Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Chickenhawk II
Posted by: McQ on Sunday, April 30, 2006

Well apparently "Neil the ethical werewolf" blogging at Ezra Klein finds it neccesary to defend a whiny Amanda Marcott and others using the "chickenhawk" meme.

Neil says:
In all the US military activities I've supported — Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan — there were good reasons for me not to go. We had plenty of trained personnel for these wars. But if it had turned out, for some reason, that America needed untrained, scrawny, too-wimpy-for-tackle-football guys like me to save hundreds of thousands of Bosnians from genocide, things might have been different. If I had been needed, and if I had known how carefully the Bosnian intervention would be conducted (zero combat fatalities) I'm pretty sure I would've signed up.
IOW, it was ok that he sat it all out because, in his expert opinion, we needed no additonal manpower to fight those wars.

How very nice. But Neil, you've forgotten that reservists and guardsmen were called up and backfilled active duty positions in the US, as well as deploying into all of those areas.

Before Iraq.

You've forgotten that the war that was going to be over quickly and our troops home by Christmas still has our troops on the ground. And, Neil, we've had to rotate National Guard divisions into Bosnia and still do ... all planned long before Iraq. They can easily use scrawny, too-wimpy-for-tackle-football guys like you to shovel crap in Columbus GA so others willing to do so can do the necessary fighting.

But of course, it wasn't a priority for you then, was it? And you've certainly very neatly rationalized reasons for not "signing up".

Now, of course, since you don't support a particular war, it is extremely important that a new standard be applied.

Well, you see Neil, if you and the rest of the mob who continually claim to have supported Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan, had signed up for your wars, we probably would have plenty, wouldn't we? And even if we didn't, you'd have put your money where your mouth is and could indeed make a credible claim to some moral highground, huh? Or said another way, you'd have done what you now demand others do.
It seems to me that many supporters of the Iraq War are basically in that situation. Most people, probably including most war supporters, aren't curing deadly diseases or anything like that. (Having a family isn't enough of a reason not to go — the government regularly sends parents to war, away from their spouses and children.) Lots of war supporters have the necessary physical capacity. And we need more troops, as stop-loss policies, the deployment of National Guardsmen, and Colin Powell will confirm.
Hey Neil ... ever hear of the 29th Division? The 29th is a National Guard Division. On September 1st, 2001, they were mobilized and shipped to Bosnia. Did you know that Guardsmen have been mobilized and deployed to Bosnia for most of a decade?

So where were you? Curing a few deadly diseases? No, you were nowhere to be found. Instead of putting your pasty ass on the line and actually supporting the effort in the wars you claim to support, like you demand of supporters of Iraq, you were content to let the government mobilize National Guardsmen and reservists to do it, weren't you?

Guardsmen and reservists were good enough for you then. Why not now?

And I'm sure the fact that they were being deployed while you sat at home didn't stop you from voicing your support for those wars, did it?

So, to you, Neil, I ask, as it pertains to Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan:
"If you're not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it's such a great idea?"
And yes, Neil, I've put my money where my mouth is: 28 years in the military. Infantry.

Now, why don't you put yours in the same place. Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan are calling your name.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
If I had been needed, and if I had known how carefully the Bosnian intervention would be conducted (zero combat fatalities) I’m pretty sure I would’ve signed up. [Emphasis added.]


I hope the author didn’t really mean to say what that sentence in fact states. If so, well, I’m ... I’m simply speechless.
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
I think the new standard for anyone on the left simply HAS to be that they can’t support any US/UN (with US participation) actions in Darfur until they have signed up first...
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Yes, indeed, Mr Ridgely, yes indeed.

Not chicken hawk (in his case), just plain chicken. But none of us who served on active duty in any military would want someone like that near us. Futher on, drawing fire, yes, but not closeby in any fashion whatsoever.

When ever I hear someone from the left like Neil speak like that, I am reminded of that Monty Python ditty, "Brave, brave Sir Robin, bravely ...."

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Shark writes:
I think the new standard for anyone on the left simply HAS to be that they can’t support any US/UN (with US participation) actions in Darfur until they have signed up first...
Indeed.

h/t David Weigel at Reason.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Does Neil actually have the blog stature that makes his inane, juvenile statements worthy of rebuttal?
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
Does Neil actually have the blog stature that makes his inane, juvenile statements worthy of rebuttal?

Ezra Klein has "blog stature" — whatever that really is — and gave Neil a platform at his site. Klein must think Neil is worth reading.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
I am genuinely in awe here. Not only that people are continuing to defend this bankrupt pseudo-argument but that Neil of all people — who is not a dumbass by any stretch, though one could be forgiven for thinking so based only on this weird post — is the one doing it. Please people, just climb down. Let the chickenhawk thing go. It’s for your own good.
 
Written By: Matt McIntosh
URL: http://catallarchy.net/blog/
The whole chickenhawk argument just gets on my nerves anyway.

I support the police. I’m not a policeman.

I support the Fire Department, but i’m not a fireman.

I also support the water works, the public post, and the trash collectors, but I haven’t chose to do any of those things either. So I don’t see how not joining the military is different.

(oh, and if in order to support something, you have to do something actively in support of it, does that mean that all the people that write critical journalism of the war should go and report from the warzone? Maybe Neil should blog from the warzone if he really wants to support the antiwar crowd.)
 
Written By: Dustin
URL: http://
I’m just wondering how many of those chickenhawk-obsessed leftists eat ham for breakfast, but wouldn’t have the stomach to butcher a pig.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
does that mean that all the people that write critical journalism of the war should go and report from the warzone?
President Bush of the USA pointed out that Iraq is merely one part of the Global War on Terror, so Neil is in the warzone.

Unless he is in the international space station or a Soyuz capsule.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
"Ezra Klein has "blog stature" — whatever that really is — and gave Neil a platform at his site. Klein must think Neil is worth reading."

I haven’t read anything Klein’s either that I would consider deeply and thoroughly thought out.
 
Written By: Unknown
URL: http://
I support the police. I’m not a policeman.

Do you support your police force covering your own and another town - but voting down paying up the dosh for extra troopers, or joining up yourself?

I support the Fire Department, but i’m not a fireman.

Do you support your Fire Department taking over responsibility for another city as well as your own - but voting down paying up the dosh for extra men, or joining up yourself?

I remind you that Iraq was a war of choice.
 
Written By: Phoenician in a time of Romans
URL: http://
The one thing I’ve learned from this post is that National Guard deployments apparently shouldn’t be taken as a sign that we lack enough soldiers.

Able-bodied, non-AIDS-researching war supporters can only be criticized for not going if we lack sufficient soldiers to carry out the mission. I don’t recall that being the case in any of the interventions I supported, though I’d be interested in hearing arguments to the contrary. In Bosnia, for example, we succeeded, so it’s hard to say that we didn’t have enough people. Jon Henke has argued in comments that we have enough soldiers to carry out the mission in Iraq. (Many people, including myself, doubt that he is right about this.) If that’s true, there’s no reason to criticize war supporters for not signing up.

A few minor comments:
-As an extension of the above point, if somebody else is able and willing to take the crap-shoveling Columbus GA job that McQ describes, there’s no reason for me to deprive him of employment. I am to be criticized only if I could take this job, nobody takes it, and some misfortune results.
-My source for the "zero combat fatalities" in Bosnia claim is here.
-My ass is not pasty, unless the paste in question is light brown.

I sympathize with the concerns that many of you have about the usual way that the term ’chickenhawk’ is used. If this concern didn’t strike you as you read my post, I’d invite you to read it again. Feel free to join in in the comments too — especially you, Matt from Catallarchy, as I am curious about what you think I’ve said wrong.
 
Written By: Neil the Ethical Werewolf
URL: http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com
The one thing I’ve learned from this post is that National Guard deployments apparently shouldn’t be taken as a sign that we lack enough soldiers.
Well, that’s a pity, Neil, since the one thing you should have taken from the post is your position is untenable and that you apply different standards to wars you support than wars you don’t support ... and somehow see no hypocrisy in doing so.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I remind you that Iraq was a war of choice.
So were Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Does Neil actually have the blog stature that makes his inane, juvenile statements worthy of rebuttal?
Yes. Aside from being a pleasant, thoughtful fellow — whether I agree with him or not — he’s posted an idea worth discussion. His credentials are irrelevant.
Jon Henke has argued in comments that we have enough soldiers to carry out the mission in Iraq. (Many people, including myself, doubt that he is right about this.) If that’s true, there’s no reason to criticize war supporters for not signing up.
Let’s assume, arguendo, that we don’t have enough troops in Iraq. Would signing up increase the number of troops in Iraq? No. It might replace one soldier in Iraq with one new soldier, but the total number in Iraq will stay the same. Your argument is that one advocating a war should be willing to put his butt on the line. You haven’t argued that an advocate of a particular war should be willing to go only if he’s marginally needed.

But you claim you didn’t need to sign up because you weren’t marginally needed. Why is "need" relevant? You’re still asking another person to put their butt on the line while you are not doing so.
-As an extension of the above point, if somebody else is able and willing to take the crap-shoveling Columbus GA job that McQ describes, there’s no reason for me to deprive him of employment.
Hey, I actually have shoveled (literal) crap (literally) in Columbus, GA! (no point, really. Just sayin’)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
There are several confusions running through some of the comments in both this and Mr. Henke’s earlier post thread regarding military capacities and capabilities. I can’t speak to Canadian military issues, but there is a difference between the question whether there are currently sufficient U.S. troops in Iraq and whether the U.S. is capable of raising troop strengh there or elsewhere. I don’t know the answer to the first question, but the answer to the second is clearly yes. Recruitment and retention numbers are down, but that is more likely a matter of economics than politics or, for that matter, risk. The question whether, either individually or collectively, we are willing to pay the price to recruit and retain sufficient troops is legitimate, but there is no question the economic resources and, at some price point, the willing recruits are there to do so. In short, the editorial staff of The Weekly Standard will not be required to suit up and deploy.

Numerical strength doesn’t tell the whole story, though. There remains a question of capabilities regardless of numbers because the skill sets required for an army engaged in (pick one: (1) nation building and protecting or (2) occupying and oppressing) a foreign land are not among the particular sorts of expertise the U.S. military has traditionally developed. One can certainly criticize the Bush Administration on that count in terms of prior planning and subsequent execution; my point is only that numbers alone shed little light on the situation.
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
Why bother with the details of the chicken-hawk argument at all? It is obviously a seriously flawed argument.

It’s fundamental is that unless one has done something one can have no opinion on it, a falsehood. As someone pointed out, I have opinions of police, fire, EMS, trash collection, welfare reform and illegal immigation yet I have NEVER been a policeman, firefighter, trash collector, paramedic, nor drawn welfare and have lived, legally in this country all my life. The response to those making the chickenhawk argument is to ask if they have opinons on things they have no stake in....

Further it is flawed in that about 4.5% of the US has served in the military. So using the chickenhawk meme, means that only 4.5% of the US can have a say in the GWoT. Compounded by the fact that the war has about 60-70% support amongst that 4.5 % results in the odd fact that 2.7-3.6% of the US population is going to commit us to continued involvement in Iraq. Is this a position that Neil and others would support? I think not.

What "chickenhawk" truly means is that Neil can oppose the war (Chickenhawk doesn’t apply to HIM), but I can’t support it...As we say here, "Good work if you can get it." I just don’t allow Neil or others to get away with it. I think the whole argument is specious and really doesn’t deserve much discussion at all.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
^Joe just said exactly what I was trying to say earlier. He just said it better because I couldn’t remember the word ’specious’.
 
Written By: Dustin
URL: http://
I’ll quote myself:
But the reason we’ve dubbed you the 101st is not so much because you’re not fighting in Iraq, but because you and your compadres actually seem to think you are.
This is what engendered the chickenhawk argument. Not that so few on the right seem willing to serve in this war, but that so many on the right seemed to think that by writing words on some blog, they were.
 
Written By: Jeff Fecke
URL: http://moderateleft.com
Not that so few on the right seem willing to serve in this war, but that so many on the right seemed to think that by writing words on some blog, they were.
WTF?

That’s just simple nonsense.

The more users of the meme attempt to defend the indefensible, the more nonsensical and innane their explanations become.

I’m sorry Jeff, but that makes absolutely no sense. And it also flies in the face of how the majority of those using the meme frame their argument ...i.e. they demand that those who support the war do so by putting their rear ends where their keyboards are and join up.

As I’ve pointed out above, this is a very selective (and thus disingenunous) demand since, obviously, those like Neil who admit to supporting Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan didn’t feel compelled to do then what they demand in others now. That, however, didn’t preclude them from voicing their support, did it?

So if you want to persist in the "chickenhawk" meme, I’d submit that the charter members of the group include Neil and others like him who supported the wars previous to Iraq but sat at home instead of joining up.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Take a look at the comments section at that Pandagon post and try running that by me again, Jeff Fecke.

Your argument is either mistaken or dishonest.
-=-=-=-=-
For anyone else who’s interested in reading, check out the way virtually everyone there debated with me. I think there are about two people there — one of whom I’ve already known for years from another discussion board — who aren’t allergic to dissent. Almost every response to my arguments — when they deigned to actually answer my questions — was pure snark.

It’s like fighting an insurgency: they just won’t stand their ground and fight. They don’t have any firm ground to stand on, but they’re convinced the whole country’s theirs. So they avoid the real confrontation and snipe away.

But don’t take my word for it. Follow the link.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Specifically quoted from the comments section, I give you the definition of "chickenhawk":
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.”
http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Oh, and Phoenician — since you don’t provide a real email address anywhere I can find it, I’d like to answer your long post at the comments section... if you have an open mind and the willingness to discuss it civilly. Email me at the (real) email address provided here (click on my name).

I’m not going back to Pandagon, as I said, but I thought that since I had missed your post before, it’s only fair I give it a real response if you’d like one.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
The ChickenHawk meme is the equivilent of
"If you don’t support " (insert your favorite ’American’ cause here) "why don’t you go live in" (insert your favorite militarily weak, leftist, socialist, globally ineffective country here). Of course that sort of statement is only something someone on the ’right’ would make.

The method as always is to challenge your opponent with a ’put up or shut up’ bid. This is supposedly adult, though children can be heard using the "I double dog dare you" version (presuming they’ve followed proper protocol going from "I dare" to "I double dare" of course....).
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Not that so few on the right seem willing to serve in this war, but that so many on the right seemed to think that by writing words on some blog, they were.
And you know this from your impressive mind-reading skills?

Nice; I won’t need to type out my opinion.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
This is what engendered the chickenhawk argument. Not that so few on the right seem willing to serve in this war, but that so many on the right seemed to think that by writing words on some blog, they were.
That hasn’t happened here. Blogs are just people communicating. Nothing more, nothing less. There’s nothing particularly brave or cowardly about it, anymore than there’s anything particularly brave or cowardly about criticizing the war, protestations about "speaking truth to power" notwithstanding.

I think you’re unjustifiably imputing motivations to others.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Jon, it’s good to see that the crap-shovelling job was filled. Now nobody can criticize me for the presence of unshovelled crap.

Would signing up increase the number of troops in Iraq? No. It might replace one soldier in Iraq with one new soldier, but the total number in Iraq will stay the same.
If we’re assuming a situation where we aren’t getting enough soldiers, it seems to me that it’d increase the total number of soldiers by one. Right?
Your argument is that one advocating a war should be willing to put his butt on the line. You haven’t argued that an advocate of a particular war should be willing to go only if he’s marginally needed.


Well, I think the former claim, plus some basic facts about practical rationality, gives me the latter. If you’re willing to put your butt on the line, and it’s made clear that they need your butt, you’ll be willing to go.

I actually agree with most of what Joe writes above. He’s criticizing an argument that’s not my own.
 
Written By: Neil the Ethical Werewolf
URL: http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com
I don’t recall that being the case in any of the interventions I supported, though I’d be interested in hearing arguments to the contrary. In Bosnia, for example, we succeeded, so it’s hard to say that we didn’t have enough people.
The fact that we’re still there (in the war in which we were promised the troops would be home by Christmas) means that troops that could have been deployed elsewhere for other wars, such as Afghanistan, weren’t available.

But again, let’s go back to the essence of this, the question you seem to feel most represents your position and should be answered by Iraq supporters:
"If you’re not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it’s such a great idea?"
Now, that’s your question. Why does it only apply to Iraq?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I am willing to sign up for the armed services...

Last time I checked, they aren’t taking 41 year old diabetics with bunions...

I would have joined right after 9/11, but they hadn’t raised the max age for recruits yet (and I was still a diabetic w/ bunions.) But I would have signed anyway, even if it meant trying and failing for medical reasons. Personally I think anyone who can physically qualify should be allowed to serve.

I support our Armed Forces through keyboard efforts to inform people of what they are accomplishing in Iraq and elsewhere, because the MSM is failing to do so. Our troops deserve our support because they are doing a good job. It is also important that our troops know we support them, so I spend some time on their blogs telling them how gratefull I am for their service and sacrifice. I hold every member of our armed forces, past and present, who’ve served honorably in the highest regard.

Personally the whole name calling thing is getting old. I tend to just ignore such idiocy now. Used to get under my skin, but we have an all volunteer force. We make decisions based on the facts available to us at the time the decision is in front of us.

Had I know we’d be in a fight akin to WWII at this point in my life, I would have joined right out of college (and gone to ROTC to boot.)

To me when the whole "chicken-hawk" argument comes out, the person making it looses all credability, as there are better arguments to be made in opposition of something then trying to besmirch the reputation of their opponents.

The contra-argument would be "if you are opposed to war, have you joined the Peace-corp?" Why aren’t you in Darfur with the NGO’s trying to stop the genocide?
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
The point, McQ, is that I’m not needed. By the way, at this point I don’t have especially strong feelings about keeping troops in Bosnia — the genocide has been successfully averted. At the time when I strongly supported the war, I simply wasn’t needed. We had enough people. As my post suggests, I would’ve been willing to sign up if they had needed me. That’s all that can be expected of a war supporter.

This should have been clear to you upon the very first reading of my post, so I don’t really know why you’re asking me about it.
 
Written By: Neil the Ethical Werewolf
URL: http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com
Neil, let me paraphrase you. (Correct me if I’ve got it wrong.)

"It’s okay that I didn’t volunteer for a war I supported when I didn’t think they needed me, but it’s not okay for YOU to not volunteer for a war that I’m against because I think they need you."
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
The point, McQ, is that I’m not needed.
You have absolutely no way of knowing that. You’re simply hoping. Call a recruiting station, Neil, and tell me if they say, "nope, don’t need you."
This should have been clear to you upon the very first reading of my post, so I don’t really know why you’re asking me about it.
I’m asking you to answer, for the third time, the question you’ve posed to supporters of the Iraq war (and btw, "I’m not needed" is not an acceptable answer, unless it is acceptable for Iraq war supporters as well):
"If you’re not willing to sign up for this war, why do you think it’s such a great idea?"
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ, it is an acceptable answer for war supporters, as I made clear several times, including my original post, and my first comment here when I discussed Jon’s views.
 
Written By: Neil the Ethical Werewolf
URL: http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com
McQ, it is an acceptable answer for war supporters, as I made clear several times, including my original post, and my first comment here when I discussed Jon’s views.
Then what is the purpose of the question if that answer is acceptable? Seems to kill the chickenhawk meme in its shell.

For instance, if I posit that I support the war because I thought it was important to bring down a murderous dictator who actively supported terrorist groups in the region and had the potential of providing other terorist groups with weapons (and training) to attack Americans and American interests to include providing possible weapons of mass destruction, how does that make me a ’chickenhawk’?

Because I’m not "serving" when I say that? Because I don’t feel the need to serve?

But if I cop out and say "they don’t need me", everything is cool?

I mean, isn’t the entire point of the meme to claim someone like me doesn’t mind supporting a war I don’t have to fight? Am I suddenly not a chickenhawk because, like you, I can claim "they don’t need me" as a viable defense for not joining up? And does that then give me special dispensation to support the war without being known as a ’chickenhawk’?

I mean it’s your meme and your claim. Explain it to me.

Oh, and this:
At the time when I strongly supported the war, I simply wasn’t needed. We had enough people. As my post suggests, I would’ve been willing to sign up if they had needed me.
Neil that’s a crock. Had you applied and met the requirements I can positively promise, in fact, guarantee, you’d have been taken. They always need volunteers. Always. With the turnover they go through each year, they always need new people.

The difference is you never tried, did you? You never asked. You never inquired. You simply assumed and rationalized.

Of course I’m sure that didn’t keep you from voicing your support for the wars, did it?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
....it is an acceptable answer for war supporters, as I made clear several times, including my original post,....
Maybe I’m missing something, Neil, but your position isn’t at all clear from the following two paragraphs in your original post:
In all the US military activities I’ve supported — Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan — there were good reasons for me not to go. We had plenty of trained personnel for these wars. But if it had turned out, for some reason, that America needed untrained, scrawny, too-wimpy-for-tackle-football guys like me to save hundreds of thousands of Bosnians from genocide, things might have been different. If I had been needed, and if I had known how carefully the Bosnian intervention would be conducted (zero combat fatalities) I’m pretty sure I would’ve signed up.

It seems to me that many supporters of the Iraq War are basically in that situation. Most people, probably including most war supporters, aren’t curing deadly diseases or anything like that. (Having a family isn’t enough of a reason not to go — the government regularly sends parents to war, away from their spouses and children.) Lots of war supporters have the necessary physical capacity. And we need more troops, as stop-loss policies, the deployment of National Guardsmen, and Colin Powell will confirm.
You seem to be saying that we need more men in the military, so it’s incumbent upon war supporters to volunteer. You don’t give them the out of saying, "I think we have enough people in the military, so I don’t have to join."

Or is it only an acceptable answer for the supporters of the wars that you supported?
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com
Kinda surprised to see this on Ezra’s blog since he is one of the few on the left that seems reasonable. I know Pandagon has gone to hell since Ezra left (Jesse and his girlfriend are terrible)
 
Written By: Canadian conservative
URL: http://
My reasons for not giving Iraq War supporters this out, McQ, is captured in the last sentence you’ve cited. Now, if stop-loss policies, National Guard deployments, and the words of Colin Powell are not a good sign of a military that lacks sufficient troops, that argument is for you to make. You’ve already convinced me that Guard deployments aren’t a good sign. Are you willing to say that we have all the troops we need to complete the mission? That’s what Henke thinks, and while I think he’s wrong on the terms of the mission itself, I could be convinced otherwise.

If you can successfully argue for that point, you exempt all war supporters from criticism for not going. They still are required to have a conditional intention to go, just in case we don’t have enough troops. As I explained, I have the relevant conditional intention, for the conflicts I supported, at the points when I thought we ought to engage in them.

On a slightly different topic, I want to express irritation at the fact that so many people have come off with strongly negative opinions of my view, based on a post by someone who (until very recently) misunderstood fundamental parts of the view. But I guess that’s just how blogging goes.
 
Written By: Neil the Ethical Werewolf
URL: http://ethicalwerewolf.blogspot.com
Blogging can be like a mirror- like it or not, that’s your writing that’s being thrown at you.

You want to ’Express irritation that people have negative opinions...’- that’s nice. What if some of us are ’irritated’ when called chickenhawks?

Don’t start something you can’t back up. If you had an even basic understanding of military personnel management you would be embarrassed by these weak justifications (ie ’They didn’t need me’).

Stick to criticizing the war, there’s plenty of room for that. But when you make specious claims about the supporters... it’s not a nice road to go down.
 
Written By: Sunguh
URL: http://pmclassic.blogspot.com
"I want to express irritation at the fact that so many people have come off with strongly negative opinions of my view,..."

LOL

As a matter of fact, this will give me a chuckle for days, whenever I think of it. Great line, I wish I had said it, although I would have been joking.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
We are at the point of thrashing an equine corpse here, but let me reiterate that mere numerical troop strength is not a very useful datum. In the first place, the "tooth to tail" ratio in the armed forces always requires far more support personnel than front line personnel, so anyone who can fill one of those "tail" positions arguably frees someone who is comparatively better trained and able to fill an actual combat position. Secondly, and especially critically in the current "post-combat" phase, the sort of personnel is critical. A hospital with nothing but dozens of cardiac surgeons on staff might in a trivially numerical sense have ’enough’ physicians, but it would be a poor place to seek treatment for cancer.

Finally, [irony] loathe though I am to irritate anyone by my strongly negative opinions [/irony], anyone whose stated precondition for being "pretty sure" he might be willing to serve in a combat zone is that the risk of personal harm be negligible is, well, pretty sure to evoke such an opinion.
 
Written By: D.A. Ridgely
URL: http://
We need to quit pretending that when the left cries "chickenhawk" that they are making some sort of argument or statement. They’re not. They’re simply calling us cowards, and that’s the part that engages us emotionally whether we realize it or not.

But that’s all it is, more ad hominem from the left. Sticks and stones. Who’d a thunk it, huh?
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Are you willing to say that we have all the troops we need to complete the mission?
Yes, I am. We’re getting ready to withdraw about 30,000 of them. What would you say?
If you can successfully argue for that point, you exempt all war supporters from criticism for not going. They still are required to have a conditional intention to go, just in case we don’t have enough troops. As I explained, I have the relevant conditional intention, for the conflicts I supported, at the points when I thought we ought to engage in them.
Ah so now the criteria is a "conditional intention to go just in case we don’t have enough troops"? You don’t have to go, just express an intent, er, like you claim to have done concerning the wars you supported.

This has become laughable.
I want to express irritation at the fact that so many people have come off with strongly negative opinions of my view, based on a post by someone who (until very recently) misunderstood fundamental parts of the view.
Yeah, who knew you were only referring to those who didn’t have a "conditional intention to go just in case we don’t have enough troops" when you called them "chickenhawks."

Tell you what, let me also express a little irritation at what has to be the most absurd arguments yet attempted to justify the "chickenhawk" meme ... but hey, as you say, that’s blogging.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Check and mate.
 
Written By: OrneryWP
URL: http://
Maybe this is all just a result of timing. Neil is the "ethical werewolf" , afterall, so maybe he is just rational and well-reasoned every 29 days. Just a thought.
 
Written By: frontinus
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider