Actually "chickenhawk" attack has little to do with "sending your son", though I’m sure it’s been misused that way now. It has to do with (not) going yourself. This was first applied to Cheney and other "hawks" for their complete lack of service during Vietnam. Not only not volunteering, but actually getting draft deferments to avoid service. Then they turn around and put others in harms way, on incorrect intelligence no less.
|
| |
Written By:
Tito
URL:
http://
|
I disagree, Tito ... and pointed out by Hitchens, it started with Moore’s F 9/11 when he went around asking Congressmen if they were willing to send their child to fight in Iraq. It morphed from there into the attacks on Cheney, et. al. to where it is now used on supporters of the war who don’t want to ’send’ their children and/or aren’t serving.
They have difficulty extending the meme to those who’ve already served so they mostly avoid that. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
The talking point has changed to be "You’re a chicken hawk if you favor military use but are not in the military, unless your opinion is against use." It’s all about reducing the set of people who have "valid" opinions that should be listened to.
This makes no sense. The only logical and fair way to handle this would be: 1) Everyone gets an opinion and they all count. (Today’s system.) 2) Only those who would be placed at risk get an opinion.
I don’t know any sane person who would want #2. |
| |
Written By:
Ryan
URL:
http://
|
I don’t know any sane person who would want #2.
That’s kind of the point of saying to the people using the argument, ’drop it’, because it really has no validity.
It’s a bit like saying FDR shouldn’t have prosecuted WWII because he had never served in the military and was ’defered’ by his polio. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
It’s a bit like saying FDR shouldn’t have prosecuted WWII because he had never served in the military and was ’defered’ by his polio.
Wrong. It’s more like saying "put your money where you mouth is", or "actions speak louder than words". It’s called having the courage of your convictions, Pat Tillman style.
This one is so obvious it’s not going away with stupid comparisons to Roosevelt or firemen. Those college Republicans should be marching down to the recruiting office. If not, they should shut-the-fuck-up. They have zero moral standing when they argue in favor of war but aren’t willing to put their own ass on the line. |
| |
Written By:
Pug
URL:
http://
|
|
What it comes down to, at its core, is a rejection of the idea of civilian control of the military. Which is, in reality, about as dangerous an idea as you can come up with, so I would expect nothing less from the left side of the aisle. |
| |
Written By:
Phelps
URL:
http://www.donotremove.net
|
They have zero moral standing when they argue in favor of war but aren’t willing to put their own ass on the line.
Just as those who oppose the war have zero moral standing unless they’re willing to place themselves in front of our troops and act as human shields in Iraq, huh?
I mean, stop the war, guys ... get out there and actually DO it.
Same principle, but you won’t see that happening anytime soon.
In reality, the meme is exactly what I pointed too previously. It’s an attempt by the left in this country to stifle debate. And it’s a contemptable attempt. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
|
Quite aside from any considerations of an obligation of civilians to join the military, the argument itself is pure ad hominem—a logical fallacy. The arguments for and against the war should stand on their own; the moral character of the supporters and opponents of the Iraq war are irrelevant. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Jeebus, Pug - you’ve nailed the cliche right on the head, haven’t you?
I hope that you don’t ever call 911 unless you’ve already been a cop / paramedic / fireman.
I hope you never cast another vote unless you’ve held a public offive.
I hope you never sue a drunken driver who kills your family unless you’ve been a DA, judge, or lawyer.
We as a society expect others to do what we, as individuals, won’t. That’s kind of how a society works. I don’t care to raise and slaughter livestock, but I expect to eat steak. The fact that I want politicians to enact laws that protect my steak habit doesn’t mean I have to become a rancher. Expecting a result doesn’t mean you have to do it yourself.
Are you really that ignorant or is it just the hate speaking? |
| |
Written By:
Sharp as a Marble
URL:
http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
|
Even better:Unless you’ve been President of the United States during a time of war, I hope you never criticize Bush. |
| |
Written By:
Sharp as a Marble
URL:
http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
|
McQ,
I suggest we call the bluff. All those advancing the theme should have to list all the things they want to force upon other people (at least our troops volunteered, yes even those under stop loss) and pick one to drop their career and family for. You want national health care, you have to drop everything and become a low level nurse before you can take the position to tax anyone or control medical practitioners income to make it happen. You want more pristine wilderness? Then go ahead and sell everything, buy as much land as possible to be set aside and work as a park ranger. Then after leaving yourself a small stipend you can ask everyone else to sacrifice for your goals. Everything you advocate has to be carried as a disproportionate personal burden of yours before you ask it of anyone else. Rent control? Hey, you have to rent your property at below market rates bringing in no more than what it takes to pay the note, pay maintenance out of your own pocket and have your own family live in a single room.
This is such a stupid idea, and it strikes most deeply at liberal ideals. But hey, almost every government program liberals advocate would be a lot easier on my pocket book if they impoverished themselves to provide or pay for it themselves before sending the IRS after me or the bureaucrats to make me provide it at the cost they deem "just." So we neo-libertarians win however it works. What the government does is cheaper and the disproportionate personal sacrifice would make big government ideas tremendously unpopular and unlikely to be advocated. Why deny them their chance to look down on us for their moral superiority. I’ll take the cheap services and low taxes as a trade in return for listening to self righteous prigs any day! |
| |
Written By:
Lance
URL:
http://
|
Are Leftists saying only those who served in the military can vote on (or discuss) international policy?
I read about this before...Starship Troopers by RA Heinlein. A book dismissed by Leftists as "fascist" or "nazi" (actually discussions of this book lead to the original Godwin’s Law).
Esentially the Leftists are arguing for Military Rule, a new Spartan barracks dictatorship.
Also, how do leftist fans of the "chickenhawk" meme reconcile this with their support of Bosnia, Afganistan, etc. |
| |
Written By:
RAHfan
URL:
http://
|
|
This is cross-posted at about three other blogs today, as I’m getting mighty sick of this argument: We need a new Godwin’s Law to deal with the knee-jerk invasion of lefty trolls to every thread on every conservative blog with the "why don’t you enlist" whine. I’m tired of even bothering to link back to the many refutations of this point. Heck, we’ll make it Crank’s Law if nobody else wants to claim it: every time a left-wing blogger or commenter cries "chickenhawk" or complains about war supporters not fighting the war, the left-winger has lost the argument. |
| |
Written By:
Crank
URL:
http://www.baseballcrank.com
|
a logical fallacy
When did the left ever invoke logic? Their walking contradictions. This is another point but it addresses the irrelevance of Pug’s statement. Where’s the outrage from Rangel, Hillary, Schumer, Kerry, and the rest of the societal do-gooders over the Kelo decision. Ain’t the rich crackers who are gonna be ripped off of their property rights. It’s the lower classes, the very folks these pompous liberals(or progressives as they like to be called, although I can’t see the logic in being called progressive when you suffer from backward looking tunnel vision), say they are looking out for. It’s THAT property that will be deemed urban blight, not the multi-million dollar mansion. That homeowner pays his "fair share" of taxes. oh thats’ right, if we just get rid of Bush we’ll have our benevolent benefactor running things.
It’s you Pug that should be marching down to the recruiting station so you can go to the Middle East, sit down with these 9th century idealists, explain your role as a "Crusader". I guess if we just roll a fat one, put on some Dead, peace will break out everywhere, right? It’s not just the 3,000 humans butchered on 9/11. What about the other thousands killed prior to 9/11. I’ve had to eat this shit for 40 years and been told there is nothing we can do about it,"We must respect and appease their beliefs, they have the right to murder us in the name of their God", etc...etc...You dis me you should be held responsible for your actions. It’s called maturity. Some of us learn it. Being bankrupt of solutions is no excuse. |
| |
Written By:
Rich
URL:
http://
|
a logical fallacy
When did the left ever invoke logic? Their walking contradictions. This is another point but it addresses the irrelevance of Pug’s statement. Where’s the outrage from Rangel, Hillary, Schumer, Kerry, and the rest of the societal do-gooders over the Kelo decision. Ain’t the rich crackers who are gonna be ripped off of their property rights. It’s the lower classes, the very folks these pompous liberals(or progressives as they like to be called, although I can’t see the logic in being called progressive when you suffer from backward looking tunnel vision), say they are looking out for. It’s THAT property that will be deemed urban blight, not the multi-million dollar mansion. That homeowner pays his "fair share" of taxes. oh thats’ right, if we just get rid of Bush we’ll have our benevolent benefactor running things.
It’s you Pug that should be marching down to the recruiting station so you can go to the Middle East, sit down with these 9th century idealists, explain your role as a "Crusader". I guess if we just roll a fat one, put on some Dead, peace will break out everywhere, right? It’s not just the 3,000 humans butchered on 9/11. What about the other thousands killed prior to 9/11. I’ve had to eat this shit for 40 years and been told there is nothing we can do about it,"We must respect and appease their beliefs, they have the right to murder us in the name of their God", etc...etc...You dis me you should be held responsible for your actions. It’s called maturity. Some of us learn it. Being bankrupt of solutions is no excuse. |
| |
Written By:
Rich
URL:
http://
|
It is an outrage that this administration could be a accused of being chickenhawks.
This administration has been confronted by an attack on America causing 3000 civillian casualties. This attack was carried out by Sunni wahhabist terrorists funded through charity from rich Sunni fundamentalists. In response to this slaughter adminstration has engaged in very limited war against an extremely poor Sunni fundamentalist state and a secular dictatorship. To this day America continues to be attacked by the terrorists, who continue to enjoy funding unabated.
This administration comtinues failed policies of friendship and support to violent, brutal regimes. Funding for terrorism flows from under these regimes.
To call this administration chickenhawks is an insult to all birds of prey. |
| |
Written By:
Unaha-closp
URL:
http://
|
|
Ashcroft sent his son, so did Duncan Hunter, Daley, sent his son, that’s he wasn’t so keen on Durbin. I recall then Sec. of State Baker, sent his step son,Will Winston. among others. Iraq is really conparable in some ways to the Phillipine insurgency, at the turn of the last century, which was the last conflict waged with a volunteer army. in which many of the leading army officers of the 1st and second world war; Pershing, most famously with his pigskin antics in Mindanao,against the Moro; MacArthur: et al |
| |
Written By:
narciso
URL:
http://
|
Also, how do leftist fans of the "chickenhawk" meme reconcile this with their support of Bosnia, Afganistan, etc. Leftists, as opposed to what remains of the liberal center, never supported the Afghanistan war. Hitchens had some scathing things to say about Michael Moore in particular went from claiming that Osama bin Laden was irrelevant to saying that the Iraq war was a distraction from the hunt for OBL. As for the rest, the Afghan war was just another American sin against their beloved-in-the-abstract-but-reviled-in-the-flesh humanity. |
| |
Written By:
The Sanity Inspector
URL:
http://www.tinyurl.com/4sarw
|
[The word "chickenhawk"] was first applied to Cheney and other "hawks" for their complete lack of service during Vietnam. Tito is absolutely right. If you look at the resumes of the top leadership of the Bush administration, it’s extremely thin on anyone who’s served in the military, period, let alone in wartime. That’s what pissed me off in the first place. It’s not that everyone supporting any given policy has to have put in time doing the crappiest job in that policy, it’s that when you beat the war drums it isn’t just for others to go. Leftists, as opposed to what remains of the liberal center, never supported the Afghanistan war. Well, I guess you’re probably relieved that there are no leftists in the Senate. Did you check under your bed? |
| |
Written By:
David in AK
URL:
http://
|
That’s what pissed me off in the first place. Frankly, I believe that’s your current excuse. I sincerely doubt that you gave a rat’s ass about the military or anyone serving in it prior to the OIF. |
| |
Written By:
Mark Flacy
URL:
http://
|
Tito is absolutely right.
As I said, and for the reasons I gave, I disagree.
That’s what pissed me off in the first place. It’s not that everyone supporting any given policy has to have put in time doing the crappiest job in that policy, it’s that when you beat the war drums it isn’t just for others to go.
Then, of course, you must repudiate every war time cabinet in which memebers were people who’d never served but backed the war of the time.
Which takes me back to my point that that isn’t how the meme gained legs, that’s simply how it was most visibly applied. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Please, let’s not harp on Kelo, everyone on the left or right I’ve talked to completely agrees it’s an outrage, though I’m sure there are a few clueless idiots out there. And it has been noticed that the "liberal" justices were the ones responsible for it. The risks of a "living constitution" really struck home with this decision.
McQ: the original use of "ChickenHawk", by Senator Lautenberg is in reference to those who didn’t serve, not their children: "In my view, these charges are coming from people who I would call, quite simply: "Chicken-Hawks." They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others, but when it was their turn to serve, they were AWOL from courage." I will agree that it has been mis-used since then. Moore is an idiot and a**hole; no argument from me on that.
As for the "send your son" meme, I agree that you don’t "send your son" into the military. They are adults and make their own decision. The "sending" is sending your son, who already chose to be in the military, off to a war of choice. (Iraq was not involed in the 9/11 attacks. Everyone but a fringe element supported the Afghanistan invasion.)
The attack isn’t to say that only those who served should get a say in military matters. It’s acknowledging the costs and incentives. Conservatives and libertarians always argue that people abuse/overuse goods and services that are provided to them at little or no personal cost, because the bill was paid by society at large. You guys have a point, but the same applies here. Those with a family member in the military or who served themselves paid the "full cost" of our military. Those who did not are not paying the "full cost", and are therefore more likely to over-use that resource. |
| |
Written By:
Tito
URL:
http://
|
The attack isn’t to say that only those who served should get a say in military matters. It’s acknowledging the costs and incentives. Conservatives and libertarians always argue that people abuse/overuse goods and services that are provided to them at little or no personal cost, because the bill was paid by society at large. You guys have a point, but the same applies here. Those with a family member in the military or who served themselves paid the "full cost" of our military. Those who did not are not paying the "full cost", and are therefore more likely to over-use that resource.
And what has that to do with the validity of their argument on the issue?
Absolutely nothing.
The fact remains that there are two sides to the argument about the war in Iraq. Both sides obviously feel passionate about the righteousness of their argument.
Yet one side feels fine with characterizing those who didn’t serve but agree the war is necessary as "chickenhawks". They claim they really have no right to speak out since they didn’t serve. OTOH the people making that claim get visibly upset if they are called anti-war or a defeatist and shoot back with nonsense about "questioning their patriotism".
What in the world is "chickenhawk" if not questioning someone’s integrity and patriotism?
And since when is serving in a war-time cabinet or in a war-time chain of command, even in a civilian capacity, not paying "full cost?"
Does anyone here think sending people to their possible death is done cavalierly, even by Bush? It’s an assinine and contemptable assumption on its face. Death is death, and you don’t have to have served in the military to know you don’t want to send people to their death unless you believe such a deployment to be necessary. I’ve seen nothing from Bush or his cabinet to persuade me they’ve viewed this conflict in any other way.
|
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
Sheesh, Hitchens is fantastic as a polemicist and an essayist.
But as a logician?
Well... perhaps we should keep our eye on the bouncing ball.
Of course, we have a right to expect our 911 call to be answered without being willing to become a fireman or policemen or risk being called a hypocrite.
But that falls far short of rebutting the chickenhawk argument. Our society doesn’t recruit firemen and policemen the same way as the military, and that’s where the analogy fails. In our society, the bulk of the non-commissioned military - - the privates and corporals who undoubtably make up a disproportionate share of the casualties, are drawn substantially not from those intending to make a career of the military, but of those who view their military service as a phase of their life (and, not insignificantly, a way to finance an education) after which they’ll return to civilian life and another career path.
As it happens, we have a President, Vice-President, former Undersecretary of State, et al, who WHEN THEY WERE IN THAT PHASE OF LIFE and were called to serve, made manifest by their own actions in steering clear of all avoidable danger, of what mettle they were made. Their sabre rattling and bombastic rhetoric notwithstanding those distinctly undistinguished military records are what makes them chickenhawks.
|
| |
Written By:
jaybee
URL:
http://
|
Frankly, I believe that’s your current excuse. I sincerely doubt that you gave a rat’s ass about the military or anyone serving in it prior to the OIF. The issue of prospective presidents’ military service records has been an issue in every election I can recall. It’s often been used to question the understanding they have of defense. That has been something that factored into my voting choice all along. With "OIF", however, it’s been a whole new ballgame—a bunch of priviledged elites with scarcely any military background came to power determined to invade Iraq since well before 9/11. And that did, and does, trouble me. |
| |
Written By:
David in AK
URL:
http://
|
With "OIF", however, it’s been a whole new ballgame—a bunch of priviledged elites with scarcely any military background came to power determined to invade Iraq since well before 9/11.
Its always nice to see that no matter how ridiculous and scruffy the canard has become, it still lives for some. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
While it’s wrong to dismiss an argument out of hand because someone lacks a certain experience, but it is equally wrong to dismiss that experience out of hand and consider it worthless.
It is easy to dismiss the "chickenhawk" arguments as empty ad hominem attacks. But somehow this seems a little bit like the "protesting too much" cliche. There’s something to be said for paying dues and the insight that gives.
You can’t have it both ways. |
| |
Written By:
William Oliver
URL:
http://www.billoblog.com
|
Comparing police and firefighters to soldiers is not a legitimate claim. First responders do a terrific job of maintaining discipline and order under stressful circumstances - and they are all to be applauded for risking their well-being when they are steadfastly controlling society’s menaces and heroically rescuing us from so many horrible catostrophies.
But brave civil servants are not combat soldiers. And they are not living in combat conditions.
They don’t go weeks without getting a chance to change their uniforms or wash their aching bodies - like soldiers do. They don’t go months without seeing their anguished, worried families - like soldiers do. They don’t eat one lousy MRE per day and drink warm canteen water - like soldiers do. They don’t subject themselves daily to grinding, nerve-shattering tedium - like soldiers do. They don’t deal with a fierce, savvy, indigenous enemy, determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can - like soldiers do. (Sorry folk, fires don’t plot to blow your legs off, and criminals usually don’t attack cops with a platoon-strength barrage of AK-47s and RPGs in the middle of the night).
They don’t run night-long foot patrols along mine-infested, lethal roadways, then try to get some sleep in the blistering heat - like soldiers do. They don’t deal with the random carnage and witness frequent, gruesome deaths on a routine basis - like soldiers do. They don’t scan every single rooftop, water tower and treeline, looking for that lone sniper who has a bullet with their name on it - like soldiers do.
They don’t have to pray their dust-caked M-16 won’t jam when all hell breaks loose - like soldiers do. They’re not covered with an ice cold sweat every time they hear a twig snap in the night - like soldiers do. And they don’t have to worry about a suicide bomber ramming their vehicle, every time they’re traveling down a desolate alley way or a busy boulevard - like soldiers do.
I could go on, but what’s the point. Mr. Hitchens has obviously mistaken making a noble career choice with the sheer horror of facing live, continous combat. He’s missed the point completely - one profession is a test of bravery ... the other is a nerve-shattering test of survival and loneliness. |
| |
Written By:
Ghost
URL:
http://
|
|
Good grief, Ghost, that’s the most assinine and lame attempt at rebuttal I’ve ever seen. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
From you, McQ, I take your insightful remarks as a supreme compliment. You reacted exactly as I was hoping you might. Even more so. Thanks again, and have a wonderful day! I know I will. But remember, flattery will get you nowhere.
|
| |
Written By:
ghost
URL:
http://
|
Obviously you have a low threshold of pleasure, Ghost.
But so be it ... you’ve still completely missed the principle at work here in favor of maudlin and irrelvant emotion. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
McQ - All I know is you seem to think it’s okay for others to risk life and limb while you comfortably and safely sit back at home and reap the rewards of the freedom (or is it oil?) they are fighting and dying for. No matter how many excuses you make, no matter how you frame your debate, no matter how tortured your rhetoric becomes and no matter how arrogantly and dismissive your responses are worded, the bottom line is a coward is a coward.
Pampered wimps like Cheney, Rove, Limbaugh, Wolfy, W Bush, Jeb Bush, Neil Bush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Savage, Hitchens, etc., may like to puff out their chests and talk all that macho garbage (once they’re too old to fight). But it’s the working class kids who walk the walk. How about doing your own dirty work? Ask not what your country can do for you... |
| |
Written By:
ghost
URL:
http://
|
McQ - All I know is you seem to think it’s okay for others to risk life and limb while you comfortably and safely sit back at home and reap the rewards of the freedom (or is it oil?)
Ghost, I spent 28 years as an infantry officer.
What more would you require?
Speaking of "Ask not what your country can do for you...", what have you done? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|
McQ - Believe it or not, I spent four years in the Infantry; three as a squad leader.
From one grunt to another, I stand corrected.
I thought you were someone else, completely. My apologies. |
| |
Written By:
ghost
URL:
http://
|
|
Ghost: Accepted. Thanks for your service and thanks for stopping by. |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/
|