In case you missed it, Jonah Goldberg has been debating the asshat Juan Cole starting with Goldberg mocking a statement by Cole that the election in Iran were much more democratic than those in Iraq. Cole broke it down into a bunch of ad hominem attacks (history of the debate here), especially the non-sequitur of Goldberg being a “chickenhawk.” From checking on lefty blogs, it turned into open season on harassing Goldberg (meaning my harassment goes unnoticed), so I wrote him my opinion on the whole chickenhawk issue. Goldberg seemed to appreciate it, and, since I don’t think I’ve covered the issue here, I’ll reprint most of what I wrote:
SUBJECT: Why a young warblogger like me isn’t in Iraq
’cause I don’t wanna go.
I’m 25, I don’t have a family of my own, but I have a job here and I do a lot of good work through it (the contribution of my blogging is debatable, but I get e-mails from troops who appreciate it). If were to quit my job to sign up for the military, it would only be a symbolic gesture because my actual contribution through fighting would most likely be negligible.
My brother, on the other hand, as always been drawn to the military and signed up with the Marine a long time ago hoping for a conflict (you don’t join the Marines to not kill people). He’s finally heading to Iraq in March.
Now, if there were a call for people to sign up because of a lack of troops, that would be different (family tradition dictates dodging the draft by signing up), but this isn’t WWII.
My suggestion to you is tell anyone who isn’t an actively serving troop doesn’t have the right to call you a chickenhawk… going by the logic of those who call people chickenhawks.
Whether you like my argument or not, I think being a “chickenhawk” is better than being a muckadoo.
I agree with you. The reason we have an all-volunteer force is so that the people in the military WANT to be in the military.
Exactly. It’s like saying, as John Hawkins put it over on RWN:
“Oh, well if you’re not willing to charge into a burning building to try to put out a fire, then you shouldn’t expect a fireman to do it. Same goes for cops. How can you ask a policeman to risk his life enforcing the law if you’re not willing to grab a shotgun, kick in the door of a crackhouse, and start making citizens arrests?”
Oh, and by the way, first! (well, first and second actually)
I’m glad there are men who enjoy killing bad guys. And this war in Iraq gives them an outlet so that makes me glad too.
I think you should start a kill-a-thon Frank. For every terrorist Joe Foo’ kills, we all give a set amount to a great charity (no, not the Frank J. charity!).
I just look at like this: when a muckadoo calls us young right-wingers hypocrites for not enlisting and being in Iraq, hit them back. Prime examples…
You believe in abortion, don’t you? But you’re not performing abortions! Hypocrite!
You like homosexuality is all right, don’t you? But you’re not gay! Hypocrite!
Ahh, good times.
-The Half-Elven Commie Slayer
GAAA! You’re only 25? I’m going to be 25 in March, and I’ve done NOTHING with my life! I was hoping you were 28, at least!
BTW, you’re funny.
I am in the military and frankly, I don’t care if you support the war even if you haven’t signed up. It’s not about your willingness to do anything- it is about the logic and reason of your argument; something lefties don’t really seem to get. They rely on emotion far more than reason and therefore an argument like the one they are putting forth makes sense. To those of us who look at the reason behind an argument as opposed to the emotion, we see a different way. In fact, I am damn glad that there are people out there who are reasoning this out on the civilian side. People need to know why we are fighting, and the military needs guidance from it’s civilian leaders as well, which take their guidance frequently from you, the voter.
That is a great argument. I did my time and by the time this war came around I had already settled into my civialian life quite confortably. That is not to say that I have not thought of RE-UPING, and I would in a heartbeat if I felt that it was absolutly vital that the Army needed by skills.
The Western Version is:
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
The Mideastern Version is:
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.
One leads to lots of attempts to appeasement.
The other leads to paranoia.
And people wonder why it keeps seeming like we’re trying to please a rabid badger.
I was leaving the inauguration parade and a protestor was ranting and raving about our support for the war on terror. He said, “If you like this war so much why aren’t you over there fighting?”
I responded, “because I am not in the military.”
The left is a passionate, yet stupid bunch.
Don’t count on an Idiotarian to understand what a FALSE DICHOTOMY is. Some people fight the War on Terror by enlisting in the military – others do their part by hewing down muckadoos with the pen – from my point of view, it doesn’t matter how you fight the good fight, as long as you are performing according to your capacity.
For Cole, I always want to point out:
To them, nobody but a soldier can support the war… because the soldier has been there, yadda, yadda
But at the same time, Cole is always pointing out that his studies of islam make him qualified to have an opinion on islam and the mideast…
So, if I apply his logic as he applies it to Goldberg, then…
COLE! You are not an arab. You are not a muslim. Therefore, you cannot have a pro-islam opinion.
If someone on the left doesn’t support the war, but refuses to get an AK-47 and join the terrorists can we call him a “chicken-jihadi”?
Or you can look them in the eye and say, “I can kill far more people with my tax dollars than I can with my bare hands.”
I don’t think anyone who enjoys moonlight would let Frank anywhere near powerful explosions.
During Desert Storm my dad sat at the kitchen table and called me every expletive and demanded that I join. My mom and dad (Vietnam) were in the military. Both grandfathers fought in wars. I told him something similar to what you just posted Frank. There were plenty of guys signing up to be Rambo and I did not feel called to go kill just then. I was fine pounding on someone with my fist and feet but for some reason I did not feel the immediate call. I told him look if there is a draft or even if they are saying we need you I will join but otherwise I will enjoy the freedom which I do not take for granted which my family has been spilling blood for here in America for over 360 years thank you very much.
My nephew is going in next week Army Rangers. I have a whole lot of respect for him. I know someday my son might feel called into the military. It is part of the heart God gave to men. It is good we are not in so much of a war that we can have a choice.
“Family Tradition dictates dodging the draft by signing up”
Same here. Spend 25 (or in my case, around 19)years living off America, the least we can do is fight for her when she demands it.
The chickenhawk argument is just a method of attempting to create a quorum that shares your opinion by creating rules about who’s allowed to have an opinion. Here’s how it works: 150,000 or so of the US’ soldiers are in Iraq right now. Because only they are allowed to support the war – if you support it without being there, you’re a “chickenhawk” – that means only 150,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, or one tenth of a percent of the population of the country, legitimately supports the war.
The most hilarious uses of this kind of reasoning come when people attempt to restrict those eligible to have opinions without really knowing what their position is. For instance, in some arguments against having opinions against abortion, the redefined eligible-to-have-on-opinion crowd consists of females only. However, females are slightly more pro-life than men.
Straight up, Frank. If the call were to go out for soldiers, I’ll be the first in line.
But until then, I intend to create the wealth we use to blow up terrorists and to fight the war of ideas (which is a much tighter affair than the war on half-trained mad-eyed idiots.)
I mean, if you got just a few people to vote against Kerry, you’ve done a major service to the war effort.
I think the reason the left loves to throw out the “chickenhawk” tag is the earlier connotation with men who would procur young boys for other men to have sex with. It may give them a false sense of equivalence.
Two reasons why the chickenhawk argument is really lame:
First, it’s most often used hypocritically be people who HAVE supported other wars despite never having served in the military themselves (or who DO support violence against criminals despite not themselves wishing to become policemen). These people would never agree to the logical corrolary of their argument, that the military themselves should be the sole determiners of whether or not military intervention is ever needed, but they use the ad hominem chickenhawk slur anyway as an attempt to close off debate with their opponents.
Secondly, the people who DO use ‘chickenhawk’ consistently are dumb pacifists of the kind who pretend that being ‘against violence’ doesn’t also mean being ‘against stopping violent people’. These types take advantage of the fact that ‘chickenhawks’ aren’t personally willing to do everything they advocate whereas the pacifist DOES precisely what he advocates, i.e. nothing. Now there’s a concurrence of ideas and (in)actions to be proud of!
“The Mideastern Version is:
The friend of my enemy is my enemy.”
I thought it was, “Then friend of my enemy is also a filthy infidel JOOOOOO! I will send my nephew to blow him up!”
Scott, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there. If the only people who can have legitimate views on whether or not a country should go to war are those serving in the military, then foreign policy should be run by generals. Worked well in Argentina…
Never seen this argument presented and anwered better.
Never seen this argument presented and anwered better.
i dont know if it was stated already, but by this logic, it seems to me that no one can have an opinion about anything unless they are directly involved. so, all these moonbats opinions and arguments against the war are nullified by their own statement.
Hey, not everyone who’s against the war thinks it’s sensible to label pro-war folks as “chickenhawks.” I don’t think invading Iraq was a remotely good or justified idea, but I’m not going to start slinging names around.
Hope I don’t confound too many prejudices about those on the “idiot left.” 🙂