The Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum weighs in on the recurring chickenhawk issue. So, from a different angle, does Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings. The issue of whether those who cut and ran can say we should stay and fight isn’t completely cut and dried, and Hilzoy is quite correct to lampoon Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen’s obtuse navel-gazing. But Drum makes some essential points.

Those who have served in the military have a valuable perspective and should be listened to. But it is nonsense to say that only they should be listened to. For one thing, the Founders went to some lengths to ensure that in the United States the final authority over the military would be civilian. For another, to suggest that only veterans can weigh in on military matters is akin to saying only policemen can weigh in on questions of law enforcement. Just as everyone in a community has a stake in the maintenance of law enforcement, everyone in a nation has a stake in the maintenance of national security.

(What’s more, those flinging the Chickenhawk ad hominem usually are trying to undercut the moral authority of advocates of military force, and thereby implicitly undercut the case for using military power. But they overlook the fact that veterans tend to be more hawkish than average, not less—so the Chickenhawk argument, to the extent that it works, only reinforces the case for military aggression.)

Of course, it is entirely true that someone who dodged the draft in Vietnam, but who now advocates sending other young men off to die, looks like a cowardly excresence. From that, however, it does not follow that anyone who advocates military intervention should volunteer to ship off to (say) Iraq, any more than it follows that anyone who advocates increasing the police force must volunteer to walk a beat. Nor does one person’s service offer any insight into the question as to whether military intervention (or police intervention, to continue the analogy) is necessary. Even the Devil can quote Scripture—and the fact that the Devil does so doesn’t render Scripture wrong. In the end, arguments always stand or fall on their own merits.

Since it is obvious that the American public will not stand still for an all out asault on Iraq, it’s time to practice a little isolationism. Cut and run, phased withdrawal, put it anyway you like, beating a dead horse has never accomplished anything. Cut our losses from a losing situation and tend to our own security, ( ports, nuclear plants, ect) makes more sense to me.

Policy? The correct policy is total war or no war. I understand Bush’s intent when he went to war and I believe it was noble, albeit simplistic. He underestimated the religious fanaticism that governs muslim society and he was clueless to the devious nature of our “allies”.

The only way to win in such a situation is by completely crushing the enemies will to resist. We knew this when we destroyed Germany. We knew it when we beat Japan, Kamakazies and all, into submission. Even fanatical devotion to death cultism has it’s breaking point.

Remember, the Union Army was checked consistently as long as they continued to fight a gentlemans war. It took Sherman cutting a 60 mile swath of devastation across Georgia to make the South question it’s devotion to the cause.

Sadly, very few of our leaders are willing to risk getting the global pr cooties. Defending western civilization is one thing but, getting bad press…thats unbearable. So we will fiddle around and let the problem fester until someone else, most likely ourchildren, will inherit the fruits of our cowardice. It’s the baby boomer way.

Ok…ok…I think I see now why some people ‘cannot speak’ in regard to the war. Many post-contributors (not just here, but elsewhere also) question the war policy not on logical or tactical grounds—but rather because Bush is a lyin’, cheatin’ disciple of Lucifer. Some even mention the man’s daughters.

By this logic we should yell in protest when Bush helps a little old lady across the street.

I posted my reasons for opposing this war, the best I could. I would love to read others’ rationale, provided it has to do with policy itself—NOT Bush’s personality.

Bush lies when he says he will listen to advice from the generals- he only listens to advice he wants to hear.

The Green Party, which was the only political party against the war in Iraq from the start, has been calling for impeachment for a while now.

Chickenhawks be damned.

Outstanding post, Bart.

None of our great war time presidents had any military service. Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt..all were non military. Lincoln may have spent a few weeks in the Illinois militia, but nothing significant.

On the other hand, I HAVE been in the military. Does that make my view uncontestable? Trust me, you don’t want that.

It’s just another version of the same old emotional manipulation used so often by politicians and journalists. White people have no athority to discuss “black” issues, christians have no authority to discuss muslim or jewish issues ect, ect…This is what passes for debate when you allow schriveled up ol’ hippies and pathetic PC groupies to run our cultural institutions. I guess we have to put them somewhere, and Wal Mart already has enough greeters.

So, instead of rational debate, we get one side betting on a disabled vet, so the other side see’s the bet and raises an actor with Parkinsens. The point is to delegitimize opposition and win power. Discussing the issue never crosses their mind

I think most Americans would have been happy if we had overwhelmingly invaded and occupied, rather than scraped along as we have, expecting a conpatibility with democracy to develop in a land where the average person is going to obey their local Iman, rather than their government if there is a conflict. We expected too much.

  It doesn’t seem odd to us that our Gov. Kaine, despite strong feelings against the death penalty due to his religious beliefs, has commuted only one that I know of and that was because of new evidence, I think. He will not go against the law or the will of the people for his church.

  Their religion will always come before any legimate government when there are choices to be made. It appears to be an unquestioning obedience. How do you ever change that? They are destined for an eventual theoracy, regardless of what we do.

Margie, I was reading your post. You’re absolutley right—no justification for opinion is necessary. But unlike you I do feel the need to justify my opposition to this war, simply because my reasons seem to be out of phase with others opposing.

I disagree with this war for the same reason I did in the beginning: This ludicrous goal of “stablizing” and “rebuilding” Iraq. Its a very expensive waste of time.

Iraq wants the American Way about as much as George Bush wants to go to a Rap concert. I think the day-by-day results show this even more.

As far as dealing with terrorists—Ronald Reagan would have known how to quiet ‘em. Notice that we’ve had no problem with Lybia since April 1986.

I’ve been opposed to this war because of the Bush administration’s piecemeal approach, quite frankly.

As long as our military is voluntary, who decides to go and who does’t is irrelevant. Knowing what we’re talking about is not a requirement for expressing an opinion, thank goodness, or most of us would have to stay silent. I was in favor of the war and no longer am. I don’t even have to justify that. Do we have the greatest country in the world, or what?

“ veterans tend to be more hawkish than average”

So what does it tell you that so many veterans of Vietnam opposed this war before it ever started?

What does it tell you that so many of our military men and women who—according to you theory should be more hawkish—now oppose this war as pointless and unwinnable?

Post Your Comments: