The "Chickenhawk" Argument

:::dons flameproof underwear:::

I was thinking about this other day, after responding to a poll in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x707160

Frankly, I think it's a weak point for the following reasons:

1) It doesn't do anything to explain why we think the war is wrong.
Challenging a war supporter to join the military if he/she thinks the war is so hot doesn't further our objective of explaining the deficiencies of this war and this administration. It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Let's say you challenge someone to join the military because they like the war so much, and they do (as I'm sure some folks have). OK, what's been solved? What point has been made?

We should be able to engage all comers on this war without having to resort to what is essentially a bullying tactic.

2) Civilians can hold opinions about military operations
Who says you need to join the military and fight a war to be able to legitimately support it? You should be able to speak to the issues and the reasons for waging war to support it...it shouldn't matter if you wear a military uniform or not, right? Civilians can have just as much of a say (in support or opposition) of military policies as soldiers can have. Civilians have been able to express themselves very adeptly when it comes to issues of "don't ask, don't tell", the draft, training and doctrine, health care, recruiting and of course military spending.

3) Civilian control of the military was important to the founders
This is admittedly a lesser point, and relates to both above. But I think it's pretty clear that the founders did not intend for the military to function independently of the greatest power holders, the people. Hell, the President, who acts as Commander-in-Chief, is considered a civilian...and the greatest command and support powers arise from the offices which we the people determine the holders of. Over time, this principle of civilian control has become further entrenched.

Flame on....

I can't count the number of times that I heard some RW rant about Clinton's "Draft Dodging".

I wouldn't bring it just as an ad hominem attack - because I generally think Ad hominem attacks are best saved for people who really piss you off.

But as a response to "You Democrats are all cowards" well yeah, that's the right moment to mention it.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Not for logic, for gut it's great

....

.....

logic and facts prevail, you probably are correct. But in the brave new world where opinion and faith in Bush* are all that matter to the other side, you cannot have an argument based on truth. Under these circumstances, hitting them with the chickenhawk tactic is not only emotionally satisfying, it is the only way to point out their hypocrisy.

...you are at least partially uninformed.And even those of us who SERVED in wartime, but not in combat, tend to withold our comments in deference to those who ACTUALLY laid it on the line....Civillian control-yes-no US president,congressman,senator,or judge can be on active service....when you run the circus (literally) you are not expected to clean up behind the elephants (figuratively).But until you've worked out with the shovel and receptacle don't pretend to know shit...

Edited to add: Many GREAT politicians have been ex-military....the arguement has never been "you ain't military now-It's you ain't been military NEVER...."

...but none of that explains whatever benefit there might be to "put your money where your mouth is and enlist." I certainly won't argue with you that people who have served in combat, or even in the military without seeing combat at all, have a special, respectable point of view on things like that.

But what is challenging someone to serve in a war if they favor it so much going to prove? There's no guarantee they're going to come to the same conclusions we might even if they did go and see combat. Challenging them to "send their kids" is even more fallacious.

I would just like to see us pound the very legitimate, very factual reasons of why this war i wrong rather than play the "double dog dare you" game.

reserved for hypocrites. That is, it's very easy to drive around in a $70,000 SUV and be for a war when it's the poor whites, blacks and Latinos who fight it.

At my anti-war vigil, when I'm confronted by one of these pro-war yahoos of military draft age driving by in a $70,000 Hummer, I always say "Sign up or shut up."

But people tend to respond or "feel" on a more visceral level...in my family 6 of 8 uncles served in WW2/Korea/Vietnam.In my family 2 out of 3 boys...no long service tradition, no officer and a gentlemen bullshit-just we are at war-you go whether drafted or volunteered (there were some of both) and no one advanced beyond staff Sargent or flight officer candidate...in short,no "warrior tradition" nonsense,mere patriotism which we used to refer to as "good citizenship"...So when I read through lists of our current "civilian oversight" types I find it puke producing....how can the largest part of an entire administration that endorses pre-emptive war show virtually NO actual military experience AND claim legitimacy???In short,they are war whores,and most the sons of war whores as well...Let them show me that they and they're family has taken losses and then maybe I'll attach gravitas to their words...

In the months leading up to March 2003 I was called on at least three occasions a coward for my opposition to going to war in Iraq. One young lad said that I should "join the Army to prove my love of country." In each instance, those who loudly and obnoxiously challenged my patriotism and offered me employment advice had never served in the military I did 24 years in the Navy (one tour in a combat zone.) The chickenhawk angle is alive and viable to me. I am a big supporter of the environment. That's why I support (fiduciarily and manpower wise) the local arboretum. In other words I put my ass where my heart is. If your heart is in war and killing then get er done. I am in total agreement that one does not have to be in the military to voice opinions but what will happen in the not too distant future when our military melts down, comes to a screeching halt and there is no relief for our men and women on the front lines today? I'll tell you what will happen. Chickenhawks will be whining about how liberals encouraged terrorists to bring our military to a halt. Yeah, I think chickenhawk is a viable argument.

The chickenhawks seem callous about the human cost, and it is reasonable to think that those who served would not be. They (those who served) might support a war, but they would never take the sacrifices lightly. If chickenhawks are going to start throwing the word "coward" around, they'd better cough up some proof that they are brave patriots (are you listening, Jean Schmidt?).

Nuff said.:toast:

You are not going to change his mind, so why bother? No, just smack him upside the head with the "chickenhawk" theme and enjoy doing so.

Remember that you are doing a good thing when doing so, because most such persons are truly cowards, afraid of a world they cannot make like them. Fear is their daddy, and they tremble at the thought of physically engaging another person in any kind of real fight.

Look at Bush. That guy is afraid of his shadow. His personal fear drives all this idiocy.

it's the same state that has the highest bush approval rating.

http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_309144248.html

ya think there's a connection

The highest state in supporting Bush has the lowest enlistment rates????They say it is because the church sends them out on "missions" while they are that age???But recruiters say that they allow deferment for the "mission" and that a third of all Mormon recruits use that option???Then a church flack says maybe if they had statistics for volunteers over 24 they might be rated different???HORSESHIT-the poll is for ALL enlistees-a real measurement-of course if you measure only over 24 years of age it changes-for God's (non-polygamous) sake-most military enlistees have FINISHED their military commitment by 24!Utah-do me a favor-let your vanilla white-bread simple faced idiots either stay home or enlist young...I would thank you and my doorbell would thank you....I don't need a savior at my door but if you think Iraq is ok, then go and make it so...

The people who actually order our soldiers into combat should be experienced enough about the realities of war to make informed decisions. The chimp and most of his advisors never served or knew the realities of war. To them war is a game using our soldiers and the Iraqi people as pawns to achieve a political goal. War is suffering, death, and destruction, not an ideological chess match.

Having this chickenhawk as commander in chief allowed him to play out his macho fighter pilot fantasies, put on a flight suit, and play soldier for the naive and easily manipulated repugs.

Our troops are dying needlessly because of this ignorance. I strongly object to that and I question our current leader's personal courage and intelligence. He is not qualified to send our troops into harm's way.

and grates on all who want him portrayed as a great warrior president. Anyone who didn't serve and actively avoided that service but has war as his first choice (a long war with no end if be), wants to be known as a "war" president and wants opposition to that war of choice to be labeled unAmerican, deserves such a moniker.