« Defining the Center | Main | Jay Rosen on Tony Snow »
April 30, 2006
Talking About Chickenhawks
After being treated to the strange spectacle of two right-wing bloggers (including one who should know better) calling out Amanda Marcotte for not going to Afghanistan, I think it's important to be clear about how this "chickenhawk" criticism actually works.
I've never thought the whole point of the thing was to criticize war supporters for lacking the physical courage to put their own lives on the line. There's actually something very sensible about wanting to avoid situations where you could get killed. The point is that they don't think enough about the lives of other people to apply this good sense to them.
There's plenty of good reasons why you might be in favor of a war, but choose not to fight in it. If you're doing AIDS research or something of similarly awesome value to humanity, keep doing that and don't go to war. If you're disabled or elderly, no obligation falls on you. And if we already have all the soldiers we need, there's no reason for you to go. There are probably a couple other reasons that I haven't thought of yet. But the selfish reason that the costs will fall on somebody else doesn't count.
In all the US military activities I've supported -- Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan -- there were good reasons for me not to go. We had plenty of trained personnel for these wars. But if it had turned out, for some reason, that America needed untrained, scrawny, too-wimpy-for-tackle-football guys like me to save hundreds of thousands of Bosnians from genocide, things might have been different. If I had been needed, and if I had known how carefully the Bosnian intervention would be conducted (zero combat fatalities) I'm pretty sure I would've signed up.
It seems to me that many supporters of the Iraq War are basically in that situation. Most people, probably including most war supporters, aren't curing deadly diseases or anything like that. (Having a family isn't enough of a reason not to go -- the government regularly sends parents to war, away from their spouses and children.) Lots of war supporters have the necessary physical capacity. And we need more troops, as stop-loss policies, the deployment of National Guardsmen, and Colin Powell will confirm.
War opponents often put the emphasis on the accusing side of the chickenhawk conditional: "If you think this war is such a great idea, why don't you sign up?" Personally, I think it works better the other way around -- "If you're not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it's such a great idea?" Deep inside, all of us know what a shitty deal going off to fight in a war is. This isn't cowardice, it's knowledge. It's why we should be reluctant to send people off to war, why we should praise careful leaders who hold casualties to a minimum, and why we are so unwilling to sign up for military duty ourselves. Most war supporters have this knowledge -- it's why they don't go. My concern is that they don't apply their gut-level knowledge of the price of war when they decide to send others.
April 30, 2006 in Foreign Policy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/4776533
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Talking About Chickenhawks:
Comments
There's plenty of good reasons why you might be in favor of a war, but choose not to fight in it. If you're doing AIDS research or something of similarly awesome value to humanity, keep doing that and don't go to war.
Nope. Not good enough. You want a war, go fight it yourself. If you're doing something so important that you shouldn't go fight, then that means the war isn't really the priority you're trying to make it sound like.
Most war supporters have this knowledge -- it's why they don't go.
Most of those so far identified as Chickenhawks don't have this knowledge - at least not in the way you think. They know that fighting in a war is a shitty deal for themselves. Ask them, though, and you will get a hundred reasons why it's so good for those other people they want to go and fight for them.
People who are curing AIDS or cancer or something are generally intelligent enough to understand that war is a terrible way to settle disputes. It's an especially terrible way to try and make your country "safe." These chickenhawks are full of Tom Clancy novels and Cheetos. Their lives are so devoid of purpose that they are glomming onto this war thing and patriotism in order to make themselves feel like they are part of something big, something important. Yet they are so selfish, self-centered and cowardly that they are content to live - and die - vicariously through those for whom the words "honor" and "patriotism" are more than just epithets to spit casually across the internet.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 30, 2006 8:59:58 PM
Neil, you should know better than to fall into this kind of fallacious thinking. We live in a representative democracy. As such, there's nothing wrong with supporting policies in which we don't personally participate. If you do, indeed, thinks it's immoral to support a policy without personally participating in the execution of that policy, then by all means criticize the rest of us. But in a representative democracy -- and short of being an anarchist -- that's pretty much impossible.
In any event, the criticism I made jumped off from Atrios' suggestion that supporters of the war ought to serve, either in the military or in a civilian support capacity. If he truly believes that, then I see no reason why he ought not go right straight to Afghanistan. I mean, if he's being consistent.
Amanda tells me she did not support the invasion of Afghanistan, for which I will take her word. I would speculate that she supports *some* military action in our "war on terror", though, so her aforementioned criticism leaves her obligated to join up. Unless she thinks she can support a policy without actually participating in it.
If proponents of the chickenhawk-argument either serve in the military, serve in a support role or will do so as soon as they advocate military action action, so be it. It's still a fallacious argument, but at least they're sincere about it. But if not, then they are necessarily either (a) must never support a military action, or (b) are disingenuous.
At the end of the day, this is merely a rhetorical bludgeon. They don't mean it. It's just an attempt to shift the debate away from ideas and to the person. You may note, for example, that my two co-bloggers -- who have military experiece of the "trigger-pulling" actual combat type -- support the wars, but they are not given deference by critics of the war. That's because it's the merit of the ideas that matter, and not the experience of the person who advocates a particular policy.
Posted by: Jon Henke | Apr 30, 2006 9:31:20 PM
Neil, there are really no good excuses for granting oneself a war exemption except one: being a true member of a pacifist religion - and many of those have served in non-militant positions. In WWII, virtually all volunteered or were called and went - including some very privileged or important people.
I've had mixed emotions about an all-volunteer military for some time because the 'smart' and 'well-connected' always have better alternatives, yet their families can cheer for war. So I'm a national service guy - military or civilian, mandatory.
And the scrawny, too-wimpy-for-tackle-football thing won't work. Ask Markos Moulitsas (hehehe).
Either a war is worth sending our best and brightest, or we shouldn't be sending anyone.
"If you're not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it's such a great idea?"
Yeah, that's a good statement of the challenge. But the bigger challenge is 'Mr. President (or Senator, or Congressperson), when are your children leaving for the xxxx war that you have supported?'.
BTW, a significant percentage of those fighting in Iraq are not US citizens, but 'illegal' immigrants or children of those immigrants. Yeah, those that the rightists want to send back to their countries or put them in prison as felons. This is just EVIL.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 30, 2006 9:39:28 PM
And if we already have all the soldiers we need, there's no reason for you to go.
Let me "me too" this.
If the armed forces are in great shape, anyone who has an argument about how to use them is perfectly free to make it. It's, uh, democracy or something.
If you're complaining about the way your garbage gets collected you don't get grief for not having the balls to be a garbageman. (I concede that being a garbageman does not have the neato fantasy machismo of soldiering.)
That said, the chickenhawk label is so deliciously fun to wind the unsophisticated up with that it makes people go loopy and do this.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Apr 30, 2006 9:39:51 PM
It's not so much that so many of the chickenhawks on the right are unwilling to fight. It's that they're unwilling to make ANY sacrifice, or ask any of the readers to make any sacrifice. Not only will they not fight, they'll support a repeal of the estate tax, they'll oppose raising CAFE standards, etc. They oppose any substantive show of support, so long as they can symbolically show their support. They not only want others to fight their war, they want to make sure that the only suffering they feel is from lifting the extra page or two in their newspaper dedicated to stories about the war. Fortunately, the media has remedied that by cutting back their coverage.
Posted by: Vladi G | Apr 30, 2006 9:41:15 PM
"If he truly believes that, then I see no reason why he ought not go right straight to Afghanistan."
Mr. Henke, as I understand it, there's no way that anyone can sign up for the army and be guaranteed that they would be deployed to any particular area (i.e. Afghanistan or Tsunami Relief). Most likely, anyone who signs up for military service will be sent to Iraq. Why should anyone who doesn't support the war in Iraq, sign up for military service and be sent to Iraq? If someone has information to prove me wrong, please provide it.
Mr. Henke, if you support the war in Iraq, and are reasonably able to do so, you should go there, and stop making absurd challenges to people who rightly feel that the war has been a disaster and that our troops should be redeployed as soon as reasonably possible.
Posted by: Alan | Apr 30, 2006 9:51:09 PM
Jon: there's nothing wrong with supporting policies in which we don't personally participate.
I regret that you don't see the difference between paving roads, building schools, teaching kids on the one hand, and killing people - including children, destroying homes and businesses on the other.
War is not government business as usual. That is why our founders conferred war-declaring power on the Congress, not on the Executive (although that has been obscured for some time). They saw first hand what King George III (a very mind-sick man) could do.
Participating in a war is not just some time doing something other than your personal wishes. It is a emotions and personality-altering thing that often results in a broken life, and all too often a broken body - or most tragically, no life at all for your family to love and protect.
Only when citizens realize that war really is different than other government actions, and the human costs are great but not predictable in nature can we have sane national decision-making on war. Everyone is responsible, and if decided upon, the war should fall equally on a very large slice of the people.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 30, 2006 9:55:29 PM
Mr. Henke, as I understand it, there's no way that anyone can sign up for the army and be guaranteed that they would be deployed to any particular areaAgain, as Atrios himself noted, "there are still numerous civilian opportunities available to them" in Afghanistan.
Before we take this any farther, explain to me why you are willing to let other people fight, serve and die in Afghanistan, but not yourself? Under our system of government, I find nothing particularly objectionable about taking such a position, but since you seem to find it objection in re:Iraq, I'd really like to know why you weren't fighting/serving in some capacity in every military action that you've supported?
Posted by: Jon Henke | Apr 30, 2006 10:07:02 PM
there's nothing wrong with supporting policies in which we don't personally participate.
Agreed. And I gave some of the reasons why, above. (Many commenters, as you see, think even those reasons aren't sufficient.) The trouble is that in many current cases, these reasons are absent. If you have some other reasons to add, state them. Your comment leaves me wondering whether you read my post -- above, I explain why one is not necessarily obligated to participate in policies that one supports.
If you think something is a sufficiently significant goal that it's worth risking other people's lives for, but not your own life, you should give some reason why you're different.
This isn't a rhetorical bludgeon -- I mean absolutely everything I've written above, and I'm uncertain why you think otherwise.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 30, 2006 10:09:15 PM
I regret that you don't see the difference between paving roads, building schools, teaching kids on the one hand, and killing people - including children, destroying homes and businesses on the other.
Hmm, all seem to be important functions of government, with teaching children being particularly scary.
Anyway, given that the situation is not as you would have it (some sort of equal participation in all acts of war) are those who are in favour of one war or another able, in your view, to advance an argument without lacing up their army boots?
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | Apr 30, 2006 10:16:46 PM
After being treated to the strange spectacle of two right-wing bloggers (including one who should know better) calling out Amanda Marcotte for not volunteering for military duty, I think it's important to be clear about how this "chickenhawk" criticism actually works....
I think perhaps you'd better get your facts straight to start with. I didn't call her out because of a lack of military service. I said specifically "Do tell us, Amanda... why is it that you personally never offered your services in a civilian role in Afghanistan?"
look closely and you may notice the word civilian. I know that's how she wants to spend all of this but the fact of the matter is that she had nonmilitary options to back up her words about her supporting our actions in Afghanistan. Then she didn't take advantage of them by her own lights means sheer really didn't support them.
else, what we have here, is a glaring Liberal double standard. No surprise, since that happens each time a Liberal opens his mouth.
Posted by: Bithead | Apr 30, 2006 10:18:31 PM
Heh. The reason the chickenhawk argument is so strong is that it applies to every level of hawks - from the 'warbloggers' to the Vice President. The chickenhawks constantly bitch about how they are on the troops side, and about how the war opponents hate america, freedom, applie pie. etc. They talk up how great things are going. They obsess about how evil our foes must be. But despite all that they never sign up. Never-ever.
I mean the thing about the chickenhawks, they're all bluster. Not only do they think the war is good idea, they've usually got all this faux-millitary terminology and weapon obsession thing going.
Posted by: Sandals | Apr 30, 2006 10:19:27 PM
Heh. Doesn't Amanda already have a government job?
You arn't a chickenhawk if you support a war and don't sign up. Chickenhawks are perenially pro-war. They are hawks. "The war in Afghanistan is probably, on-balance, a good thing, or it would have been if BushAdmin wasn't so idiotically focused on Iraq" is NOT Hawkery. But it is a pretty common liberal position.
Posted by: Sandals | Apr 30, 2006 10:27:26 PM
Fair enough, Bithead. The difference didn't occur to me, and I'll change the post. I don't see how this really affects anybody's argument, though.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 30, 2006 10:28:02 PM
"Before we take this any farther, explain to me why you are willing to let other people fight, serve and die in Afghanistan, but not yourself?"
I can't speak for anyone except myself, but as someone who is short, a bit overweight, and not particularly aggressive about stuff, I can say with only some doubt that had I been needed during the war in Afghanistan, the conflict in Bosnia (we're only talking hypothetically here, because I was only 11 at the time), WWII, or WWI, I would have nobly been willing to give my life for a righteous cause such as those, or at least I hope I would have. As I understood it, when the war in Afghanistan was being launched, we had no shortage of troops to go there. Thus, I did not feel an urge to drop out of college and sign up, nor did I expect anyone else to. At the time, the all volunteer military seemed sufficient, and it was, or should have been at least, had our leaders finished the job the right way.
As for suggesting that people take civilian jobs in Afghanistan, well, when we start hearing that there's an urgent shortage of civilian workers there, then you can send an email to folks like Atrios. Also, I think most of those jobs go to people who are already in the civil service. In any case, I think discussions about civilian jobs are really secondary to the discussion at hand which concerns why you and your buddies are too chicken to join the army and head off to Iraq to serve in your dear leader's grand adventure.
Posted by: Alan | Apr 30, 2006 10:29:03 PM
I'm sure you do mean it, but as the "chickenhawk" argument is used by, e.g., Atrios and Marcotte, it is a personal attack -- an ad hominem. As a QandO commenter and former Navy servicemember said:
My only comment on the Chickenhawk meme is that I didn’t notice this fierce personal criticism from the left toward the last administration when people with no military service were calling the shots and sending our young men and women into action. This inconsistency is the reason I can’t take it seriously when I hear these people crying "Chickenhawk". It is a lack-of-point; nothing more than fuel on the fire of partisanship, without solving a thing.Anybody on the left ought to be embarassed for people like Marcotte and Atrios. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the way we will use our military in the "War on Terror". But this hypocritical ad hominem crap is not only stupid on its face, but it also distracts from any real issues that some on the left might be trying to make.
It would be one thing if I thought success or failure desperately depended upon my joining the military. The chickenhawk argument would be legitimate if my participation were marginally necessary. As it stands, we have a military sufficient to conduct the war. In fact, while I believe we could have used more troops in Iraq for a brief period after the start of the conflict, I have never believed that "more troops" would solve any problems. In fact, I've been arguing for serious drawdowns in troops levels for quite some time. I've also argued for drawing the remaining troops largely back into the desert and out of sight of the Iraqi population centers. All that to say that, yeah, I believe we have all the soldiers we need. John McCain can harumph about as he pleases, but I've not found him convincing. In fact, I believe he's exactly wrong on the path forward.
I digress.
You cited reasons not to participate in a war you support, but age and disability were the only ones that directly spoke to your rationale for why proponents of a war should participate. Personal endeavours, and the belief that we already "have enough soldiers" don't address the question of "If you're not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it's such a great idea?" Sure, they might cite their own importance or lack of importance, but the question you asked was "why do you think it's such a great idea"...for other people?
For what it's worth, though different in degree, conducting war is not different in principle from any other government policy. But if "danger" is the difference, then why do you not sign up for police or firefighting duty? Because, in a representative democracy, policies are voted upon and enacted by agents. I'd love to see a form of government wherein people were obligated to pay the costs of their own choices -- a "user fee government" -- but we don't have it.
Posted by: Jon Henke | Apr 30, 2006 10:30:37 PM
What was especially repulsive to me is that the Captain argued that he can't serve because he has a family that needs him. I went to Camp Casey and saw what happens to people who have to give up a family member to war. Don't you fucking tell me that your family needs you any more than those parents there need to have their kids still alive. On a visceral, human level, these warbloggers inability to grasp that this isn't a game, that every person who dies in Iraq while they sit behind a computer rooting for the war is a human being with a family and a life, well, it's simply disgusting.
Regardless, as usual the wingnuts who hate me are beating on StrawAmanda. Real Amanda opposed the invasion of Afghanistan because Real Amanda, who turned down an officership in the Army a little over a year before the invasion because she couldn't morally bring herself to ever be in a position to kill another person, couldn't bring herself to support sending others in her stead.
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | Apr 30, 2006 10:38:15 PM
So you're a pacifist, Amanda? If you couldn't bring yourself to send other people to do something that you could never do, pacifism is the only option you have. You would have to oppose WWI, WWII, etc.
I mean, I respect the principled stand of the people -- the Amish, for example -- who live that out, but I don't see a whole lot of people who genuinely take that position.
Posted by: Jon Henke | Apr 30, 2006 10:42:54 PM
I've never thought the whole point of the thing was to criticize war supporters for lacking the physical courage to put their own lives on the line. There's actually something very sensible about wanting to avoid situations where you could get killed. The point is that they don't think enough about the lives of other people to apply this good sense to them.
I'm not sure exactly what point you are trying to make here, but surely many of these war supporters do in fact lack the physical courage to put their lives on the line. Of course, there is a distinction between foolhardiness and courage. If some pundit sincerely thinks a fight is foolish, then his unwillingness to participate is fully justified. But if that pundit sincerely believes, by his own lights, that a given fight is essential for the security of the country, and yet is not willing to assume an equal share of the physical risk, then I would say, yes, he is deficient in physical courage.
When you say "the point is that they don't think enough about the lives of other people to apply this good sense to them", you are only correctly describing those for whom not fighting is just good sense. If the war supporter in question thinks the fight is unnecessary, and good sense recommends staying out of it, then helping to send others off to the fight makes him a scoundrel, not a coward. But if he sincerely believes that the fight is necessary, and that good sense in fact rcommends joining it, then he is a coward for shirking what his own conscience tells him is his obligation.
Some would argue, of course, that in the matter of war, we all have different roles to play, and have different obligations. Some are charged with making policy, and arguing on it's behalf. Others are charged with carrying it out in the field. But personally, I was never able to internalize such a belief in a wartime caste system - a belief that was prevalent among many of my friends in college. It's just too different from the sort of code by which I was raised. War is not just any "government policy." War is special. It's blood and guts and pain and terror and life and death. A real man fights his own fights, and doesn't send others off to do it for him. If he thinks a fight is worth having, he stands up and assumes his share of the fearsome sacrifice. And if he is not willing to accept that burden personally, then he is a cad for helping to impose it upon others. One shouldn't contibute polemics on behalf of deadly ventures from which one exempts himself.
Peter Beinart, for example, looks like a perfectly healthy and capable young man to me. Either he should join the fight that he has helped send other young men to conduct, or he should stop working to send them there. I note that Beinart has changed his tune a bit where Iran is concerned. But he has called the fight against "Islamofascism" the challenge of a generation. So by what reason does he assign himself the task of watching this fight from the New Republic offices?
The problem is that all these bright and privileged young warhawk pundits and policy wonks seem to think they are needed here at home to, as you say, perform some task of "awesome value to humanity." Every two-bit scribbler imagines he is the "pen of the revolution" or something. Or at least that's what they must tell themselves. Otherwise, I don't know how they can live with the shame.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Apr 30, 2006 10:53:53 PM
Jon, I'm amused by your comments about a 'user fee government' -- I suppose it's the sort of idea that delights a libertarian, but doesn't have any special appeal to a utilitarian like me. Sure, it may make resource use more efficient, but then there's distributive issues, and the inefficiency of setting up all those billing operations...
age and disability were the only ones that directly spoke to your rationale for why proponents of a war should participate
Well, I think you sort of accepted the force of the "there's enough people already" reason when you talked about marginal necessity of additional soldiers. In these cases, most war supporters should at least have the conditional intention to sign up if it turns out that we don't have enough soldiers. But if we have enough, there's no need for additional soldiers, and no obligation to sign up. I'm a little surprised that you don't think more soldiers are necessary, but we can save that disagreement for another day. In any case, it at least has the form of a good reason for not going.
In response to you and Stephen, I didn't mean the AIDS research case to be about mere personal endeavors. It's about being able to make massive contributions to the general good in another way. Saving a hundred thousand people from genocide is a goal worth risking your own life. Saving a million people from AIDS is similarly significant. If you're one of the rare people who has a special way of saving enormous numbers of lives, it's fine for you to put that way of saving lives over the military way of saving lives.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Apr 30, 2006 10:55:15 PM
"they'll oppose raising CAFE standards, etc."
Ah, yeah, that's the way to support the troops. Idiot.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2006 12:01:33 AM
Neil, are you a 14-year old freshman? Your arguments remind me of the last time I read fresh comp papers. Do you self-challenge anything you think, or do you just blurt it all out?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2006 12:06:47 AM
Jon: Well, maybe in Jon-world, we have all the soldiers we need.
Unfortunately, the rest of us reside in the real world. In that place, the Pentagon (and specifically, the Department of the Army), seems to think that we don't have all the soldiers we need. Otherwise, why would DoD still be using stop-loss orders, mobilizing and re-mobilizing National Guard and Reserve forces, and dipping into the Individual and Inactive Reserves? The only reason you'd be dipping into the IRR is because of manpower needs.
Look, join, don't join; I don't personally care, and I say this as someone who did my share of the fighting in '03 and '04. But claiming that you know better what the various logistical scenarios are vis-a-vis the quantity of troops needed are, and then using that as your defense is a bit specious.
However, since you're advocating for a drawdown, your position isn't as illogical as some others I've heard.
Posted by: Rafe | May 1, 2006 12:53:17 AM
All of this is interesting, but it is arguing the issue from the perspective that is most favorable to the chickenhawks.
Jon is right about some of this. It is ok to support the policies of the government which you are not personally implementing. And, at its foundation, the chickenhawk insult is not about philosophical ideals or logical arguments. It is far too easy to label us liberals "hypocrites" if there was ever a time that we supported the use of US armed forces without at least trying to be one of the soldiers involved.
The chickenhawk insult is really about the chickenhawks themselves. These are guys who are blogging - blogging! - in favor of the policies of the majority party, and calling it brave. They have denigrated all who dare to criticize them or the politicians with whom they agree, calling them un-American or terrorists and what-have-you. They have romanticized war and the American soldier while not giving a rat's ass about things like proper equipment or proper care for the injured. They have allowed the government to cut medical and retirement benefits with nary a peep about the welfare of the soldiers, but they are the quickest to claim that they "support the troops."
Above all, they have worked to make the clickety-clack of their fingers against computer keyboards sound like some sort of noble, courageous calling that is vital to the war effort. Meanwhile, their fellow citizens in the all-volunteer army they love to "support" are being held past their contractual termination dates, troops are being rotated through Iraq and Afghanistan much more often than is safe, the armed forces can't make their quotas without lowering their standards to accept anyone who is still sort-of breathing.
And so it comes down to some people getting sick of their self-righteousness, their unfounded sense of bravery, and finally telling them that if this war is so damned important, so vital to the continuation of this Republic, and if you are so damned willing to sacrifice for it, then just go over there and join the fight.
Philosophy can be fun, but that's not what this is about. Remember, this is about cowards and bullies who have gotten tired of being called chickenhawks and the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, but instead of growing up and taking away the reasons for the names, have decided that they need to try and reverse it. Amanda and Duncan don't need to be pacifists in order to make fun of these people, and neither do I.
Hey chickenhawks, why don't you grow a pair and join the army if this "war on terra" so important?
Posted by: Stephen | May 1, 2006 1:24:16 AM
Ah, yeah, that's the way to support the troops. Idiot.
Right, because the fact that we're dependent on oil from that region has nothing to do with why we're there, idiot.
Posted by: Vladi G | May 1, 2006 1:39:25 AM
Vladi's first comment, while perhaps bombastic, is largely correct - it's the having-and-eating-too that is the biggest problem. Assuming that "War X" is a defensible position, it's still quite a leap to argue that "War X + upper class tax cuts + subsidies to oil companies + etc..." is equally defensible. For all the talk about 'skin in the game' from those of generally hawkish persuasions on health care issues, how come the same cannot be said for foreign policy adventures.
When it comes down to it, 'chickenhawk' is best applied to those who argue for war and against any personal cost for said war. Jon, as a market-libertarian, you should recognize the moral hazzard at work there.
Posted by: Pooh | May 1, 2006 1:58:51 AM
Stephen,
So let me get this right, only those that actually enlist have a right to support the war? Those that support the war & don't enlist are "chickenhawks" & their support & opinions don’t count… by your standards, because they don’t serve. Why - by your definitions again - are the only 2 people allowed to have opinions regarding the war, are those that actually serve or those who are against it, but don’t serve? If someone who doesn't serve can’t have an opinion or their opinion doesn’t count, why is it those that are against the war & don't serve, allowed to theirs or their opinions count? Are they not even more cowardly & bully like for refusing to support or serve? Why should we consider it or your opinions, since by your definitions they don't count & you aren’t even willing to support the opinions of those that do?
You’re right, it isn’t about philosophy or logic apparently, since you have effectively argued that those who are “chickenhawks” & those who oppose the war have opinions that don’t count, since neither serve. You have also effectively argued that only those that serve can have an opinion that counts. The problem is that those that actually serve are re-enlisting in record numbers & support the war, so that means, once again by your definitions, the war is right. If the war is right then those that oppose it are wrong. So those that neither serve & oppose the war are wrong.
Hey Stephen I have an idea, instead of trying to belittle the supporters of a war by calling them “chickenhawks”, you may want to follow the logic & results of the argument you’re putting forth.
Don’t even bother w/ saying that those that oppose the war can do so… because the support itself is irrelevant within your arguements… it is only the enlisting & service that counts or qualifies the opinion.
So on behalf of those that serve & support the war, why don't you keep your non-qualified opinions to yourself.
Posted by: PMain | May 1, 2006 2:30:07 AM
PMain: It isn't about having opinions on the war; it's about advocating for this war, despite being unwilling to serve in that war, and in the face of obvious manpower needs. In short: you're unwilling to risk your life for something you support, but you're perfectly willing to risk mine.
That's what is galling. And what makes it even more galling is the pose that's struck by so many of these folks--i.e., we're a gallant, plucky band of irregulars, kind of like a WW2 buddy film run amok.
If you're not willing to put your ass on the line, then why should I, as a recently discharged vet? Or why should my brother, who's still in the Guard?
Most of the time, that's an academic question. Now, however, isn't most times--the manpower system that we've relied on to fight in the Gulf War, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and other places over the past three decades is broken. It really is. Folks don't get called up from the IRR unless it's really necessary--the only other time it happened was during the Gulf War, and the vast majority of those folks weren't guys who had done their four years of active duty and gone on to civilian life; they were folks who lived too far away from a Reserve Troop Program Unit (TPU), and so fell into the IRR by default.
So, unless you're just as willing as I am to risk your life for this, don't get huffy when people call you on your double standard, because that's exactly what it is.
I understand that I freely chose to serve in the Army, and that there was an inherent risk in that. I didn't have a problem with that then, and I don't have a problem with that now. All I ask is that, if you're hankering for war, and push comes to shove, that you're just as willing to pitch in as I was. Writing a blog doesn't cut it; you have to put a little more skin in the game than that.
If this strikes too close, and makes you feel a bit too uncomfortable, then perhaps you need to reasess whether supporting this jolly adventure is your best decision.
If that's
Posted by: Rafe | May 1, 2006 3:22:20 AM
Anybody on the left ought to be embarassed for people like Marcotte and Atrios. There are legitimate arguments to be made about the way we will use our military in the "War on Terror". But this hypocritical ad hominem crap is not only stupid on its face, but it also distracts from any real issues that some on the left might be trying to make.
Of course they are embarrassed. Amanda got caught being the hypocritical person that 'real amanda' really is. She has used this ad hominem attack countless times against others and now when it's leveled against her, the tap dance begins. Goose/Gander
It's all there for the world to see.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 1, 2006 7:56:30 AM
I've never thought the whole point of the thing was to criticize war supporters for lacking the physical courage to put their own lives on the line.
Well, Neil, in your post you didn't really explain how the chickenhawk thin really worked. Mostly, you just danced a lot as to why you and Amanda were somehow different and the label didn't apply.
Perhaps you could "enlighten" us all with how the insult actually works. I would be interested.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 1, 2006 8:28:09 AM
Give it up Neil, I voted against Bush and I don't support the Iraq war but this whole chickenhawk meme is rediculous. You just got owned at QandO by McQ.
Posted by: JD | May 1, 2006 9:30:58 AM
I especially like Amanda's response, "Ha! Shows what you know! I opposed the war in Afghanistan too! I'm exempt baby!"
Posted by: Dustin | May 1, 2006 9:52:43 AM
Calling Amandum out = shooting fish in a barrel.
Posted by: Jimmm | May 1, 2006 10:02:59 AM
PMain,
I can't respond to what you wrote, since you weren't actually responding to me.
Now that this thread has gotten to the categorical declarations of victory, it's time to be abandoned.
Has anyone else noticed how conservatives will, after a while, just start saying "dude, you just got pwned! Ha! Like, you totally lost and I like, won, dude!"
I guess they're just following the president's example...
Posted by: Stephen | May 1, 2006 10:20:43 AM
Sorry Stepehn, but Amanda's bullshit stinks to high heavens and Neil's flaccid attempt to sheild her with his 'soft-shoe' just doesn't cut it.
This attack has been used by the left for years and we all know how it works. Amanda is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY and we all know it.
And *THAT* is the reason victory howls are heard.
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 1, 2006 10:41:46 AM
So you're a pacifist, Amanda? If you couldn't bring yourself to send other people to do something that you could never do, pacifism is the only option you have. You would have to oppose WWI, WWII, etc.
Well, obviously the reason Henke can't join up to serve in Iraq is because he's a fucking 12-year old.
Jesus Christ.
Posted by: August J. Pollak | May 1, 2006 10:44:34 AM
The chickenhawk accusation seems to have really upset the, well, chickenhawks. The accusation is not only that they are too cowardly to serve in a war they have loudly trumpted as *the next world war* and the *war to end all wars* and a *very important war* and a *clash of civilizations* but also that, like the chickenhawks who are pedophiles, they are stunted sexual beings who get their kicks molesting children.
As for the weak defence of their own cowardice with the argument that in a representative democracy one should feel free to support a policy that one does not, oneself, need to carry out. That's true when, say, I think that we should have better medical care in underserved rural areas and I propose and fight for *paying taxes* to send doctors to rural areas. Or we might even extend that and say that I can propose, support, and willingly pay taxes for other things I consider a public good without actually performing that public good myself, leaving it up to the free market or the self interest of others to fill whatever volunteer or paid slots will carry out the project envisioned.
All well and good. But this war manifestly doesn't fall into that category. It has been supported by a group of people that is neither willing to defend the war in good consience in public (where were those darn pro war rallies before the war?) nor *raise the taxes* to pay for the war (what is that deficit thing anyway?), nor adequately compensate those in harms way (screw the vets has been the rallying cry of this administration from the get go). That being the case no one who supported the war has much of a defence at this point to the accusation that they have cravenly and corruptly supported a war that they are willing to pay for neither in blood, sweat, or taxes. To the extent that there has been no call up of all able bodied citizens this was a war of choice. And as a war of choice it was imposed unilaterally on soldiers who, in many cases, signed up to fight wars of necessity. These soldiers are being stop lossed to maintain army strength in the face of mounting casualties and second thoughts on the part of the serving soldiers. From the moment the army had to call up the national guard because they don't have a big enoughs standing army every one of the chickenhawks beating the drum for the war should have signed up.
At the very least those who have the courage to call for others to die while being too cheap and too cowardly to pay for the armor or to fight themselves might have the courtesy to shut up and stop calling those who made *other policy choices* who protested the war "cowards" and "unpatriotic" because *they* are not willing to serve as cannon fodder for this now unpopular and badly conducted war of choice.
Posted by: aimai | May 1, 2006 10:44:52 AM
It's great how the chickenhawks have conferred amongst themselves and declared victory in the War on Marcotte. Does that remind anyone else of any other recent wars?
Posted by: Sandals | May 1, 2006 11:10:26 AM
Yes, this was as glorious a victory as
the triumph of the Klingons over the Tribbles.
Posted by: The Dark Avenger | May 1, 2006 11:36:23 AM
If you'd bothered to read, you'd have noticed that the "you just got owned" comment was made by an opponent of the Iraq War.
Actually, since I'm already here - Stephen wrote that he dislikes bloggers who call themselves brave just for supporting the war. I've personally never seen such a thing. Can anyone point to an example?
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 11:41:17 AM
The chickenhawk insult is really about the chickenhawks themselves. These are guys who are blogging - blogging! - in favor of the policies of the majority party, and calling it brave. They have denigrated all who dare to criticize them or the politicians with whom they agree, calling them un-American or terrorists and what-have-you. They have romanticized war and the American soldier while not giving a rat's ass about things like proper equipment or proper care for the injured. They have allowed the government to cut medical and retirement benefits with nary a peep about the welfare of the soldiers, but they are the quickest to claim that they "support the troops."
I agree with Stephen here. What was it Christopher Hitchens said a few weeks back, New York City has been a terrorist target so he's on the front line of the War on Terror? And on April 25, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
I still wonder what would have happened to the American psyche if those monsters had successfully attacked the capitol, the symbol of democratic government. Whenever I think of that remarkable flight (Flight 93), my admiration for the men and women involved surges. (I'm particularly proud that someone who was openly homosexual helped save his country [emphasis mine], and show once again that gay people are integral to any society as moral leaders.)
... the years since, and the atrocities still committed by the Jihadists, have not diminished my or, I suspect, many other people's desire to fight our enemy with vigor and precision. My spine hasn't softened against al Qaeda. If anything, I want to defeat what they represent more now than ever.
So the people on Flight 93 helped save the country, meaning I suppose that Al Qaeda was on the verge of destroying America. And I'm relieved that he doesn't seem to think he is personally taking part in the War on Terra, but that's clearly the mood. (And Sullivan is one of the more moderate and nuanced warmongers!)
There are plenty more examples out there, those were just the two I remembered. These people think that fighting terrorism is the defining struggle of our generation, terrorism threatens the very existence of our country, and they personally are taking part in the fight by, I don't know, stimulating the economy or something. If sane hawks are offended by the use of the term "chickenhawk" or 101st Fighting Keyboarder, they're free to suggest their own, but this insanity deserves some kind of special insult.
Posted by: Cyrus | May 1, 2006 11:52:58 AM
At the end of the day, this is merely a rhetorical bludgeon. They don't mean it. It's just an attempt to shift the debate away from ideas and to the person. You may note, for example, that my two co-bloggers -- who have military experiece of the "trigger-pulling" actual combat type -- support the wars, but they are not given deference by critics of the war. That's because it's the merit of the ideas that matter, and not the experience of the person who advocates a particular policy.
Maybe I'm hanging too much meaning on the term "deference", but this sounds like a galaxy-covering blanket statement to me. Military service doesn't automatically mean that one's opinions on matters of war and strategy are automatically correct, and beyond challenge. A quick survey of military history ought to dispel that notion right away.
But this is a side issue. Face it, civilian war enthusiasts have nobody but themselves to blame for attracting the "chickenhawk" label. As other posts have mentioned, every word they utter about the importance and strategic necessity of their Iraq project raises the obvious question: Yeah? If it's so important, why aren't YOU joining in? And the answers they give -- invariably excuses, special pleading, foot-stamping -- only make them look even smaller. In the end, nobody's saying that chickenhawks can't say what they want in favor of the war. It's still a free country, more or less. But by the same token, chickenhawks are expecting a helluva lot when they think that they should be taken seriously....
Posted by: sglover | May 1, 2006 11:54:02 AM
I suspect it's not so much that the chickenhawks support the war but are too cowardly to involve themselves. I suspect the issue here is - as some have said - that they think it's a game, a way to score debate points off us anti-war types.
Look at it this way: most of them aren't even willing to commit to their support to the degree of putting a sticker on their car that says "support the troops." Those ribbon magnets come right off without leaving a trace that they'd ever been there! Just the thing for the Bush supporter asked to change his world view entirely every time one of his president's lies gets eroded by reality.
They're not just chickenhawks whern it comes to the war, in other words. They're chickenhawks when it comes to life. Angry at anyone who actually lives a life - as witness the increasingly deranged Fred Jones and his monomaniacal crush-obsession with Amanda - because they're too skeered to approach the world as anything but a Usenet flamefest writ large, and those of us who actually think make them jealous.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | May 1, 2006 12:26:45 PM
Hey Fred Jones,
I'm gonna say this rrrrrreeeeeallllly slooooowwwwly so it sinks in:
You.... never.... found.... any.... hypocrisy.
I bet it's super *fun* to say "Amanda's a hypocrite!" and jerking off self-satisfiedly, but at some point you will have to stop and recognize that just because you say it - nay, scream it - at the height of your orgasmic glee, that doesn't make it so.
I will break it down for you at a USA Today level, since I'm guessing the 4th grade was pretty hard for you.
1) The Chickenhawks support the war, meaning they support sending troops into battle.
2) One particular 'hawk said that he would have considered fighting "if not for his family" but that he supported all the other guys out there fighting.
See how that sucks? Because he's got a family, this dude wasn't willing to fight and die for this cause. What he never stopped to do -- what none of you stop to do -- is assume that by supporting it, you are sending other fathers and wives and children to die. So how come they can die for it but you wouldn't?
These are not orphans. These are real people you're sending to execution, and one of you made the biggest blunder of all -- he showed your cowardice by saying he couldn't fight b/c of his family. You opened the door for us to show you how much hurt and pain you're causing others.
I say we allow anyone with a family to be able to exempt themselves from fighting _just like this asshole_ and see how many soldiers we have left.
The next time you want to declare victory, go talk to a husband or mother or child who lost someone in Iraq because you support people who merely use your vote to line their own pockets. I bet they will point to someone other than Amanda as the hypocrite.
I'm sorry if I got too smart for you there, Fred Jones, so let me summarize:
1) You don't understand what a hypocrite is.
2) Even if you did, you are too dense to use any logic or make any sense when trying to describe one.
3) Amanda is consistent.
4) You are not.
4) You suck donkey nuts.
Are we clearing this up for you? Let me know if I should use flashcards. I might have to special order the "donkey nuts" one, though.
Posted by: punkass marc | May 1, 2006 12:35:54 PM
Oh, and Fred, I stopped counting at 4 just for you. I'd hate to say things you don't comprehend -- like "five."
Posted by: punkass marc | May 1, 2006 12:41:08 PM
Chris - if your comment is supposed to be an example of reasoned analysis from someone who "actually thinks", then I can see the problem right now.
Here's my analysis - opponents of the war are frustrated that their views aren't having an impact, not on the people on the other side of the debate, and certainly not on our actual military policy, despite what they see as a surfeit of evidence for their side. They naturally turn to thinking there's something wrong with the people on the other side, and the "chickenhawk" label flows from that. This attack obviously isn't going to help win any debates (since the rightness of a position isn't determined by who happens to be espousing it - see "ad hominem" fallacy), but it certainly makes some people feel better.
Oh, and I repeat my request for an example from before.
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 12:48:44 PM
Chickenhawk is as Chickenhawk does. And Miss Amanda did *exactly* what she accused others of when she used that term.
It's plain, it's simple and it's true.
Guilty....Guilty.....GUILTY!!
(tap-dance away punkass marc)
Posted by: Fred Jones | May 1, 2006 1:11:30 PM
Yglesias had the best take on the Chickenhawk argument I've read. It was a year or two ago, and I can't find it however. Nevertheless, there is nothing wrong with supporting a conflict without participating in it. I, for example, support sending a peacekeeping force into Darfur. I don't think its hypocritcal that I'm not signing up for it.
The problem with 'Man Cried Chickenhawk' is that it distracts from the real issue, which is the retarded, failed policy. The War in Iraq is a failure because its bad policy and a mistake, not because not enough chickenhawks signed up for it. Its should be good enough to wreck the credibility of war supporters using the basic facts on the ground, not the fact that they won't fight for a war they support. Therefore, the tactic is just not useful substantively OR politically.
Posted by: Adrock | May 1, 2006 1:19:28 PM
Well Floyd, every time a warblogger calls an anti-war type 'cowardly' it's at least an implication. Hugh Hewitt bravely soldiers on from the front lines in Manhattan, just ask him. Hitchens is a soldier in the army of Bush, etc.
I'm wondering if maybe the chickenhawk meme is ascribing the wrong emotion: instead of fear, is it perhaps unfounded optimism as to the real costs (or even to the existence of any real costs?) Loss of world standing? Who needs those Frenchies! Depleting our military? That's just crazy talk! Reducing our options relative to Iran or North Korea? Bombs, bitches! B-O-M-B-S, Bombs... (and so forth.)
Now as to Henke and the other QandO-ans, this doesn't really apply except when Franks gets a charge into him and starts calling for the heads of hostile journos and such. But to those like Powerline, or Jonah G, or Instapundit, or VDH it absolutely applies. Dr. Pangloss is in for them.
Posted by: Pooh | May 1, 2006 1:21:37 PM
Floyd: Read anything by Bill Whittle or Steve den Beste.
Posted by: Rafe | May 1, 2006 1:46:47 PM
I have, and I don't know what you're talking about.
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 2:40:09 PM
Chris - if your comment is supposed to be an example of reasoned analysis from someone who "actually thinks", then I can see the problem right now.
Aw, it's cute! So much like a wry riposte, and yet... not.
Posted by: Chris Clarke | May 1, 2006 4:35:25 PM
why don't selfish reasons count as BS? this ain't AIDS research, it's imperialism advocated by folks too gutless to put themselves in jeopardy.
here's the central issue: war is always about loss of human life. that's probably why it's called "war." so the question becomes whether the sacrifice of life---the ultimate sacrifice---is worth it. that's why it's so repugnant when a pundit is blithely willing to throw somebody else under the bus while the same pundit remains safe on the sidelines. why do these jackasses get to play god?
Posted by: mencken | May 1, 2006 4:54:39 PM
"If I had been needed, and if I had known how carefully the Bosnian intervention would be conducted (zero combat fatalities) I'm pretty sure I would've signed up."
I'm speechless. Not chicken hawk, just plain chicken.
Posted by: Neocon Ron | May 1, 2006 5:07:34 PM
Rafe,
I love how you assume I haven't served or am not in uniform right now. I point was Stephen's argument was illogical & actually proved that those that are aginst the war & haven't served have no valid opinion. You by questioning my service made the exact same point. It is the chickenhawk meme put forth that actually places more questions & shows the hypocracy of those that use it. This is why Stephen couldn't repsond to my points, because if his argument is valid, then his opinions are not.
Stephen,
I was addressing your previous point & post. The one directly before mine. So again, if the only qualifier of an opinion (availble) is whether one has served & those that do not support the war, do not serve... then their opinion does not count as well.
Posted by: PMain | May 1, 2006 6:18:55 PM
The chickenhawk meme has a number of annoying pitfalls - it's close to ad hominem, laced with subjectivity, and is fertile grounds for the grindingly aggravating tendency of the pro-administration debaters to simply lie faster than rational arguments can catch up (see also the Kerry/swift boat escapade, or the treatment of Gore). For these reasons, it doesn't seem like an argument that stands firmly on its own. It's probably better to supplement it with other talking points that encapsulate liberal positions, refutations of administration positions, or both. My favorite example of this is still the photo of a smiling Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Tikriti (worth a thousand words when explaining just who it is that's responsible for the strife of the modern middle east), but there are more.
As far as talking points that I'd like to see replace the chickenhawk taunt, foremost is probably the one that goes something like "most members of the administration and supporters shirked the call to serve, and their current policies exploit those who answer the call by starting needless wars and cutting military compensation and pensions." Pointing out that irony lets people come to the hypocrisy conclusion on their own. If the administration's supporters want to point out exceptions, fine - there's also Oliver North, a shining example of administration ethics at work if ever there was one.
In my opinion, the chickenhawk meme should never be offered on its own, but only accompanied by some reminder of the more substantial malfeasance of the administration. There are certainly enough to choose from. The pettiness, tunnel vision, and hypocrisy of some of the administration's supporters are certainly annoying, but they're just not as important as the substantial evil embodied in the administration itself. Whether it's their anti-science actions, their anti-capitalism actions, or their anti-freedom actions, the gap between words and actions in the administration is at least as wide as the parallel gap between words and actions in their supporters: the supporters may find themselves more disposed to personal reflection as the blemishes of their heroes are played out on the public stage.
The administration is a coruncopia of lies, but its supporters are not very likely to be shocked out of their toxic ideas by calling them, personally, liars.
Posted by: Sean M | May 1, 2006 7:01:15 PM
My favorite example of this is still the photo of a smiling Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Tikriti (worth a thousand words when explaining just who it is that's responsible for the strife of the modern middle east)
Let me guess... America? America's the one responsible for all Middle East turmoil?
There's a similar photo with Saddam and Jacques Chirac. Does that mean France is responsible for all of it?
Or could it be there are issues more complex than summed up in a single context-less "gotcha" photo?
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 7:22:00 PM
Or could it be there are issues more complex than summed up in a single context-less "gotcha" photo?
I'm a big fan of context. Would you care to contextualize administration support of Saddam's military hijinx during the stretch where he was considered an essential check on Iran ? Or, back a little further, administration support of the Shah of Iran ? Or, in the same ballpark, the administration's policy of arming and training Afghani mujahedeen ? Or further, and more recently, the experiences of the Kurds ? I would suggest that the context is that there is a pattern to the current administration and its ideological fellow-travelers' behavior towards the middle east, and that if you percieve that pattern, it is quite believeable that many residents of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kurdistan, and their neighbors are not disposed to view the intentions of the administration as benevolent, regardless of the words that the administration chooses to accompany their actions. The bullets have spoken more loudly - and more truthfully - to the residents of those areas than the administration's mouthpieces have.
Posted by: Sean M | May 1, 2006 7:45:29 PM
I would like to emphasize that the Chickenhawk argument originally applies to the war cheerleaders at high levels in the administration and at top think tanks close to the administration. The blogger bit is just an extension. These guys are hawks in every since of the word. Most of them supported the Vietnam war back in the day. But most of the found some way of worming out of it.
Posted by: Sandals | May 1, 2006 8:12:41 PM
Would you care to contextualize administration support of Saddam's military hijinx during the stretch where he was considered an essential check on Iran ?
I think you just did.
As to those places you mention, I think an opinion poll in any of those areas would reveal overall favorable views of the U.S. government among the population, especially in Kurdistan. I admit I'm guessing a little on Iran, based on what I've read. I'd say the pattern these people see of U.S. involvement in the Middle East is not the same one you probably see.
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 8:48:37 PM
I think an opinion poll in any of those areas would reveal overall favorable views of the U.S. government among the population
Wow. Just. Wow.
Kurdistan I'll give you, I suppose, but beyond that, I think you need to give some reasonably current factual support.
Posted by: Pooh | May 1, 2006 9:09:39 PM
Alright, I had to do some Google research here:
Afghanistan: "Eighty-three percent of Afghans express a favorable opinion of the United States overall" (shouldn't really surprise anyone)
Iraq: well, the opinion situation's not as good as I thought it was. 70% want the U.S. out within two years, though I couldn't find any data specifically on views of the U.S. government.
Iran: an accurate opinion poll is not really possible, though an internal government poll in 2002 apparently found that "45.8% believe Washington's policy on Iran is "to some extent correct"."
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 9:37:20 PM
...Afghanistan poll's from 2005, Iraq poll's from 2006.
Posted by: Floyd | May 1, 2006 9:39:26 PM
Quoting from my own damn comment because Pmain just can't get it:
Jon is right about some of this. It is ok to support the policies of the government which you are not personally implementing. And, at its foundation, the chickenhawk insult is not about philosophical ideals or logical arguments. It is far too easy to label us liberals "hypocrites" if there was ever a time that we supported the use of US armed forces without at least trying to be one of the soldiers involved.
Hmmm. It's ok to support policies in which one is not personally involved. I guess it means that it's ok to not support them too. I don't have any idea where, Pmain, you see me saying that only people who have served in uniform should have their opinions heard.
My comment was about a philosophical/logical chickenhawk discussion versus what this is really about, which is the insufferable self-righteousness and chest-thumping of certain members of the blogging community. That's it. I don't know whose post you read when you thought it was mine, but dude, leave me alone. Sheesh.
Posted by: Stephen | May 1, 2006 9:50:38 PM
Thanks for the research Floyd. I'd posit that it's neither as rosy as you claimed or as dire as I thought, (though to truly get a feeling, we'd need to compare over time. And I don't think Rasmussen has their weighting algorhythm quite right for the 30+ Iraqi parties as yet...)
Posted by: Pooh | May 1, 2006 10:43:00 PM
The biggest problem with the "chickenhawk" meme is that conservatives and liberals alike frame it in terms of pro-war pundits and pols over-valuing their own lives - that is, we talk as if hawk bloggers and Dick Cheney (e.g.) think the Iraq War is a Truly Important Cause, but are just too scared to go fight it. If courage is the willingness to risk what's necessary for a worthy cause, these guys are "chicken" because they believe Iraq is important and yet they won't go fight (or didn't go fight w/r/t Cheney and 'Nam) when they're needed.
I think the real problem, though, is not that these pro-war pundits overvalue their own lives, but rather that they undervalue the lives of the troops. They always knew, deep down, that this Iraq thing is a bit of a stretch in terms of national security, but they just can't resist the righteous urge to kick ass by proxy. The idea is not that there is some important thing that needs doing but the chickenhawks are too pansy to do it, but rather that what we're doing isn't really worth it, and they KNOW it, and that's why they don't/didn't sign up. But because of class/race bias mixed with hubris and a general failure of empathy, they are not able to properly understand the weight of what they are doing in terms of human life and tragedy. Think of Bush and "Bring 'em on," "Watch this drive," "The haves and the have-mores" etc. etc. etc.
Neil hit this theme on the head in his original post:
Personally, I think it works better the other way around -- "If you're not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it's such a great idea?" Deep inside, all of us know what a shitty deal going off to fight in a war is. This isn't cowardice, it's knowledge. It's why we should be reluctant to send people off to war, why we should praise careful leaders who hold casualties to a minimum, and why we are so unwilling to sign up for military duty ourselves. Most war supporters have this knowledge -- it's why they don't go. My concern is that they don't apply their gut-level knowledge of the price of war when they decide to send others.
Those are the last few sentences of the post, the moral of the story as far as I can tell, and the folks at QandO all missed the point. Perhaps because it is a much more damning indictment - they aren't cowards because they support the war but won't sign up; they're heartless oligarchs who don't care about the troops.
This was originally going to be posted over there, but my IP address is banned thanks to some inconvenient posts w/r/t the Danish cartoon riots back in the day.
Posted by: YMSP82 | May 2, 2006 5:27:34 PM
Neil: If you think something is a sufficiently significant goal that it's worth risking other people's lives for, but not your own life, you should give some reason why you're different.
Come on. You've noticed that we don't have the draft, right? People join the Army of their own free will. And guess what: An army has but one overriding purpose -- to be available to fight a war at the behest of democratically elected officials. Soldiers know that when they sign up for the Army (or other branches).
So it's rather misleading to set up the question as one of "risking" other people's lives vs. risking my own life. You might as well say, "Why do you expect the police to risk gunfire in capturing those bank robbers, when you aren't willing to do it yourself?" Well, because it's their damn job, for one thing. There is absolutely no reason why I should be personally required to go around doing every dangerous or nasty job that other people signed up to do (police work, putting out house fires, collecting garbage, etc., etc.). And yet, somehow, I believe that I have a right to expect policemen to catch criminals, firemen to put out fires, and soldiers to fight wars. Why am I wrong?
Posted by: Thurmond | May 3, 2006 1:20:30 PM
Because only in the last case do elite supporters of the war expect poor people to make sacrifices that (we suggest) the elite wouldn't make themselves, if called upon to do so. In the other cases, I think decent people would step up if they had to. That is, if there were a really bad fire or some really important law enforcement action that required volunteers, people would try to help if they thought they could (keeping in mind that bumbling laymen are not always helpful). But the idea of pulling together and sharing a sacrifice to acheive a national goal is just alien to this administration.
Nevertheless, many people have signed up to fight these wars, believing that they ought to put something on the line. But the elite have not, and would not, because (we suspect) they don't honestly believe this war is worth their lives. And if they took that fact seriously, and cared (as I suspect Bush, Cheney, and many of their cronies do not) about the poor kids who put their destinies in our hands, as much as they care about themselves, they would not support sending those kids to war, for the same reason that they would not volunteer: it's not worth it.
This is a species of the larger divide between conservatives and liberals, by the way. Conservatives see the arbitrary differences and accidents of history that lead some people into the ghetto and others (haplessly) into the White House as real markers of individual merit and the resulting distribution of privilege and burden as the just outcome of a series of unconstrained choices, equally open to everyone on the market, which lead us to the places we deserve to be. If I find myself running my dad's oil company while a kid born on the same day but in a different hospital finds himself on the front lines in Vietnam (or as a cop, or a firefighter, or whatever), well that's just the natural (and good) outcome of our personal choices. There's a division of labor, and some of us are firefighters, some are soldiers, and some of us fight our wars from the comfort of our home offices, in our pajamas. That's not just the way it is - it's the way it should be.
Liberals, on the other hand, refuse to fool ourselves into thinking that it's morally right and good that the rich and the comfortable send the poor and the afflicted off to die.
Posted by: YMSP82 | May 6, 2006 9:07:40 AM
To everyone who's equating being in the military with being a cop, or a firefighter, or being just one unconstrained career/economic choice among many, stop. Now.
Cops and firefighters are close analogies, to be sure, because they risk their lives. They are not mandated to do so, however; they can walk away at any time. Wake up one morning and decide you don't want to be a cop? Quit. They might suffer financial penalties, but they haven't exchanged their essential economic freedom to switch careers. No one stop-losses them. No police department can make a cop serve out a six-year contract. No fire department can bring federal charges against a guy who chooses not to come in one morning; that guy hasn't committed a federal crime just by failing to show up.
The military is the only profession that has the famous clause of unlimited liability, i.e. that the state can order you to die (cops and firefighters die in the line of duty, of course, but no one orders them on suicide missions. The military potentially has the authority to order someone to perform a task that will likely lead to his death. Big difference. Wrap your minds around it.). The military model of years past was also pretty much alone in "choice of work" where the state could take someone's liberty away by forcing them into service (conscription) in order to defend the state.
Expecting soldiers to go fight wars the way firefighters fight fires and cops fight crime is an okay analogy on one level, but it smacks of reducing the military of a democratic republic into a mercenary force. "They made an economic decision" and "they knew what they were getting into" might, on one level, be true, but part of the bargain is that the democracy will use all due diligence to make sure the military is only used most reluctantly, and that the volunteers are truly "defending their country" or its vital national interests as determined by the people's representatives, because after they initially volunteer, service members give up the right to opt out or take a pass. That's the implicit bargain (whether it holds true in any given war is another argument).
Our post-Vietnam military is a marvel of precision over mass, but it has obviated what was a common assumption for nearly our first two hundred years: that if the country needed to fight a Big War, the citizens would mobilize in mass. The Revolution was fought by citizen-soldiers on our side (and Hessian mercs on the other). Ditto the Civil War, WWI, WWII and Korea. Vietnam saw the draft twisted out of it egalitarian, democratic model, and the elites drifted away from military service. In WWII, the four Roosevelt sons served in uniform, as did Sen Kennedy's boys. The current disconnect of our elites from military service is one aspect of the chickenhawk argument.
But the information technology revolution changed our paradigm, and we've substituted (rightly) intelligence-drive precision and speed for the old stand-by of mass. We're never going to need another mass mobilization of bodies in uniform, like we did in WWII, so for everyone who's saying, "oh, well, of COURSE if there was a draft, I'd serve," stuff it. The quality of recruit is going down in order for the Army to meet its quotas. If you believe this is a war worth fighting , you have to consider whether you're shouldering your burden, or, if you're too old or disqualified, whether you're willing to impress upon your children, your nephews and nieces, your next-door-neighbors' kids, your son's private school classmates, whoever, the responsibility and obligation of military service in a democracy. If your argument is that, but, but, they have enough soldiers! they're meeting recruiting quotas! they don't need me or my kid!, believe me, recruiters would much rather replace the bottom 10-20% of their current recruiting crop with your motivated, intelligent, articulate, honor roll college-bound sons and daughters.
IOW, the military is NOT JUST ANOTHER JOB. No, you don't have to participate in every type of dangerous work in order to comment on it, and you will always hae the right to comment on national policy, but serving in the military is NOT strictly an economic transaction, and unless you want to hire Blackwater and KBR to fight all our wars, stop making that argument. Written into our national DNA is the idea that if our country needs them, the citizens will step forward to give up their freedom (temporarily), put on uniforms, and do what is necessary. It's only in the last 30 years that technology has changed warfare so that's not our common cultural assumption anymore, but that doesn't mean we've arrived at the point where you all can treat the military as just another economic choice in your libertarian world views. Uh uh.
Posted by: Respectful Dissent | May 7, 2006 2:31:54 PM
