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.

Bart points out, “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 …has a stake in the maintenance of national security.”

That’s a point most of us can relate to. I don’t why – but there must be a connection here – it reminds me of my dad leaning over Sears & Roebuck mechanics, telling them how they should fix his engine. Typically, the mechanic work would become agitated and halt his work, to glare at my dad with steamy-eyed anger.

Dad would simply say, “Yes, I can fix that myself, if I wanted to. But I’m paying YOU to do it!”  The mechanic’s anger would be justified, in my opinion, but my dad was also right in wanting a job well done.

I love it when left wing gomers try to be deep by reguritating the tiresome “Bush should send his daughters” mantra. I guess this is considered an intellectual argument by people who can’t take part in a serious debate for more than 4 seconds without calling someone a nazi. I remember the forth grade too. I just don’t live it every day.

So heres a deal…let Bush send his daughters, but, also, if a single American is killed because the NSA program and the financial monitoring program is ended by lefties, or a released thug from Gitmo kills again, or someone is murdered because a suicide nutball wasn’t profiled, then all the liberals responsible should be drug into the street and hanged. Sound fair? Let them put THEIR lives on the line. ...for a change.

Why don’t the Bush daughters volunteer for the military ? One of them ran in the Richmond Marathon ,their father could pardon them for being in drug rehab
and besides George made the decision for war.Why limit military folly to just the sons and daughters of the middle class and the poor. We should all share equally.

Post Your Comments: