One of the silliest arguments confronting [American] pro-war supporters is the infantile “chickenhawk” accusation frequently floated by those swimming in the shallow end of the anti-war pool — the idea being, in theory, that if you aren’t a member of the military, you aren’t entitled to express a public opinion on the Iraqi war.¹ Of course, in practice, non-military personnel such as those who are quick to use the chickenhawk argument are themselves permitted to express an opinion on the war — provided it’s the correct opinion, namely, that the war is illegal and immoral, and that Bush and his cronies are evil lying scum. But then, consistency is not the strong suit of these folks — nor is logic, as Christopher Hitchens points out in “Don’t ‘Son’ Me”, Slate, June 28th:
Did I send my children to rescue the victims of the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center? No, I expected the police and fire departments to accept the risk of gruesome death on my behalf. All of them were volunteers (many of them needlessly thrown away, as we now know, because of poor communications), and one knew that their depleted ranks would soon be filled by equally tough and heroic citizens who would volunteer in their turn. We would certainly face a grave societal crisis if that expectation turned out to be false.
But when it comes to the confrontation in Iraq, the whole notion of grown-ups volunteering is dismissed or lampooned. Instead, it’s people’s children getting “sent.” Recall Michael Moore asking congressmen whether they would “send” one of their offspring, as if they had the power to do so, or the right? (John Ashcroft’s son was in the Gulf, but I doubt that his father dispatched him there, and in any case it would take a lot more than this to reconcile me to Ashcroft, as Moore implies that it should.) Nobody has to join the armed forces, and those who do are old enough to vote, get married, and do almost everything legal except buy themselves a drink. Why infantilize young people who are entitled to every presumption of adulthood?
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 legality and/or morality of the war.
Sadly, the chickenhawk argument, though logically puerile, can prove quite rhetorically effective — in the same sense that charges of homophobia and racism have proven effective in debates over gay marriage and government funded affirmative action programs: such charges, cynically delivered, tend to stifle substantive discourse, forcing one side of the argument onto the defensive by changing the focus of the debate from the issues themselves to the character of certain professors of those issues — and in that regard, they help to sustain the status quo.
The bottom line is, the chickenhawk argument is an impediment to legitimate discourse and debate — and legitimate discourse and debate over national security is a necessity in a free society; and for that reason, those who raise the chickenhawk argument should be treated by everyone — right and left — as intellectual pariahs.
It would be nice to see the blogosphere begin that trend.
¹ Or rather, you’re entitled to express an opinion, but that opinion is, ipso facto, devoid of legitimacy, so you should probably just save your cowardly Rethuglican breath, deathmonger.
****
(h/t QandO)
****
update: Check out the comments section here for a number of spirited defenses of the chickenhawk meme from delusionally self-righteous anti-war Deanhumpers who have never met a left-liberal talking point they won’t cling to like Michael Moore to a plate of spare ribs. The gist of most of the “arguments” in support of the meme’s righteousness is that people so willing to speak vociferously in favor of the war should put their money where their mouths are — and merely advocating for the cause doesn’t count. Which means, of course, FDR should’ve strapped on a helmet, picked up a rifle, and had one of his aides wheel his crippled ass in front of a Panzer. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
****
originally posted at protein wisdom
Jeff: I do think that there is something to the argument that the fact that very few children of “chickenhawks” (horrible word) are in the military may make it easier for the latter to commit military forces. And that was equally true of members of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations (and Congress) whose children almost all avoided Vietnam through college draft deferments. In this context John Kerry’s volunteering (whatever happened later) was an honourable exception.
And I have son in the Canadian Air Force.
Mark
Ottawa
Another aspect of this absurdity is that it obviously invalidates one of the basic principles of the US Government … that being civilian control of the military. Civilians by and large have never served in the military … many US Presidents never did and yet prosecuted successful wars (Wilson and FDR come to mind … Lincoln only served nominally in one frontier skirmish and never saw combat) and, really some of the worst and most corrupt were ones who had served honorably (US Grant, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon … I omit Jefferson Davis as he was only ever president of a portion of the US).
What about Buchanan? Buchanan never served. Then again he was a “chickenchicken” and his indolence in the face of obvious threats eventually led to the deaths of over 600,000 Americans.
Given this “chickenhawk” theory … what would happen if a majority of those citizens who have served or are serving in the military opt for war in a given circumstance? Would we be forced to follow to their wishes? After all, they’re the ones who’s opinions we must honor. If not, then where’s the logic? Or is the logic that only pacifist opinions are valid?
What about the environment? Does one need a degree in that science before giving an opinion? What about population issues? Are only married couples with children allowed an opinion on that?
One of the foundations of free speech is the ability to talk one’s head off and to have and express even uninformed opinions. A pacifist who has never seen battle has as much right to her/his opinion as a hawk who stayed at home.
Live with it.
All cowards call defensive violence “infantile”…they think cowardice is an evolved state of humanity……truely worthy of a stomach purge.
If there are “chickens” anywhere in this politically contorted mixture it is coming from the useful idiots ( chickens at heart) that buy the 5th columnist peacenick buzz as both an exoneration of their personal leftist snivelling cowardice and a herding instinct to camoflage their craven instincts as an intellectually evolved trait.
To me, the ultimate chicken is any politically motivated partisan who tells us there is nothing worth fighting or dying for when theocratric/political terroism is a fact of modern life.
Re: Chickenhawks
Instead of picking on soft targets like Michael Moore, those who dis the users of the “chickenhawk” slur should review the work of Lt. Col. (retired) Karen Kwiatkowski. She is a frequent poster to hard right libertarian sites and saw first hand the lies and deception and political skullduggery that was the rampamt in the Pentagon prior to the 2003 invasion. As a US military officer who took her oath seriously, she pursued the only path she felt she could with any honor, and retired.
Yeah, right. Cite Kwiatkowski, a conspiracy-a-go-go nutjob who now rails against the “neo Cons” and the Israelis in her capacity as a Lew Rockwell columnist.
And yes, she’s “hard right,” if by hard right you’re referring to the paleocons / Libertarians, whose position on many issues, you’ll find, dovetail with the hard left nowadays. Kwiatkowski had her 15 minutes — heralded by the likes of Commondreams and Daily Kos, Pat Buchanan and David Duke.
And here she’s thoroughly discredited, and her motives explored, by AEI’s Michael Rubin, who also worked in the Pentagon.
Here’s more on Kwiatkowski, for those interested.
Funny how the rare Kwiatkowski nut is given such credence as being representative of the military, when the VAST majority would wholly disagree with her. Those “other” military rubes’ opinions aren’t relevant at all, are they?
Thanks for the laugh, Peter. Nice to know Kwiatkowski represents the whole US military. BWAHAHAHAHA!!
Mark Collins: your assertion that pro-war people have fewer family members in the military than anti-war people is a completely false canard. From where did you dig up this fabrication? Or are you the whole cloth from which it was cut?
Michael Moore pioneered this whole aproach, demanding that Congressmen send their children to war, all the while failing to mention that Congressmen’s children are represented in the military at a higher percentage rate than the US populatoin as a whole.
Beck: My comment had nothing to do with whether pro- or anti-war people have more or fewer family members in the military. It is essentially a class thing, with few children of the upper-middle and upper classes (from which the great majority of the federal government elite comes) serving in the military. And it is not Republicans vs. Democrats, as I tried to point out by citing the example of the Kennedy/Johnson administrations.
Mark
Ottawa
I must confess it is difficult not to get depressed reading this string and the other from the link. So many bright passionate people, so venomous in their denials of the obvious.
Even the American right, which I work with, is abandoning support for this war and deceptions which lead to it. Do the defenders of the OSP and the neocons not read?…Has no one has followed the Larry Franklin case? the AIPAC firings?
I am not saying that Saddam wasn’t a truly nasty piece of work, or that he didn’t have CBW. I know he had them because he bought the technology from Bechtel Corp. and Monsanto. The former was headed by George Shultz and the latter by Don Rumsfeld when those transactions were made (during Iran Iraq war). (Oh that’s right he was our “ally” when he attacked that neighbor).
BTW, the easiest way to tell if someone is a fraud is to see if they characterize critics as a “conspiracy theorists” when they connect inconvenient dots.
Lying about material facts to wage war is a crime. Waging war as a soldier because you are ordered to is duty. Resigning your commission because you know the rationale for war is a lie represents the highest form of honor.
Anyone who thinks a career staff officer is an unprincipled dweeb simply doesn’t know many. The vetting process candidates go through in military channels is serious. (check the ratio of captains to Lt. Cols.) When staff officers question a policy they know is based on lies and deception I am more inclined to believe them than a politician (or idealogue) who knows that when the bombs are flying they are safe.
That’s right. It is we all who are blind. That award-winning New Yort Times writer who investigated Kwiatkowski? — a useful dupe of the Zionist cabal. That Pentagon worker who actually took part in the Iraq Operation (unlike Kwiatkowski, who didn’t even know where the office was located) — a lying apologist for an illegal war that the International Jewish Conspiracy commanded us into.
You want to know what’s convenient? The idea that anyone who calls out a conspiracy theory is a fraud simply for seeing a conspiracy theorist for what he or she is.
But whatever. I provided links to critiques of Kwiatkowski’s charges — including from a career staff officer who actually worked in one of the departments Kwiatkowski slandered who begs to differ with your characterization of her actions. And of course the fact that the hostile, anti-war American left has quietly distanced itself from Kwiatkowski is most telling of all.
But don’t take my word for it. Afterall, I could be in on it. No, I’ll let people decide for themselves.
Ironically, of course, FDR would have met the son test. All four of his sons were in uniform during the war. Elliot was a fighter pilot. James was a Marine officer who served with the Marine Raiders. Franklin Jr. and John were both in the Navy. But then again, Stalin would have met it as well. Having one son in the Air Force and one son in the army, who was, as Hitchens noted, captured by the Germans.
It’s sad that Kate’s response to having been soundly and thoughtfully refuted in her own comments section is to resort to name-calling (in her update). But not surprising, I guess.
You’re showing yourself to be an idiot on a number of levels here, Herb. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to help you out.
Churchill’s son Randolph served in the British Army: “Wounded several times during the war, he was incredibly brave, participating in midnight commando raids behind enemy lines, leading frontal assaults by day and parachuting into Yugoslavia to establish liaison with Tito.”
From a NY Times review of “HIS FATHER’S SON:
The Life of Randolph Churchill. By Winston S. Churchill.”
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/08/31/reviews/970831.31harr01.html
And as we know Joseph Kennedy Jr. was killed in WW II and his brother Jack was wounded (both good Democrats).
WLMK had no issue.
Mark
Ottawa
Finally! Some reason to declare WWII legitimate!
The motives of the liberal left are buried in their minds; to speculate on the motives of the left liberals is fruitless, enervating, and exactly what the liberal left wants you to do; to become humbugged by their sophistries, their cant, their vile propaganda.
Only by scrutinizing the consequences of their actions can conservatives counter their agenda.
Here is the consequence of Anti-Americanism: abandonment by the United States; this place once called Canada is a wasteland; viewed by the United States as a desert, a barren place, a valley of dry bones.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Victor Hanson- American Zen
“Rather than worry about the supposed new unpopularity of the United States from Canada to France, or constantly badger supposed allies to at least be neutrals, we should very gently strengthen our alliances with nations that are self-confident and without neuroses of various sorts. That would mean to accept that an ankle-biting Belgium, Canada, Egypt, France, Germany, Mexico, or Turkey has a perfect right as a neutral to distrust the United States and craft its own independent path.
If they all see statism, socialism, and big government as the better solutions to their own problems, or Islamic fascism as largely an American bogeyman, again more power to them all. In the meantime, we should begin to draw closer to true allies � a Japan, India, Australia, Britain, a very few Eastern and Western European countries, Taiwan, and Israel � who agree that the world is a scary, often crazy place, with the United States far better and more reliable than the alternatives.”
newsbeat1.com
Consequences—Consequences of voting for Hamas:
Hamas Bans Music Festival in West Bank
The people of Qalqilya voted for Hamas. Now they start to see what it means: Hamas council bans music festival. (Hat tip: Ethel.)
A Hamas-led town council in the West Bank has banned outdoor music and dance performances planned as part of a summertime Palestinian festival.
A Qalqilya council spokesman said it was partly to avoid damaging the grass. [Uh huh. �ed.]
But he also said the council had been elected to protect the conservative values of the city, which included not approving of men and women mixing.
In May the militant Hamas won the West Bank town�s elections, ousting the mainstream Fatah party.
Outdoor plays and concerts are being held across the West Bank this month as part of the Palestine International Festival.
�We were elected by a segment of people that wants us to preserve the conservative values of the city,� council spokesman Mustafa Sabri told Reuters. �The prevailing values reject mixing of the sexes. The people of Qalqilya have praised our move.�
LGF
“Now they start to see what it means.”
That word “values” is one of the cant words used by AdScam Martin; all socialists sing from the same script; the script written decades past by the likes of Lenin/Stalin/Hitler/Mussolini/Mao/Castro/Trudeau & Maurice Strong.
Jeff, welcome back, you brave SOB. Your take on things, particularly “spirited defenses of the chickenhawk meme from delusionally self-righteous anti-war Deanhumpers who have never met a left-liberal talking point they won’t cling to like Michael Moore to a plate of spare ribs…” is brilliant and probably explains the confusion over whether you are you (Jeff) or subbing for Kate.
too funny
The argument of this topic is troubling.
A request to my daughter to become a dental hygienist has been turned down flat.
So now I must decide if I dare to ever have my teeth, professionally cleaned again. And if I do, will I be able to bear the burden of being such an ignorant hypocrite?
As Col. Kurtz said : “The horror, the horror”
And what if she next refuses work in a toilet paper factory?
Does anyone find it fairly pathetic that most of you have degenerated into left vs. right peons, whose rational and logical minds have been hijacked by labels and cognitive short-cuts, resulting in the same tired rhetoric that feeble-minded oppositions have spat at each other since time immemorial?
Not me.
Return of the Fiskers
The best takedown of the chickenhawk argument:Check out the comments section here for a number of spirited defenses of the
If I don’t want my son to become a cop, do I have to be in favour of disbanding the RCMP? ‘Cuz that would suck.
Come to think of it, I’m not related to any firefighters! So if my house starts on fire, I guess I just let it burn. It wouldn’t be right, after all, to ask other people’s children to risk their lives to save my possesions unless my own family is also at risk.
If I believe in spanking, can I still watch boxing?
Man, being morally perfect is hard work. I go now to sacrifice cheeseburgers to Michael Moore and pray for wisdom.
Yes, people who use the chickenhawk argument are emotionally retarded, and logically disadvantaged. But consider it therapy for them, a way to express themselves much like the “uggh! and oggh! and ooggh!” expressions used by the cavemen.
Racist, sexist, homophobe, chickenhawk, uggh, oggh, oogh, etc.
Kate, I didn’t think you would.
family orgy
In your free time, visit the pages about ghetto booty white girls free gay male porn