My brief Chickenhawk debate with National Review's Warren Bell

It started with this post on Warren's blog:

Dear Soft Thinkers of the Left (Warren Bell)
I am going to save you some time. You no longer need to email me every time I take some position in favor of the War on Terror , the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, or in fact any pro-military stance. I now am completely and thoroughly informed that I am a chickenhawk, that it is "easy" to support a war when I don't have to put on a uniform and fight, and that I am a coward who would only sacrifice other people's loved ones. And to save you further time, I am going to expose myself even more. I am a hypocrite and chickenhawk in the War on Crime, as I continue to avoid donning a badge and a gun and busting down doors to catch bad guys, even though I support sending in real police to do the job. I am a complete coward in the War on Fire, because I have never put on a yellow slicker and an oxygen mask to go stand on the front line in the battle against a burning building. And that's while completely admitting that I would be great at squirting the big hose. Additionally, and this is a little painful, I am a loser, hypocrite, chickenhawk, and barely half a man in the War on Weeds. I tried digging them out of my yard, but found I didn't have what it takes, so now I sit in my comfy chair and watch while other people's loved ones put themselves at risk. I'm sorry.
Posted at 2:46 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQ0MDM5OWM0MTMwYjBkYjYyMGY4ZDdjMGE2MWFiMWY=

On 6/1/06, wtmusic wrote:

Warren,

Continue the metaphor of linking the War on Terror to the War on Fire, say, and you are not only asking firemen to risk their lives, but starting the fire as well. The war was a choice, and you support that choice.

That is what makes your argument a wholly irresponsible, morally deficient straw man. Nice try.

wtmusic

Warren Bell wrote:

I keep trying to point this out and no one gets it: my metaphor is not about policemen, firemen, gardeners, or even soldiers. My metaphor is about me. Or more accurately, any individual with an opinion on the war. There is no moral litmus test for supporting or, importantly, not supporting the war. The fact that I have never worn the uniform has no relationship whatsoever to my support of any dangerous activity, and no one has successfully demonstrated otherwise.

Thanks for writing. I will check out your website.

WB

On 6/1/06, wtmusic wrote:

Warren,

The young men and women we send overseas are not paid to die; they are paid to defend the US. There is a critical distinction here. Though they offer their lives in service to their country, not one would do so without the belief that the cause for which they are fighting is worthwhile.

By your actions you are saying that the cause is worth risking other people's lives for--but not your own. You are obviously an intelligent individual and I don't accept that you see no hint of hypocrisy in this position.

wtmusic

Warren Bell wrote:

Come on, wtmusic. I am not saying the cause is worth risking others' lives and not my own. That is not how society works, its not how a nation works, its not how any human endeavor works. I didn't sign up to be an astronaut, but I support the space program. This isn't that hard. Was Ben Franklin a chickenhawk, too? Was Lincoln or FDR?

You can question every single aspect of the decisions made by the Bush administration, but you can't question my right to support (or not support) them on the basis of my own personal situation. It's a rhetorical dodge, it's namecalling, and it's playground behavior.

WB

On 6/4/06, wtmusic wrote:

Here's how the human endeavor known as service to one's country works--one makes sacrifices when one is needed. And unlike astronauts, which there are plenty of--the military desperately needs soldiers right now.

Ben Franklin was 70 years old at the time of the Revolution; Lincoln did serve--as commander in chief; and FDR, if I recall, had polio. I have no doubt they would have been on the front lines of their respective conflicts, had they not been in their "situations".

What's your situation? Something along those lines?

wtmusic

Warren Bell wrote:

My situation is 43, good health, father of two, and I do not choose to serve in the military. And your profound confusion that military service is required for someone to support a war effort philosophically is clearly beyond any argument.

On 6/4/06, wtmusic wrote:

Service is never required for profoundly empty and hypocritical support.

Thus it ends and ever will, although Warren was nice enough to ramble on and prove there are no hidden logical surprises anywhere. Serving in the military is akin to being a plumber, and dammit...he supports good plumbing for everyone! :crazy:

Too bad it went over his head.

Chickenhawks sure have no shortage of excuses.

there isn't room in there for any rational thought.

You gave it a good go though wtmusic.

Why do people join a volunteer army? Mainly because they don't have a middle-upper class support systems to offer them an alternative. As our economy goes to hell, there will be more 'volunteers' and people like Warren can tell us how good these wars are from the comfort of his den.

Problem is bringing back a fair draft--one that will ensure Bell's kids get a chance to serve