Recycled Weapons

Everything old is new again; at least when it concerns rhetorical weapons used by the Left. The latest old-new weapon is the chickenhawk appellation, revived by the reported monthly shortfalls in Army recruiting (June was a success, however).

Many on the right have eloquently torched the silly chickenhawk concept. To believe in the logic that one must serve/have served in the military to legitimize his/her support for military action, one must also believe that, in order to support any endeavor, one has to be willing to do it himself.

Remember that logic the next time you’re eating anything that has to be picked or slaughtered.

Anyhow, here is some good commentary on the chickenhawk concept.

Blackfive:

I'm getting real tired of the whole "Chickenhawk" theme running through the left blogosphere. It's use by the left is to attempt to silence debate - i.e. you can't be for the War on Terror unless you or your children are enlisting in the war. Being a Soldier does not make my opinion about the war more valid than anyone else's opinion - even if they never served in the military, let alone combat.

Jeff Goldstein:

But what is unreasonable—and what is at the heart of the chickenhawk argument—is the suggestion that there is only a single way to “sacrifice” and “advocate”—namely, by picking up a rifle. Which is like saying the only way to fight homelessness is to let a few vagrants camp out in your rumpus room. Otherwise, you’re nothing more than a ChickenANTI-HOMELESSNESShawk.

Marc Danziger (Armed Liberal):

Think of it in terms of a 'community of interest groups,' rather than 'a community' and find the parallel arguments:
• No one who could be and isn't serving should speak out on Iraq;
• No one except women of child-bearing age should speak out on abortion;
• No one who isn't poor should speak out on welfare;
• No one who isn't in school should speak out on education;
• No one who isn't (I can't decide on this one between 'a criminal' and 'a victim of crime') should speak out on criminal justice.

Of course we know what the firing-up of the chickenhawk M-16 really is about: an attempt to shame war supporters into shutting up. It’s a weak attempt, but you have to admire the tenaciousness, no?

That other old weapon is far more dangerous: the calls for re-institution of the draft. As we know, last year the congressional Democrats drew up draft legislation and the Republicans shot it down like the rabid dog that it was. The reported Army recruiting shortfalls in recruiting have some anti-war types talking about it again, however.

It seems strange that some on the Left want to talk about the draft as an antidote to recruiting woes, doesn’t it? That is, until you realize that the re-institution of the draft would hasten the Vietnam narrative of the Iraq War that the anti-war Left so desperately wants to be true. The draft would make the victory two-pronged: both the military and civilians would hate the draft and be demoralized by it. So, the anti-war Left hopes that the results would flow there from: protests with more violence (as was so in the sixties and in the early seventies) and the dilution of military effectiveness (the result of having a large number of personnel who do not want to serve, but prefer it to going to Canada or to prison).

So when you hear calls of ‘chickenhawk’ or calls for the draft, recognize them for what they are: the brandishing of weapons aimed toward a singular target.

The anti-war Left wants America to lose.

Comments

[The Liberal Avenger]

Why do former and current military people on the right wear that on their sleeve, as if it makes them somehow better qualified to talk about the war?

[baldilocks]

Only one of the people quoted has been in the military.

Try again.

[Seattle Slough]

I don't get it. You don't want a draft. You don't think that war supporters should sign up. Then who fights? We do not have enough people over there. Those that are there have earned the right to come home. Many have been held there long past their obligation. Enlistment is down and falling. Who should fight this war?

You can't have your cake, and eat it too, and get it for free as well. You all wanted and continue to want a tax cut.

You quoted this: "But what is unreasonable ... is the suggestion that there is only a single way to “sacrifice” and “advocate”—namely, by picking up a rifle.

Um, how are the young republicans sacrificing? I hope you don't mean putting a tiny american flag on one's car.

If I say I support the homeless, I am implicitly supporting paying taxes to help the homeless. Thus, whether or not I am actually doing something, I am WILLING to do something.

What are you willing to sacrifice for this war?

[Brother Nikko]

Oh, BRILLIANT, sloth! Let's play out this embarrasingly feeble analogy to its logical end, shall we?

Um, if I say I support the military, I am implicitly supporting paying taxes to help the military. Thus, whether or not I am actually doing something, I am WILLING to do something.

Reductio ad absurdum much?

[baldilocks]

Slough:

Did the three million members of the all-volunteer US Armed Forces cease to exist?

Implicit in the word volunteer is 'free will.' That means that those who don't want to, don't have to.

No law-abiding citizen has to earn rights in this country. If they did, they would not be rights. They would be privileges.

Taxes:

One can pay taxes for other reasons than agreeing with everything for which they are used. Preventing imprisonment is an example.

I don't agree with everything on which my tax dollars are spent. But I still pay them.

BTW, What "young republicans" are you talking about? Is that some sort of buzz phrase? A good portion of the military are young and republican, so I don't get the premise of your question.

What are you willing to sacrifice for this war?

Are you asking me personally?

[Owlhawk]

If we were to accept the chickenhawk argument to its logical end we would ultimately have to scrap civilian oversight of the military. Only current or former members of the military would be allowed to run for the presidency. On second thought, that would not be enough. Only those with actual combat experience in a real bloody war should be allowed. How exactly would that make us a more paceful nation?

[Seattle Slough]

Are you asking me personally?

yes.

Owlhawk said:

"If we were to accept the chickenhawk argument to its logical end we would ultimately have to scrap civilian oversight of the military. Only current or former members of the military would be allowed to run for the presidency."

No. You are equating a stance on past actions with an ability to asses future ones. You should not be willing to send my son off to this war unless you are willing to send your own. This war. This time. Get it? Good.

As for our all-volunteer army: Are you a volunteer if you agree in writing to serve a three year commitment, then the President introduces a stop loss program and makes you stay an extra 15 or so years? Is that a volunteer in your book? Because in mine we call it a conscript. If you think the military is not stretched too thin, and that they don't need any more recruits, than great! I disagree. The generals disagree. Most soldiers disagree. But good for you. If it helps you sleep at night, go for it.

I say young republicans, because the army (especially at the entry level) is a young person's game. I certainly don't expect George W. Bush to sign up.

I expect his daughters to.

[DarkStar]

It bothers me when some of the people pushing for the war, had a previous chance and dodged it.

It bothers me when civilians don't head the words of the professional war fighters.

It bothers me when the media covers the carnage but not some success.

The entire rhetoric going on right now I find bothersome.

I support this country and the war fighters. But politicians lied to the population.

[DarkStar]

I have a question that really bothers me.

Chaney has contradicted what Bush has said concerning evidence against Hussein.

Limbaugh has presented evidence that supports the idea that Hussein was trying to get nuclear weapons. That would support what Chaney has said.

Why aren't Bush and Chaney on the same page?

[DaveP.]

If only military personnel could SUPPORT a war, than by logic only military personnel could OPPOSE a war and for the very same reason: only THEY would know which causii bellii would be acceptable for them to go to war and only THEY would know which wars were worth fighting OR OPPOSING.
If Liberal Avenger and Seattle Slough don't have discharge forms in their files, than they're flaming, flagrant hypocrites for opposing a war that they BY THEIR OWN REASONING don't have the moral right to oppose; and they're also hypocrites for opposing a war that the majority of servicemen and women actually involved SUPPORT (which can be surmised by the fact that almost three quarters of military absentee ballots form Iraq and Afghanistan were AGAINST the side that the aforementioned chickendoves supported).

Also, to extend Owlhawk's line of reasoning: If only servicemen/women could support an aggressive military policy, then BY LOGIC only serving-and ex- military could be elected to serve in the Huose or Senate or run for President because only THEY could make military or foreigh policy decisions. Unless Liberal Avenger immediately goes out to campaign to have (among others) Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy, Durbin, Clinton, Obama, Boxer, Feinstein and Feingold kicked out of office and replaced by (70% likely to be Republican) Servicemen... Well, I think I don't need to add any description, do you?

[Owlhawk]

Seattle Slough sez, "You should not be willing to send my son off to this war unless you are willing to send your own."

Ok I think that I get it. So only people who have children in military age should be eligible to national office, since they are the only ones that can pass your test. Weird.

[baldilocks]

You should not be willing to send my son off to this war unless you are willing to send your own.

Do you know what a military is for?

Do you know what volunteer means?

Do you know what the age limit is to volunteer for the military?

Where are you getting the idea that someone can *make* his/her adult offspring go into the military?

If someone is too stupid to understand that the purpose of any military is to fight wars, then he or she is likely too stupid to pass the enlistment tests anyway, Pablo Paredes notwithstanding.

[baldilocks]

I certainly don't expect George W. Bush to sign up.

I expect his daughters to.

Well take it up with his daughters! This isn't Saudi Arabia where grown women are chattel to the men in their family and must do what the men say or be stoned. Sheesh!

[cynical ex-hippie]

"The left wants America to lose."

Talk about recycling tired old arguments!

If every young Republican age 18-22 signed up for regular army (until the army said no we don't need any more recruits) the following would occur:

1) all the 30-something national guardsmen and reservists could go back to their families and not worry about stop-loss programs. They contribute more tax revenue than any college student anyway.

2) Generals could ask for more troops if they needed them, and have their request answered.

3) We (meaning you) would clean up Iraq, establish a shining democracy, and take lots of pictures of all the good news we are supposedly not hearing about. And be home in time for Christmas. And wouldn't we (meaning I) look foolish once that is accomplished?

It's not even a big committment. The army has a "Try One" program -- one year enlistment.

Now tell me how this is going to make America lose???

[cynical ex-hippie]

"This isn't Saudi Arabia where grown women are chattel to the men in their family and must do what the men say or be stoned. Sheesh!"

Saudia Arabia is your good friend and ally. Your president walks hand-in-hand through the bluebonnets with their top Islamo-fascist. If you think they are not supplying the insurgency, then I've got a bridge over the Tigris to sell you.

And you wonder why the left calls you hypocrites?

[baldilocks]

Not arguments, hippie, weapons.

And my particular rhetorical weapon of choice, while not a new one, has been demonstrated several times on this site by pointing to occurences. Being old doesn't dilute the truth of it; in either case.

[baldilocks]

And find a possessive pronoun and stick with it.

[baldilocks]

"This isn't Saudi Arabia where grown women are chattel to the men in their family and must do what the men say or be stoned. Sheesh!"

Saudia Arabia is your good friend and ally.

What does your answer have to do with whether Americans should be able to *make* their children join the military or not?

Do you know how to stick to a subject or a poss. pronoun?

[baldilocks]

Seattle Slough: I didn't see your answer about whether you were asking me personally until just now.

You should know that I spent 13 years in the USAF and 8 in the USAFR. I retired in 2003. I tried to get back in the USAFR last year but I have a bad back.

Does that answer your question?

[Seattle Slough]

Yes.

I am pleased to see that you tried to reenlist. Since you can't, would you at least agree to roll back the tax cuts so we can fully support the effort?

My point is not that only veterans can support a war. And it is not that Bush needs to force his kids to sign up. It is that, if you are going to push for a war. And if you are of an age where service is an option, you had better be willing to join up when things go South.

It is like urging your buddies into a brawl and then refusing to 'have their backs' when they start losing.

We are not "winning." We are nation building. Right now we can barely protect our own guys. Iraqis have less in services than pre war. We need to either go in there with overwhelming force and secure the place, then build back what we tore down and then some (sewage plants, power plants, schools, libraries, all of it) then hand it all over to the Iraqi people to protect or destroy as they see fit OR we need to admit that we can't get the job done and withdraw.

What we have now is not enough. Our military is over-stretched. We are less protected at home now than ever. We either need to buck up (i.e. pull a full-on Marshall Plan) or we need to admit that we aren't really a super power after all and limp our overworked and underpaid professional army back home so they can spend Christmas/Ramadan/Kwanzaa/Yule/Chanukah with their families.

Remember, that some of us didn't believe Dick Cheney when he said we'd be "greeted as liberators."

As Colin Powell warned, we broke it and now we are buying it. Buying means paying. It is time to pay up or admit that you made a terrible mistake.

[baldilocks]

Since you can't, would you at least agree to roll back the tax cuts so we can fully support the effort?

No. It has not been demonstrated that the war effort is in need of money, nor that the money going into the effort is shorting some other essential function of government.

The rest of your last comment shows how out of touch you are with why actual military people join the armed forces. (To paraphrase myself, if I had wanted to spend every holiday celebrating, I would have stayed here in "safety" of South Central LA or moved to New York and gotten a job in one of those tall office buildings that used to be there instead of joining the military.)

You ought to try reading the missives of the other milbloggers, blogs from actual soldiers, marines, etc. who are or have been stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let them tell you how they were greeted instead of repeating the unsupported talking points of the anti-war Left.

Let them tell you what's happening over there instead of being arrogant enough to believe that you know what's going on better than they do or that they're too naive to know that they're being lied to, but that you, the all-wise Seattle Slough--the lawyer--knows the real truth. (Yes, I read your comment in the other thread.)

The link is on the right sidebar of this blog. It has an F-15 on it. Let's see how brave you are.

[Seattle Slough]

I didn't realize I was speaking to someone who has the ability to speak on behalf of all our service men and women.

I am truly impressed.

When "two weekends a month and two weeks a year" turns into 3 tours in Iraq, I don't think you can

I have a different take on this because all the guys I know that are there or have returned were guardsmen. Not career military people. They feel betrayed. They did not sign up for a career in the military. They signed up in case we got invaded, and to fight forest fires, and for college money.

Not to nation-build in Iraq.

So that was a no on the tax cut rollback? Oh well. Those guys can make due with welding steel plates to their unarmored humvees. And who cares about health care for returning vets? Guardsmen get dumped in like 6 months. That's plenty of time to get a new job and work yourself off the probationary period right?

[torchy]

I don't believe the left is as interested in condemning the rights patriotism as it is in absolving itself of any. This new canard, the "military service litmus test" is just another poll tax against Americans united against a common enemy, a means to prove their right to exercise their political opinions. It's consistent with the lefts view of the all-volunteer military as a cynical form of afro-hispanic-redneck welfare. Their agenda is littered with veiled supremacist rhetoric. They sit on high in their scrubbed garments poking the conscirnce of us lowly. ignorant sinners. Prayer may be the last resort of fools but begging pardon is the only resort for criminals and cowards. The right prays for the best outcome of the war and the left prays not to be tarnished by it. The left is trying to excuse their cowardice and disloyalty by questioning the courage and loyalty of their political adversaries.

Ps There are people throughout the right-wing (and this blog especially) that are supporting the war effort in a myriad of ways besides joining the military. These people who can as easily lose their lives meeting those commitments though they will never see a battlefield. Perhaps Seattle should read the history of the Merchant Marines during WWII, as well as other seemingly minor activities that turned the tides of wars, for a little perspective on what it takes for a nation to mobilize for victory against a determined enemy

[Cindi]

"1) all the 30-something national guardsmen and reservists could go back to their families and not worry about stop-loss programs. They contribute more tax revenue than any college student anyway."

And we do not organize ourselves, and are resistant to Leftist efforts to force us to do so, according to how much tax revenue can be wrung out of us. We do not exist to pay taxes.

[Russ]

Oops. Sorry about the multiple trackbacks. Dang MT....

[cassandra]

It's ironic that the positions were sorta reversed when Clinton was running and his lefty defenders were saying military service should not be necessary for leadership...ok, guess he was qualified to lead but NOT to lead us to war? (Do the half-assed wars he led count?)

[cassandra]

It's ironic that the positions were sorta reversed when Clinton was running and his lefty defenders were saying military service should not be necessary for leadership...ok, guess he was qualified to lead but NOT to lead us to war? (Do the half-assed wars he led count?)

[Tully]

Of course the "If you're not serving or going to serve you can't have an opinion" thing really just means "Shut up." How do those spouting such nonsense reconcile that with the First Amendment? They don't. They just want everyone who disagrees with them to shut up.

"I do hereby acknowledge to have voluntarily enlisted this _ day of _ _ _ _, 19_, in the _ _ _ _ _ _ National Guard of the
State of _ _ _ _ _ _ for a period of _ _ year(s) under the conditions prescribed by law, unless sooner discharged by proper authority. I, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of the State of _ _ _ _ _ _ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to them; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of _ _ _ _ _ _ and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to law and regulations. So help me God."

I don't see anything in there about "but only to get some college money or maybe fight fires, not if I actually have to go soldier or anything."

[Robert]

I don't feel bad for these National Guarders. That's what they get for not having a Daddy in high places who can get them out of war.

Of course, they can always go AWOL. No big deal, the country won't hold it against them in 30 years.

[baldilocks]

Robert: This is for you.

The next time you want to spout BS on someone's blog, it would behoove you to know something about the blogger beforehand.

[teal marie]

Excuse me, Robert, the National Guardsmen I know are working extremely hard to protect this nation. One is gone from his family right now, training first responders in other American cities how to decontaminate chemical, biological and nuclear attacks. He is my friend and I am grateful for his sacrifice. You insult the people who protect you.
Your memes are flacid. Sorry.

[torchy]

You're right Robert, no need to feel bad for men and women who are doing the honorable thing by taking responsibiity for their commitments to their state and their nation (no matter why they initially enlisted or their current civilian obligations). Now a soldier can go AWOL out of weakness, as a desperate attempt to escape the horrors of war or can go AWOL out of craven rebellion. In the first case going AwOL may be mitigated but in the second case, though the soldier may escape the long arm of the law, they will never escape their own conscience or the judgement of their Maker for deserting their comrades and the civilized principle of a person being true to their oaths, regardless of the lies that swirl around them.

[StinKerr]

I did note with some admiration that it was Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Fritz Hollings (D-SC) who were the ones who introduced the draft legislation into their respective bodies and their cohorts then used this to claim that the Republicans were bringing back the draft.

My admiration was for them being able to having something both ways and not getting caught by their sycophants.

Of course, I suppose that's what sycophants are for. I do question the intelligence of the non sycophants who believed the lies without substantiating the claims.

Due to falling for a lie on one occasion, I check out all the claims any more.

The lie was told by a Dem Representative on C-SPAN. The claim was that Bush had cut the budget for the VA. I believed her and I was furious.

Upon further research though I found that the budget for the VA had reached record spending. It turns out that there was a cut in the increase of the VA budget but that it was increased not cut.

This partisan hack called it a cut in the budget. This went beyond spin into a full fledged lie as far as I was concerned and the lies are going to cost them heavily.

Look at the last election. Wait for the next election.