ineligible or unlikely to serve in combat, as it includes women, the elderly, men over age 50, the disabled, and homosexuals. Using service as a litmus test for voicing a viewpoint would invalidate the views of most of the nation.[5]

I've never heard the chickenhawk argument aimed at the ineligible.

(5) That Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved capable leaders of the military in times of national crisis, despite their lack of personal military service.

Same as (1).

(6) That extending the Chickenhawk argument into other American political debates would mean that only women should comment on abortion, only crime victims on criminal justice, and so forth.

Not relevant.

(7) The Chickenhawk argument does not, by its nature, respond to the substance of the hawks' arguments.

This is true, though as stated elsewhere in this thread, it can be an emotional tool.

A while back the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial calling for increasing income taxes on the poor. Their reasoning was that since poor people pay very little taxes, they are always willing to vote for spending increases, and they know the resultant increase in taxes will affect them very little. If they were hurt more by rising taxes, then they would be far more likely to take the more sensible view that increasing spending is a bad idea.

The "chickenhawk" label does not mean to imply that everyone in favor of a war must run as fast as they can to the nearest recruiting station. It simply points out that there are many people who have no intention of volunteering for the military, and have done whatever was necessary to duck conscription. Some even believe that the people in their immediate family should do the same. These people assiduously avoid bearing any kind of negative consequence that may result from miltary action. So, as the low-income earners clamor for increased government spending, they cheerlead for war.

While the poor people can be easily shown the error of their ways by increasing their tax burden, forcing the burden of war onto chickenhawks is morally ambiguous. The only hope is to possibly invoke feelings of shame, hence the label of "chickenhawk."

that Republicans control the Senate.  Doesn't look that way to me.  Looks to me like all it takes is 41 Democrats to control the Senate, but Republicans can't do it with 55.

Too bad we don't have the same situation with the pork barrel.

Especially when you have to proofread with this size 1 print font.

but the WSJ article is a better discussion, anyway.  I don't know when it was written, but the proof of accuracy can be found in Detroit, or any town where over half the voting population takes more from the local government than it pays in.

Yet your rationalization succeeds only in part, because the "chickenhawk" slur is indisputably thrown around rather more broadly, and aimed rather less carefully, than you make out. It is routinely used to slander pretty much anybody who defends the Iraq mission, and who is not presently serving -- witness the Kossacks' tiresome "101st Fighting Keyboarders" nonsense.

And then we have the difficulty of how one defines a "negative consequence" in this context. Many on the left have argued that an unwillingness to roll back tax cuts and/or actually raise tax rates is moral cowardice tantamount to chickenhawkdom, for instance.

Finally, I would note that many of the people currently deploying the chickenhawk argument would storm the Barricades Of Outrage(tm) over proposals to raise taxes on the poor that they might bear some of the adverse consequences attending increased government spending. So your analogizing the WSJ's idea, while perhaps apt, also cuts both ways, here.

Because the basic premise is not that every able bodied young person should be in the armed forces. It is that those who make decisions of waging a war should have some prior experience of the first hand horrors of war and if you don't have that experience, you should have the humility to defer and confer with those who do have it - such as Colin Powell.

that those who make decisions of waging a war should have some prior experience of the first hand horrors of war and if you don't have that experience, you should have the humility to defer and confer with those who do have it

A well-titled comment. That is indeed a stupid argument. Were we to pay attention to such nonsense, no one who had not starved to death, or at least gotten close, would have had the right to an opinion on the Schiavo matter. No one who has not personally experienced the angst felt by gays and lesbians who are unable to marry their beloved has the right to an opinion on gay marriage.

This is a slippery slope with an above-average grade to it, and should be avoided lest everyone have to shut up about everything.

the "chickenhawk" fetish on the left is essentially the new-McCarthyism (apologies for offending Ann Coulter fans here). Just as according to popular legend in the 1950s you could shut someone up by calling them a communist today the left contrives to stifle debate by calling people "chickenhawks." It's hard to imagine a more odious defense of an odious term than some posts here have put forth.

As some others have said on this thread the logical extension of this stupidity is that personal experience will be necessary to have an opinion on anything. This type of nonsense does no one on either side of the argument any good and I would contend it reflects much more on the lack of character of the person making the accusation rather than the accused in the same way dismissing your opponent with a racial epithet speaks more to the breeding of person making the accusation than the offended party.

Having said that, we also need to look to ourselves. Because so few Americans have seen fit to wear their country's uniform some on our side, veterans and non-veterans, see fit to challenge critiques of our military policy by dismissing the critics as non-veterans as if military service is the sine qua non for understanding concepts and principles.

But I'm tired of lefties who always want to change the subject. This post is pointing out the fallacy of the "chicken-hawk" slur. No matter the subject, lefties want to change it. Is that because, having so obviously lost the main argument you hope you may win another, unrelated, argument? I notice this habit of changing the subject all the time in lefty posts.

In your response you want to change the subject to:

"The folks who control the presidency, the House and the Senate...have rigged every rule, changed every custom and run the place completely the way they want..."

This is not the subject under discussion and does nothing to help in such a discussion. Neither is your argument valid since your lefties in Congress continue to abuse the fillibuster regularly.

You want to change the subject to:

The President and Congress are "blaming the minority for what's going wrong, and specifically for not coming up with alternative budgets, policy proposals, etc."

This is not the subject under discussion either.  But to humor you since you want to change the discussion, is the only solution your side can come up with for any problem "No"? Don't you lefties owe the American people SOME alternatives since you oppose whatever the Republicans propose?

Next you want to change the subject to bashing this site:

"You know what, posts like this are why I despair of any kind of real political dialogue..."

And your post adds to the real political dialogue how? You mention that you used to "come here and read interesting stuff", even "thought-provoking, interesting stuff." The interesting, thought-provoking stuff is still here. It is what keeps you coming back.

You say this site is "turning into the right-wing equivalent of Democratic Underground." If that is the case, how is possible that you are still posting. Other views are welcomed on this site. (I notice that 3 people have given you a troll rating. [Not me]. But 3 is short of the million you predicted). How quickly would I get banned for this post on DU? Your comparison is ridiculous, and you know it.

I hope you keep coming back to this site and posting because everyone needs to hear more than one viewpoint. My main gripe with you and so many on the left is that you change the subject of discussion too frequently.

Stick to the topic. Argue about the points under discussion. Don't change a discussion on the "chicken-hawk" slur into a rant about the President, the House and Senate and this site. Maybe then you will enjoy this site again.

Yes, but when you listen to Rush he just lambasts liberals  with every name imaginable. I listen to him occasionally just for the entertainment and he makes some good points, but he's one of the types that would've been calling libs "Card-carrying Communists" back in the 50s (just pointing out the other end).

The extremes of both parties are the ones I take the least seriously, but then are also the ones that get the most publicity. It's terrible. And I abhore Clinton (Hillary).

To that extent, I hate all the little catch-phrases that are being thought up. I know it happens all the time, but I don't think I've ever noticed it until now. Conservatives blame everything on "the liberal media", when obviously the news stories are going to make everything sound more dramatic and worse than it is; they need ratings.

I can't think of the Democratic ones off the top of my head except Quagmire in reference to Iraq. Please enlighten me with others, I know there are lots but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

By that same token, no one can criticize the President unless they have been one. So only Carter, Ford (he is still alive, right?) Bush 41 and Clinton are allowed to.

of people who say that the folks in power should fix things, when every attempt to fix things has been thwarted by the minority.  My only hope is that the vox populi will be heard in 06 and that it will send a resounding message to these obstructionists that their tactics are no longer acceptable behavior in the political landscape of our country.

To expand on your point, here is a comment made by Trevino earlier this week to Polyphemus in response to Trevino's blog about why we need the draft:

"Gotta be honest here, by the bye -- I'm smelling a non-soldier, non-veteran in you.  I could be dead wrong, of course, but I find the airy dismissal of these particular points to be unlikely to be coming from someone who knows what he's talking about."

I don't agree with anything the anti-war movement has to say, nor do I think we need a draft.  But I do think that people should have the right to express their views without being smeared like this.

was used in the specific context of poly's dismissal of Trevino's point about an ambush.  Trevino was not saying that poly had no right to comment on the draft.

The idea that one need volunteer for military service in order to speak publicly in favor of the war creates any number of crazy analogues (for instance, is it okay to speak out against slavery if you've never owned or been a slave?)--not to mention presumes a commitment on the part of those anti-war speakers who invoke the chickenhawk argument to join the insurgency, should they wish to argue against the need for war.

I am not speaking to the substance of this post, e.g., the ongoing discussion about absence of sacrifices being made by those who have been most supportive of the war.  I agree that the discussion is disingenuous, and often made by persons who also enjoy the protections provided by our men and women in uniform (e.g., free speech).  These are the same people who refuse to defend the honor of  our nation.

I must, however, take exception to the comparison being made between voluntarily serving in the military and being considered a lesser form of man/woman.  I have copied below an excerpt from a letter written by Ms. Virginia Boyd (a slave) to Mr. RC Ballard (her owner) in 1853.  It speaks to the experience of slavery.  Please help me understand how those two situations can be analogized.  

Please help me to undersand what serving in a voluntary military has to do with slavery, particularly as it was practiced in the United States

you wrote for them to sell me in thrity days, do you think after all that has transpired between me & the old man, (I don't call names) that its treating me well to send me off among strangers in my situation to be sold without even my having an opportunity of choosing for my self; its hard indeed and what is still harder for the father of my children to sell his own offspring Yes his own flesh & blood. My God is it possible that any free born American would brand his character with such a stigma as that, but I hope before this he will relent & see his error for I still beleave that he is possest of more honer than that. I no too that you have influence and can assist me in some measure from out of this dilemma and if you will God will be sure to reward you, you have a family of children & no how to sympathize with others in distress....

Is it possible that such a change could ever come over the spirit of any living man as to sell his child that is his image.

That's a reflection of what the slavery experience was like.  As I understand it, volunteering to serve in the military is a totally different experience.

For what it's worth, I think the discussion is a good one to have.  It is important to stand up when your honor is being challenged.  However, I think that this kind of comparison betrays an insensitivity that must be highlighted.

I agree. Personally, I'm not sure if I even support this anymore. If there was a draft though, I think I would go the office and happily (well, not really) sign up and fight. I'd fight because I had to, not because I support the Administration policy.

Plus, being in a situation like that, regardless of your support or lack thereof, changes your perspective on things. I think the soldiers that are over there can more credibly say they support or condemn the war, if just for the carnage that they witness.

But hey, some people abhor whore Bush and hate Iraq but would go over there for the sick pleasure of just killing some terrorists and insurgents. Anyone wanna be a mercenary?

if you shelved your outrage. The analogy is not what you make it, the analogy is clearly in response to those who claim you have to have experience in something in order to understand it.

That is an argument that is made several times, with differing degrees of coherence, on this thread.

So while I am sure you are offended, etc, etc, but your sensitivity to insensitivity is overly sensitive.

Having said that, we also need to look to ourselves. Because so few Americans have seen fit to wear their country's uniform some on our side, veterans and non-veterans, see fit to challenge critiques of our military policy by dismissing the critics as non-veterans as if military service is the sine qua non for understanding concepts and principles.

As you say, very few Americans have chosen to join the military.  So few that the military has been unable to meet even drasticaly reduced recruitment goals.

From my POV this looks like most Americans have decided the war simply isn't worth their lives.  Saying "I support the war" is one thing, but saying "I'm going to put my life on the line for the war" is another thing altogether.  Most Americans are aware of how strapped the military is for personnel today, heck a few days ago here on Redstate someone seriously proposed bringing back the draft [1].  Given all this Americans are still choosing not to join the army.  To me this seems to indicate that most Americans really don't support the war.  Again, if the military wasn't short on manpower that line of reasoning wouldn't work, but they are so it does.  Every day millions of Americans wake up, hear on the news about the military manpower shortage and choose not to risk their lives ending that shortage.  To me this seems to say "we don't think the war is worthwhile".

I don't think its entirely unreasonable to ask those who say that the war in Iraq is good, necessary, worthwhile, etc why they haven't joined.  Especially those who question the patriotism of those who oppose the war, I mean if support for the war is a prerequisite for patriotism, why haven't you shown the ultimate form of support for the war?

Of course the word "chickenhawk" is nothing more than a canard, but the question the word poses does seem legitimate.  If the war is such a good idea, and the military is so strapped for troops, why haven't you joined up?  If the military wasn't short of manpower the question would just be nasty, but the military is short of manpower.

[1] And from the standpoint of someone who wants Republicans to loose elections just let me say: PLEASE bring back the draft.  Pretty Please with Sugar on top!  I can't think of a better way to slaughter ya'll in the polls.

Where did I say that Trevino said poly had no right to comment on the draft. My point was about smearing other people.  Read exactly my response and try not to misquote me the next time.

Here is where the chickenhawk argument gets most absurd.  First, where were such arguments regarding Clinton's various bombings?

Second, if you truly believe that only those who are willing to serve / have served can comment, then does that not mean that those opposed to the war and/or use of military force should also not comment unless they have served?

Moreover, the chickenhawk argument implies that US Constitution is wrong to put the military under the control of civilians.  AFter all, shouldn't only serving people be allowed to express opinions regarding military force?

And, who gets final say - the person who has seen the most combat?  The person who has served in the military the longest?  The highest ranking person?

I was enlisted in the Navy before college, and served as a JAG Officer in the Army after law school.  Does this mean, b/c I have served in two different branches, that when I comment on the Iraq war (and I completely support it), anyone who has not served, or only served in one branch, has to agree with me?  If you are going to go by the chickenhawk argument, it seems to me that you have to listen to me and agree with me unless you have more service time than me.

I am pleased by liberals new-found respect for some military servicemen (in my experience, most liberals disliked and distrusted the military before they found the chickenhawk argument), but somehow don't believe such respect will last beyond its usefulness in attacking this particular president or people who support the war.  Indeed, only those servicepeople who say negative things about the Iraq war are ever given true respect.  Those who fully support the effort tend to be completely ignored.

Flowing from the chickenhawk argument was one of the arguments from the past election that Kerry should be president b/c he served 4 months in Vietnam, while President Bush did not.  By that argument, it seemed to me, we should simply have found the person who served the longest amount of time in Vietnam and made him president.

The chickenhawk argument reduces the argument b/c it means you are not arguing about policy, strategy, long-term goals, national interest, or any other logical position.  That is why the chickenhawk argument is bad for political discourse and ultimately, stupid.  Note, I did not call the people making the argument stupid, but the argument itself stupid.

I think that this kind of comparison betrays an insensitivity that must be highlighted.

Indeed it does. And now I must confess that I too was insensitive when I used starving to death as an example, for I callously made light of the intense suffering of children in Zimbabwe.

If we cannot get people to be quiet about experiences they have not had themselves, perhaps we can shut them up by labeling their arguments against such a restriction "insensitive."

This would not be stifling expression, it would just be the politically correct thing to do. After all, what good is political correctness if it does not make everybody shut up?

you misunderstand my comment.

Outside the experience of World War II very few Americans have either chosen, or been chosen, to join the military. The idea that there was some huge, all encompassing draft during Vietnam is just bogus. Since the advent of the volunteer military in 1973 the numbers have dropped. That is what I was referring to. Not the current situation.

I also disagree with the idea of a "manpower shortage" in the military. More on that in the future but much of the shortage is self-inflicted.

And I find the question you pose in the last paragraph to be nasty regardless of the situation. If the "you" is directed to me, the reason is that as a retired officer I'm not eligible to return to duty unless recalled.

You are right about the political effect of a draft but I oppose it as an un-American institution (as a Republican) and an unnecessary and very bad idea (as an Army officer).

You might remember a dust-up from a couple of weeks ago when Senator Durbin dared to compare the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to the treatment of jewish concentration camp survivors.  Republicans were rightly outraged that a Democratic Senator could dare to impugn the integrity of the United States by comparing the treatment we are affording to people who wish to do us harm with the odious genocide practiced by the Nazis.

Your inability to see the analogy as similarly odios and distasteful is equally offensive.  Your alliteration is not even cute in this context.

Let me highlight the details of her letter for you.

1.  A woman was considered property.
   
   
2.  She was raped by a man who owned her.
   
   
3.  She was a mother of his children.
   
   
4.  He sold her to someone else.
   
   
5.  He sold his children to someone else.

And you are not offended by the comparison?

you have no more right to comment on the war then someone you accuse of being a chickenhawk.  So, you should just let people who have served discuss this.

but the chickenhawk argument is often aimed at the ineligible or those who have served already.  This is the internet and most people are anonymous, and even those who go by their real names are virtually anonymous.  What I mean is, people often don't know much at all about those who they accuse of being chickenhawks.  Many of those labeled so are in actuality being labeled in error.  I myself have been labeled a "chickenhawk" although I am ineligible to serve.  Trevino was labeled "chickenhawk" although he has served.  More and more examples could be found I am sure.  What it boils down to on the internet is that people lash with the label at people they don't know much about at all.

It is a dumb emotional argument.  Sure, it works on some level, but using an argument from emotion is a logical fallacy, and undermines whatever rational logical argument you might make for your case.

proven why this thread is necessary.

(1) "I don't think its entirely unreasonable to ask those who say that the war in Iraq is good, necessary, worthwhile, etc why they haven't joined.  Especially those who question the patriotism of those who oppose the war, I mean if support for the war is a prerequisite for patriotism, why haven't you shown the ultimate form of support for the war?"

Oh sure, you can ASK.  Beyond that, the question becomes unreasonable.  And do you really think there is a large contingent of people out there who directly associate non-support for the war with blatant unpatriotism?  (sure, you do).  And why shouldn't war supporters all show that ultimate form of patriotism?  See Pejman's orginial argument about supporting a 60 million-man Army.

(2) "Of course the word "chickenhawk" is nothing more than a canard, but the question the word poses does seem legitimate.  If the war is such a good idea, and the military is so strapped for troops, why haven't you joined up?  If the military wasn't short of manpower the question would just be nasty, but the military is short of manpower."

The "legitimate question" would not exist were it not for the ill-intended canard.  That's why it's a non-starter.  As many posters have noted, the word "chickenhawk" effectively ends any responsible debate, detracting from every person's right to speak up for or against the war.  And there's a silver lining to the military's (specifically the Army's) being "strapped for troops."  It's because powers that be have made the wise decision to reverse the slashing and decimation of the ranks that we reflexively undertook after the Cold War.  That's where recruiting shortfalls come from, and even in peacetime, it would be hard to meet those goals without significant incentives.

(3) "And from the standpoint of someone who wants Republicans to loose elections just let me say: PLEASE bring back the draft.  Pretty Please with Sugar on top!  I can't think of a better way to slaughter ya'll in the polls."

First of all, one "loses" elections, not "loose."  This is how you kill your arguments and reveal yourself to be a moral, logical, and political cretin.  And calling for others to put themselves in the face of enemy fire so your people can win elections (in lieu of, say, having ideas of your own), well, that IS unpatriotic.  After this point, you can forget about the first two.

'Nuff said.

Yeah, I saw it. It's obvious that you care more about people who have been dead for 150 years than you do about the children who are starving in Zimbabwe right now. Shameful!

I didn't take it to mean "you have no right to comment" only that "I don't have to acknowledge your comments because...."  I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an appeal to authority but it's pretty darn close.  The chickenhawk meme is similarly weak logically and it should be attacked as such.  This whole million man army angle is not persuasive.

was that Trevino wasn't smearing other people.  The subthread you were referring to was a discussion about the actual tactics of the insurgents.  Trevino noted the sophistication of the ambush based on their military effectiveness, poly dismissed his view despite not really even fully understanding the terms he used.  If you told me we used 8" howitzers, not self-propelled 155s as our primary cannon artillery, I would be well within my rights to tell you 1) it was clear you didn't serve in the military and 2) if you misunderstand that point, you probably aren't qualified to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the use of American artillery in war.  That wouldn't be a smear.  Neither was what Trevino said.  We can't take military experience off the table entirely as a grounds for expertise and knowledge, ya know.

What kind of dessert are the poor being sucked into...  quagmire pudding or jihadi flambe?

down the road.

There is no similarity between the military and slavery and no one said there was.

There is no resemblance between a concentration camp, a gulag, or Pol Pot's Cambodia and Guantanamo but a senator did say there was.

And while the letter could be of interest if we wer discussing slavery, which we aren't, it has no bearing, even tangentially, here.

Personally I'm offended by your faux sensitivity here which I think is a little contrived.

So I didn't understand the terms?  Which would that have been?  SOP?  Staging areas?  QRF?  

Maybe you understood more than you let on.  I don't believe your exchange with Trevino indicated that.  The bottom line is that reference to military knowledge and prior service is not always out of place.  Trevino can carry his own water from here, should he want.

I agree that there is no such similarity.  I'm glad to hear you acknowledge it and to recognize that it should in no way be related to a discussion of chickenhawk charges and the Iraq war.

My points having been made, I shall now desist from further comments on this issue.

On a final note, I also acknowledge that we are equally offended by the other.  That's OK with me.

Should everyone who expresses support for the manned space program have to think about signing themself up to be an astronaut?  After all, being an astronaut has been a pretty risky proposition in the past few years...

but acknowledging a silly point doesn't mean that the point isn't silly.

And actually I didn't agree with that at all, to the contrary I said it was a valid analogy that you chose to get your knickers in a wad over by deliberately misconstruing the analogy.

either way.  The article was not very detailed and was linked.  Anyone who wanted could judge for themselves what each of us said.  I'm not trying to rehash that thread here but I'm sure if there's any water left to be carried it will be.

and even though I was a 40 year old mother at the time, I would have gone over there to hunt for bin Laden.  I used to support the Iraq war when I thought it was about WMDs and would even have fought it to keep my children and country safe from those weapons.  But now, I don't support the war, and no one is getting me or my children to fight it.

It does seem pretty clear to me that if you truly support a war, you should be at least willing to go fight it, and not make excuses like, "Well, I can do more over here," or "I have to finish college."  

Can you tell us why that tax cut was just "chump change"?  Can you tell us why that tax cut was not bigger? Lefty Lawyer has the answer for us:  it is "The folks who control the presidency, the House and the Senate, who have rigged every rule, changed every custom and run the place completely the way they want, blaming the minority for what's going wrong, and specifically for not coming up with alternative budgets, policy proposals..."

It is certainly not the fault of the folks who screamed that the tax cuts would destroy the country or the folks who were only too happy to balance the budget at the expense of military readiness.

They scream and whine until the tax cuts are whittled down to nothing, then they call them "chump change".  They gleefully hack away at the bloated, Cold War military and then announce that recuitment shortfalls are the fault of chickenhawk conservatives. It must be nice to have your "desert" and eat it, too.

The analogy, highlighted

volunteer for military service in order to speak publicly in favor of the war creates any number of crazy analogues (for instance, is it okay to speak out against slavery if you've never owned or been a slave?)

There is no similarity between the military and slavery

There are an awful lot of Americans who are well past the age they can serve in the AFUSA but who support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  My father, for example, is 61 years old -- it's unlikely that he'll be accepted into any branch of the service any time soon.  Is he a chickenhawk?  Before you answer, I'll tell you that he deliberately sought to give up his college deferment during the Vietnam War so that he could enlist, but was turned down because of an enormous burn scar on his leg that he suffered as a child.  The doctors told him that if they sent him to Vietnam they'd most likely have to amputate his leg if he suffered an infection of the scar.

As for myself, I'm soon going to be past the age limit (35) at which point I become ineligible for service in either the Army or the Reserves.  If they extended the age cutoff by a year or two, perhaps even to 40 years old, I would be eager to join the Reserves, especially.  Am I a chickenhawk, too?

I think you're not getting the fact that I think your outrage is contrived for the simple reason of trying to shut down the argument by dragging some specious reference to the evils of slavery into the discussion.

Either participate in the discussion or stop the distraction and move on. You've been treated rather gingerly to this point on the off chance you were serious. That possibility slips further into improbability with each passing post.

you've posted virtually the same post once before. Knock it off.

I thought the age limit to join the reserves was 39? Not saying you have to sign up, just that people joining should really want to be there.

But only one.

But I'll double-check.  Because if it is 39, or could be extended to be 39, I'd sign up.

For the reserves and Guard.  Relatively new.  I know this for a fact, if for no other reason than my 39 year old fellow law clerk is on his way to enlisting.  The age limit is lower for active duty (35?  Not sure) and for Guard/Reserve OCS programs.

Go nurse your grudge and cosset your victimhood until your inner search engine detects the use of the word "slavery" in this or any other thread.  Then come back and give us all another lecture which bears little relation to the topic at hand.

And being under the age limit, I understood 35 was the boundary for active duty. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

34 for Active Duty (under 35 is the phrasing)

It's good to know I still have time.  I heard the 35 y/o cutoff during a conversation last October with a person who obviously didn't know what they were talking about.  I was disappointed, because I couldn't do it for personal reasons until probably the end of this year, but now I know I still have the chance.  I've always felt that I had a lot to offer the Reserves, and I really appreciate the info.

the National Guard as an option, too, so when you inevitably achieve high political office you can be told how you service doesn't count.

for the fact that we have a state mission component as well, which allows us to do even more good works.  Not to mention we have more combat arms.... :-).

I have no political aspirations beyond perhaps serving as a member of a town council or a Board of Health.  For me, the most important politics are local, and I would have a hard time running as a Republican because of my former Life as a Teenage Moonbat.  But my desire to serve in the Reserves is genuine, and I think I could be of some real use there.

the argument, taken on logical grounds, is stupid.  In terms of emotional resonance, you'd better watch out if you happen to be a politician, pundit or blogger who says nothing but the most grandiose, glorious things about the war and have never served and never would.  I'm just saying, it is not only liberal blogosphere types or whatever Pejman has in mind here making this argument.  People in general do  not like those who talk a big game about war and then refuse fight themselves.  It is not the American way, or wasn't at least until recently.

The thing about Clinton is extremely minor, and one has to believe it was a major reason Clinton tried everything to avoid having to put ground troops into the Balkans.  It really was one of his major weaknesses as a candidate, politician, and commander-in-chief, and to hear those in his white house tell of it, it seriously hampered his relationship with his military commanders who did not really respect him and were very reluctant to go to war under his command.

You are right though that many Americans also distrust those who boast about their military service as the only reason they are qualified to lead in wartime, which is why the whole Kerry thing was so dumb to begin with.  

I admit that a 60 million person military would be, at best, unwieldly.

So instead of saying  "To all Bush supporters:  Enlist now!"  I'll say: "To all Bush supporters, offer to enlist now!"

As was pointed out, many of the 60 million are too old or physically feeble to enlist.  So, I'll cut them some slack.

As to the others, I make the following points:

1) The most gifted among us should set a good example!  Remember when the President made his recruiting pitch during his last address?  Wouldn't have his pitch been even more effective had he been able to say:  "I urge you to join my two daughters in joining the military!"  Then, few would have doubted his sincerity.

But, as things are we are left with jokes such as:

"What is the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?"

Ans.: "Bush and Cheney found an effective way out of Vietnam."