Great point, Jay. As a Vietnam era Marine, I have strong opinions on war-fighting. But, I recognize that non-military persons sure have strong military opinions also. Along the same line, I have absolutely no education nor experience in psychoanalyses, but I believe I can spot the kooks and nuts among us and believe the peace-at-any-price idiots fit that category to a T.

"... the theory behind the "chickenhawk" argument is "I have experience and credibility, so take my word for what I say, because I am an authority"

I disagree, the crux of the chickenhawk argument is 'only those who have sacrificed have earned the right to ask others to sacrifice". It's not 'I'm the expert', as those making the argument haven't served themselves, they're simply attempting to shut up those who disagree with them (an exception is McCain's use of his having been tortured to condemn those who are more favorable to 'enhanced interrogation techniques').

To an extent, that argument makes sense. For example, I resent people who don't pay taxes calling for those who pay taxes to pay even higher taxes, I wouldn't be surprised if parents who send their kids to public schools resent the intrusions of politicians who send their kids to private schools, and people living in high crime areas don't think much of the anti-gun folks who live in lily-white gated and privately patrolled communities.

Of course, those yelling chickenhawk don't keep from offering their own opinions in situations where they haven't done the equivalent of having 'served'. The ACLU has no problem imposing rules on policemen and Democrats in Congress have no problem making laws that affect business even though neither has likely ever been a cop or worked in the private sector.

But none of this matters, as democracy provides that everybody gets to have an opinion on anything, whether or not they've 'walked the walk'.

Of course, those who make the "chickenhawk" argument do not wish to carry it to its logical conclusion: that only combat veterans should have a say in the question of going to war. They wish only to deny those who have not served the "right" to advocate war, but hold that non-vets may legitimately oppose war. Under this scenario, we could NEVER go to war, since only a tiny minority would be "entitled" to support that course under any circumstances.

It's an idiotic construct, advanced by idiots and accepted only by other idiots.

By the way, do you know what chickenhawks EAT?

;-)

Jay, I think you are too young to be a real chickenhawk. I thought that the chicken hawk argument and I may be making too sharp a picture was that 40 years ago, when the country desperately need every available able bodied young man to serve overeseas the young neo cons then, I think almost to a man, found a way avoid overseas service duty, even though they believed then and still believe that the Vietnm war was worth the heavy sacrifice of thousands of other young American lives..just not their lives. Now, I could understand some had family responsibilities or health reasons etc. but it seems that so many took that path that the question looms.

Furthermore, there is a tendency to label those advocate the use of force and war from afar as strong and courageous even when the time came they had 'other priorities' while those who don't want to rush their country to battle are considered 'weak' even if they have personally served the country in previous wars.

I think you misunderstand the point of the 'chickenhawk' and have ever since people started calling you the name.

Like your continuous arguments that Saddam had WMDs and that the war was a great idea, this one is rooted in the fact that you know your critics are, for the most part, right. That's why you are constantly having to re-defend yourself with the same tired arguments.

You have stated that you have a medical condition that prevents your from fighting. I believe you would be there on the front lines if that was not the case. However, I know plenty of military-eligible people who love fighting Iraqis and Saudis as much as you do but simply lack the courage to literally fight for these beliefs. They are very willing to have others fight for their freedom - for what they perceive as freedom - but no will of their own. And it's great asking them about it, because they simply cannot defend themselves. Recommended.

Wk:
Chcknhwk (ls chckn hwk nd chckn-hwk; smtms dsgntd ftr prsn's nm b [c.h.]) s pltcl ptht sd n th ntd Stts t crtcz pltcn, brcrt, r cmmnttr wh strngl spprts wr r thr mltr ctn, bt hs nvr prsnll bn n wr, spcll f tht prsn ctvl vdd mltr srvc whn f drft g.

Th trm s mnt t ndct tht th prsn n qstn s cwrdl r hpcrtcl fr prsnll vdng cmbt n th pst whl dvctng tht thrs g t wr n th prsnt. Gnrll, th mplctn s tht "chcknhwks" lck th xprnc, jdgmnt, r mrl stndng t mk dcsns bt gng t wr.

J, s slf dscrbd chcknhwk, whch f th bv ppls t ?

'tis better to be a chicken hawk than a chicken shit.

BarneyG, I'm a commentator who never served. I wouldn't say I "actively avoided" serving, because I never put any energy into NOT volunteering, but I'm a supporter of the war in Iraq (since before Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Regime Change act, in fact) who has never served and never will.

By the current definition, that makes me a chickenhawk.

Steve, jp2, my whole point is that my particular circumstances are IRRELEVANT when the discussion is whether or not the war in Iraq was right. If some argument is true, it is utterly irrelevant who makes it. To filter the truth through the personal attributes of the arguer is to do a grave disservice to the truth.

My standard answer is that I'm flattered that I am the focus of such attention when such hefty matters are on the table, but the truth is it's disgusting and dishonest. The whole point of making the argument is to attack and discredit the arguer, NOT to refute the argument. Those who push it are fraudulent assholes, and I'm tired of playing nice with them.

J.

...this one is rooted in the fact that you know your critics are, for the most part, right.

Um, no, in fact, it doesn't mean that at all. It only means that, as Jim A. noted above, when you fail to take the chickenhawk argument to its logical conclusion (as steve sturm articulated so well above): 'only those who have sacrificed have earned the right to ask others to sacrifice'.

Using a phrase like "chickenhawk" also amounts to so much pointless name-calling and a certain unwillingness to debate honestly and respectfully.

"arguments that Saddam had WMDs" - jp2

These people would say he had them ...

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kurdishhouse.org/images/halabja.JPG&imgrefurl=http://www.kurdishhouse.org/Eng/Eng_Halabja_Anfal.htm&h=279&w=420&sz=75&hl=en&start=6&sig2=X59zda9iPF1B4-fcNB86uQ&um=1&tbnid=NBODQOHNhMrTVM:&tbnh=83&tbnw=125&ei=dlO7R_eiBZe8iAGgzMCVCQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dhalabja%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

dj, you mean the ones Reagan supplied.

Jay
What is scary, the quantity of illiteracy
being exposed in todays threads.

RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON! RIGHT ON!

I've never been a blogger, but I have opinions on how bloggers express themselves--Jay, you are one of the best!

jp2,

Nice logical argument. Now I assume you will apply it to Clinton or Obama if they become President. Can a person (chickenhawk) with no moral authority to put anyone in harms way be viable as Commander in chief? If not, how can they be President?

jp2, if we follow the "chickenhawk" argument, then Bill Clinton should never have been president -- he, a draft dodger, ran against not one, but TWO war heroes.

And care to back up that "we supplied Saddam with WMDs" allegation? With, say, some facts?

J.

You ask others to go off to foreign lands to kill and be killed but refuse to go yourselves, well, you will be called to answer.

Okay, Chickenhawks?

Jay, there's a whole bunch of stuff here:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

Like this:
In a September 26, 2002, article entitled "Following Iraq's Bioweapons Trail," columnist Robert Novak wrote,

An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.

"Ask", Herman. We "ask". No one is forced to go as we have a 100% volunteer military.

Oh... I was "forward deployed" during Desert Storm. So I'm not a chickenhawk, right?

If someone wants to insist that only veterans have the vote... we can go with that. Kay?

A great book by Robert Mason about helicopter warfare during Vietnam....Named "Chickenhawk."

More on topic:

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/F/Y/bush_chickenhawk_hunk.jpg

Chickenhawk ought to go the other way as well, if it's valid at all.

Only those with military experience would be allowed to have *any* opinion on going to war. For OR against. Exclude the chicken hawks *and* the chickens.

Only vets can protest outside officer selection offices in Berkeley. Only vets can agitate for anti-recruitment in high schools.

They're the only ones who really know what enlisting means or what an officer commission means. They're the only ones who actually *know* what a young person will be getting him or herself into.

Yes... maybe the chickens should quit pretending they have an opinion about the military or military action that matters.

(In case it's unclear, I'm with Jay Tea on this one.)

"No one is forced to go as we have a 100% volunteer military." -- Synova

If you signed up for the military for education benefits and then Chimpy decides to go to war, what choice do you have? They're not going to let you out just because the commander-in-chief is an idiot, are they, Synova?

"Oh... I was 'forward deployed' during Desert Storm. So I'm not a chickenhawk, right?" -- Synova

Just how long ago was this "Desert Storm"? You're not fighting in YOUR war NOW, so therefore you're a chickenhawk.

"If someone wants to insist that only veterans have the vote... we can go with that." -- Synova

Yeah, I knew since 2000 you conservatives were interested in disenfranchising others, but didn't think one of you would openly admit it. I've never been in the military, and because I have better things to do with my time, I never will be in the military, and you're not ever stopping me from voting, conservative!

Get that? Got that? Good.

Oddly enough, Herman, the main people I recall being disenfranchised in 2000 were active-duty military, by the Gore campaign.

And anyone who enlists in the military without realizing that they might actually go to war has to be as dumb as... well, you.

J.

Herman,
Anyone that joins the military without the understanding that there could be a war, and that the military will be the ones to wage it, is an utter moron. Plain and simple.
When I signed the papers, the recruiters made it clear. They also made clear that police actions, like the then recent Gulf War could happen, and I could be sent to participate.
Going into service isn't going to summer camp. Getting college tuition is a reward for service and risk, not a right.

Get that? Got that? Good.

"Some folks inherit star-spangled eyes, they send you off to war"

Behold "The Fighting First Family":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5Fum62uyHE

They're really bravely doing a fine job in fighting "Islamofascism," right, conservatives?

Check out that particularly funky dude standing near Pierce Bush!

It's almost cute when an asshole like Herman self-destructs in a paroxysm of self-parody...

But I'm grateful he proved my point so thoroughly. Could he have possibly discredited his position any better?

J.

"Anyone that joins the military without the understanding that there could be a war, and that the military will be the ones to wage it, is an utter moron." -- SCSIwuzzy

The understanding, SCSIwuzzy, is

"Anyone that joins the military without the understanding that there could be a war, and that the military will be the ones to wage it, is an utter moron." -- SCSIwuzzy

The understanding between the prospective recruit and the military, SCSIwuzzy, is that WAR WILL ONLY BE WAGED AS A LAST RESORT!!!!. That precludes wars based on things such as phantom WMD, SCSIwuzzy.

"jp2, if we follow the "chickenhawk" argument, then Bill Clinton should never have been president" -JT

Did he support the Vietnam war? Did he think it was a necessary war and talk endlessly about how great it was?

If so, then yes, he is a chickenhawk. Are you starting to get it now?

If you are elected President you become the Commander of the armed forces. Doesn't that make you part of the armed forces and therefore, immediately eliminates you from chickenhawk consideration?

Jay, find anything yet?

Herman, you say you never served, so there's at least a modicum of an excuse for your ignorance.

Enlistment papers make NO SUCH PROMISES.

The enlistee is required to obey all lawful orders from their superiors, unconditionally. There is nothing about "only wars approved by Herman and his fellow nuts who have better things to do with their time than sign up to serve."

But if you wanna bring up pointless military interventions, care to tell me what vital national interests were served by Bill Clinton sending troops to Haiti, the Balkans, and getting a bunch of them massacred in Somalia?

J.

There is no agreement, implicit or otherwise, when enlisting that politicians and presidents will only go to war as a last resort (and shall I explain why that, itself, is an ignorant metric?) or that presidents will not waste your life stupidly or make bad decisions.

In fact, I'd say that anyone who thinks that a President and civilian leadership isn't liable to make poor decisions hasn't been paying attention to anything, ever.

Nor do you have any implicit promise that your CO won't be an incompetent, self-serving idiot who gets his or her people killed.

You join because the country needs a military and the (good) chance of idiot politicians being idiots doesn't change that fact. So you serve as best you can and support the mission and our country the best you can. And no one asks you (nor should they) if you approve of Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Bosnia, or the first or second Gulf Wars. It's not up to you.

And being told by someone who has never served what *I* should be upset about doesn't get very far with me. Or condescended to about my helplessness in decision making.

Guys in the military (and girls, too) tend to like to think of themselves as competent adults.

Code Pink can take their apron strings to someone who needs them.

If you are elected President you become the Commander of the armed forces. Doesn't that make you part of the armed forces and therefore, immediately eliminates you from chickenhawk consideration?

No, the whole idea of making the President Commander in chief is to have CIVILIAN control of the military.

jp2,

I don't think Bill Clinton supported the Vietnam war, but as President he did put our military in harms way a number of times. Now Bill wasn't the first President who never served in the military to send troops off to war, and the chickenhawk argument didn't seem to be prominent until Iraq, so I give him a pass.

Now what I want to know from you and others promoting the chickenhawk argument, is do you support H. Clinton or Obama being our next President given the potential that they may be called upon to put troops in harms way? Are you going to call them chickenhawks if they do put troops in harms way?

Assuming those promoting the chickenhawk argument are not hypocrites, and given the mood among conservatives to give the next Democrat President the same treatment Bush has gotten, it's unlikely H. Clinton or Obama would have any support to use the military to defend this nation. About all we'll be able to do is absorb the damage and downplay casualties by comparing them to the typical highway death toll. I can just see the headlines: "Casualties from last week's terrorist attacked we less then two weeks worth of roadkill on America's highways."

"do you support H. Clinton or Obama being our next President given the potential that they may be called upon to put troops in harms way?"

With little hesitancy I can predict that our military resources would be used as a last-resort-only by either of those candidates. I could very well be wrong, but that's military action I respect. But this is a silly line of thinking as...

GWB is a chickenhawk not because of his Iraq/Presidency policies, but because he supported the war in Vietnam wholeheartedly yet was too scared to serve. When it came down to it, he made sure he didn't have to go to Vietnam. (He checked the box himself) You can see how these poor traits of have come to full bloom during his disaster of a presidency. (Compare that with Kerry, who didn't agree with Vietnam, yet served. Black and white in terms of character)