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