If you call a modest correction to your slander of my boss's boss's boss's boss's boss (I think; new command don't have the chain down yet) a big deal then your thin skin is thinner than I thought.

David... I've never understood the coward Republican caricature... that somehow because every single Republican voter and politician isn't either in the military or a veteran they have no right to have an opinion of military intervention. The belief that only military people can decide the course and action of the military is that of a military police state... and not only that... the military votes almost 80% Republican... so I would say that Republicans join the military in large numbers...

Chris:

Did you miss the point on purpose? Republicans CONSTANTLY talk smack...and get details (not to mention whole facts) incorrect. Or when asked to back up a contention..have trouble finding material that isn't so nitpickingly obtuse and barely relevant that it's laughable.

I can't speak for David..but I believe he means that you need to dig that log out of your own eye..before searching for the speck in his.

And, let me help Carla with that last note ...

Matthew 7:3-5 :)

Doesn't the same chickenhawk rhetoric apply to liberals -- an overwhelming majority of whom, as David points out, supported the Afghan war -- who did not join up to fight in Afghanistan after September 11.

Or what about those of us who support the Minuteman Project because of the illegal immigration issues, yet are not rushing to sign up and patrol the borders for a month?

This logic can be applied in all sorts of instances, and with somewhat silly results in my opinion. The fact is that there are all sorts of legitimate reasons someone may or may not support the war, and there are all sorts of legitimate reasons someone who supports the war may or may not volunteer to serve in it. And perhaps more importantly, there are those who DID volunteer who make the pro-war argument, so if it bothers folks to argue with the pro-war non-serving crowd, how about ignoring them and responding to the exact same arguments from the pro-war military crowd?

Look, I understand the reaction to an extent -- when someone is so rah-rah, so contemptuous of counter-arguments against the war, discussions of how the war has been prosecuted improperly, and generally seems to act as if the whole thing is a military boardgame for teenagers -- then I think the chickenhawk response is a legitimate one. But if someone who doesn't serve, for whatever of innumerable reasons, simply makes a policy-wonkish pro-war argument, it's not very civil or relevant to get into the personal issues. In my view, the key is the tone of the pro-war argument, and the recognition that this is serious business and not a game. Within that framework, it seems we can have intelligent discussions without reference to who's serving and who isn't.

I should be clear that I do think criticizing Rove and those who defend his remarks as chickenhawks is perfectly legitimate, because those are folks tossing around words like "traitor" against liberals actually serving their country. But again, I don't think it's legitimate to use the chickenhawk argument against those who recognize the ridiculousness and the insult of Rove's comments, but who do make policy arguments in favor of the war.

Answerman, I think that is exactly the point. I personally have no desire to color everyone with the same broad strokes. I find it the hight of hypocrisy however that some of these people want to smack the shit out of you, and then they are shocked when you smack back.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Of course, while Rove's cheerleaders are shocked at your smacking back, he wouldn't be. His remarks were quite calculated, in my opinion, and that's what makes them so much worse than had he merely meant to be more specific (saying "some Leftists," or "certain fringe voices," for example) but didn't articulate himself well.

Rove WANTED this to be the news this week.

Rove WANTED this to be the news this week.

I totally agree, Answerman.

The "if you support it you should fight in it" argument has irritated me for months.

I want there to be as little crime as possible and I want criminals prosecuted to the full extent of the law. I support that. Does that mean I have to become a cop or a lawyer? Of course not. There are people better suited for that task.

I suppose Answerman explained this a bit better...but I needed to get my two cents in I suppose.

[i]The "if you support it you should fight in it" argument has irritated me for months.... There are people better suited for that task.[/i]

That's the crux of the problem. Who are these better suited people? Why aren't they signing up? The basic facts are:
1. We don't have enough troops to beat down the Iraqi's
2. No other country is about to step up and provide those troops
3. The US military is consistently falling further and further short of recruitment goals so they won't be able to fix problem 1.

We can therefore either start to withdraw or come up with more troops so we can stay. If you say that you believe the latter you can back up your words by signing up or advocating friends & relatives do so. Or you can let your actions speak for themselves and admit that the only solution is to bring the troops home.

As to your law & order example: if we had a shortage of cops & lawyers and couldn't meet the need then the same would hold true - you could sign up or quit your bicthing.

Nate, there are numerous reasons that a particular person may be unable (not necessarily physically) to serve, regardless of the troop shortage.

Well, honestly, until you fail a military exam ... you can't say you can't serve.

I don't know Answerman. What non-physical/age related reasons are legitimate excuses for not signing up but believing others should keep dying for your cause while you can't gop help them?

In any case for those with legitimate reasons not to go, what let's them out of the second half of the proposition? Surely these people know others who could go in their stead?

The calls for service have been particularly deafening those who happily cheered this war on.

While I can't comment on a shortage of lawyers (I think we all know there isn't), wouldn't you agree there aren't enough cops? I mean...there are still criminals that get away...right?

So lets all sign up to be cops.

I'm going to treat this with more legitimacy than it deserves, but here goes.

No I don't agree. Anecdotally my town seems to have a good ratio of cops to crooks. The main issue is speeding tickets and noise complaints. There is the occaisional bust of High School kids drinking but I don't consider that to be a problem. IF there were a problem there would be no trouble raising the additional cops to re-balance the equation.

But really that's all beside the point. The analogy itself is flawed. There is a massive difference in both scale between crime in the US and war in Iraq and context. If we as a society decided to have more cops we would have them by making some small changes to the incentives. There are NO changes to the incentives that will get us enough troops for Iraq.

I appreciate you "treating it with more legitimacy than it deserves".

But your response is to say there are "no" incentives to increase troops? I'm sure there are some--whether we're willing to pay for it is another thing.

Look, the point is that the chickenhawk argument is a personal attack. It's no more, no less.

Why doesn't the argument circle around what you really seem to want--the entire pull out of U.S. forces from Iraq. That is what you want right? Am I missing something?

There are two solutions I see to this argument.

1. All supporters of the war go fight. Now. Period.
2. We pull all troops out. Now. Period.

Is there a third option I'm missing?

We'll agree that solution 1 simply isn't going to happen--for a variety of reasons. So we pull out. Tomorrow. Then what happens?

I am skeptical that there are incentives left to increase the troop strength, but admit that they could theoretically exist.

The chickenhawk argument is a personal attack, you are absolutely right. But to my mind so is saying hey someone else's kid has to go fight and die so I can have what I want without any repercussions. Afterall they signed up and knew what they were getting into...And in this case we don't have the numbers to do what the war supporters want anyay.

You are right though that those are the alternatives I see left. We have two three bad choices:
1. Stay the course and watch the Army/Marines be broken by lack of rotation & replacement.
2. Have all war supporter's enlist and hope it's enough to push us over the top/reinstate the draft - as you say, not going to happen.
3. Declare victory and come home. In either situation 1 or 3 we are going to have to deal with the fallout from a broken Iraq. At least in option 3 fewer of our troops are killed in the meantime.

A pretty good argument can be made that we don't have enough troops in Afghanistan, and there's certainly still a job to be done there. Many liberals have made this argument, including John Kerry.

If recruiting is in crisis, it's an armed-forces-wide thing that affects us everywhere, and not just in Iraq. So the problem affects Afghanistan.

That being the case, and considering that an overwhelming majority of liberals support the war in Afghanistan, why aren't you folks volunteering? And since you aren't, why do youexpect to be taken seriously when you argue military issues?

Moreover, Hillary Clinton and numerous Democratic politicians supported the war in Iraq and continue to. By your logic, are you willing to denounce them all as chickenhawks and state that their military-related arguments lack all credibility?

No not at all, because if someone volunteered for the Military right now, they would be sent to Iraq not afghanistan, so I dont blame any Liberal for not signing up at this point.

Re Afghanistan: Sure an argument can be made that more troops would be helpful. However, unlike in Iraq there is a high probability that outside countries will provide them if asked. Of course once we are out of Iraq we will be able to provide those troops ourselves and the recruiting problems should ease.

As for why we aren't volunteering? If I accepted your premise that 1)Afghanistan requires more troops 2)the US is the only country able to provide them, there is still no way to volunteer to serve there. Let's be honest, a recruiter can and will tell you anything to get you in. Once that happens your choices are over - here's your gun, Iraq's that way. You don't get to choose where you serve, you don't get to choose when you leave (stop loss), and once you think you're out they will still call you back (IRR).

Convince me that the need is there and we can talk about forming a new Abraham Lincoln brigade to serve under our own command, on our terms, alongside the US.

Re Dem politico's who backed the war:
They fall into two camps - True believers like Lieberman who are roundly despised by large parts of the Dem base and cowards like Kerry & Clinton who backed the war out of political calculation. The second group can overcome that hurdle if they are good enough on other issues, or if their opponent is even worse (Kerry v. Bush). Even so since the election the blog part of the base has been devoted to holding Dem's feet to the fire when they try to backslide and make deals (Bankruptcy, Social Security, Bolton, etc...) that aren't in our interest.

When it comes to the first group - I have no problem calling them chickenhawks. The second group? I wish they would get over their mealy mouthed, have it both ways stances but am confident that as Iraq continues to go downhill they will eventually catch up with the 60% of us who already see it was a mistake.

All you're basically saying is that you're right about the war, Democrats are generally right about most issues and can see the errors of their ways on other ones, and Republicans and Leiberman types suck, so Republicans should join the military or shut up.

I know you'll be able to rationalize how this is NOT what you're basically saying, but that's how I see it. Except in the specific instances of those non-volunteers who toss around words like "traitor" and the rest about liberals, the chickenhawk argument is incredibly flimsy and unpersuasive, and it detracts from what would otherwise be an interesting underlying policy debate on the merits.

The problem is Answerman, that the majority on the Right dont want to have that debate. They have been all too satisfied with demonization of those who opposse the war. You have impressed me as a person of logic in your post here. Most logical people (Looks like 52% of Americans recently polled) would look at the Downing Street Memos and other evidence that we may have been decieved into this war, and at LEAST want to ask questions. Most Right Wingers I have spoken with choose to blow the memos off, and wont even discuss them with any semblance of logic. The same goes for other sensitive issues. Look at how Jay Tea handled my challenging him on the Robert Byrd Racism Meme. I simply pointed out that it was dishonest to focus on Byrd's class roots and NOT acknowledge that Republicans and Conservatives have and continue to have issues with Racism.

Well, I will agree that most on the Right are just cheerleaders who don't really want to discuss war policy intelligently. But I think there are several who make particular cases for war (some that match one or two of the cases Bush has made at one time or another -- and yes, I think the shifting reasoning for why we went to war is ridiculous -- and some that are a bit different from anything the administration has ever hung its hat on) that would be valid regardless of whether Bush decided on war as early as July 2002. In fact, folks like Lieberman wanted war since early 1998, when they supported the Iraqi Liberation Act that was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton (and of which Al Gore was a huge supporter).

Now the DSM raises another issue besides the timing of the decision -- namely whether intelligence was being manipulated to fit the preconceived desire of a justification for attack. I guess I'm just not persuaded that just because a British official thought the facts were being manipulated, that they really were; that easily could have merely been the author's opinion. Moreover, how do we square the "Bush lied about WMDs" accusation with several years of intelligence -- most during the Clinton administration -- suggesting what Bush claimed, that Iraq had WMDs. Finally, it's undisputed, and the 9/11 Commission got into all this, that Iraq had all the basic materials for WMD (the stuff that it's hard to get) and simply hadn't weopnized it yet, but that it would have been fairly easy to do so.

So in my view, the issue is a lot more complicated than a lot of anti-war folks would like to think.

Christopher Hitchens dispels the chickenhawk canard (the same logic applies to people who say civilians can't criticize interrogation practices):

http://slate.msn.com/id/2121674/

All you're basically saying is that you're right about the war, Democrats are generally right about most issues and can see the errors of their ways on other ones, and Republicans and Leiberman types suck, so Republicans should join the military or shut up.

I don't disagree that I think I'm right about the war, that in general I agree with Democrats on most issues and in general disagree with Republicans on those issues.

In a vacuum we could have a debate about Iraq and the war where "chickenhawk" would have no place. Hell before the war we could and should have had that debate. Now however that debate has to take place in the context I mention earlier: 1)we can't "win" with our current forces 2)no one else is going to augment our forces. If you want to argue point one that's fine, we'll disagree but that's fair. If you want to argue point 2 we'll disagree, but that's fair.

"Chickenhawk" is not about making a rational argument. It is an insult against those who feel we should stay in Iraq and after looking at the facts agree that we need more troops but refuse to put their put their bodies behind their words.

I would agree with Hitchens if it was the fall or winter of 2002 before the war started in March. Hell I would of agreed with him up until last year when it started to become clear that we didn't have the manpower to carry out the policy he supports.

The argument is NOT that only those who have served can criticize the military/conduct of war.

The argument is that if we don't have the people to carry out the policy that you advocate then you are obliged to either change your policy or volunteer/encourage others to volunteer so that we do have the manpower to achieve the original goal.

What if the argument is that the administration should have gone to war, but should have committed more troops earlier and made an effort to increase overall military size after 9/11?

By the way, the Army is the exact size Rumsfeld says he wants, so I don't really understand your point. For there to be "more troops," the president needs to make a policy decision to increase the size of our armed forces. Which he inexpicably refuses to do.

What if the argument is that the administration should have gone to war, but should have committed more troops earlier and made an effort to increase overall military size after 9/11?

We could've had a reasonable debate on that. We should've had a debate on that. I would've argued that Iraq wasn't a threat to us at that time and that there were better options to investigate/contain the purported WMD threat. But without a way-back machine we can't have a do over to see what plays out. As for the argument that we should've done things different/better from the start I don't see your point.

Would I have still opposed the war? Probably. Would I have had better peace of mind that the administration wouldn't f'things up? Maybe.

As for Rummy saying he has what he thinks he needs? I agree with Sen. Biden (I think) that there isn't just a credibility gap there is a credibility chasm. When you contrast the predicitions the administration has made with what we can see happening it is easy to see which is real. At this point they can't ask for more troops. They sold this as a quick easy task and have consistently said success was just around the corner - and been wrong every time. Asking for more troops means admitting they made mistakes and they have a pathological aversion to doing that. In fact given their track record it is safest to assume that whatever they propose reality is the exact opposite.

Rather than make the tough choices, as you say above, they have adopted the attitude of a petulant child - if they just keep their eyes closed and hope for the best things will work out. Hope is not a plan.

Answerman, you see like a reasonable, civil man.Regarding the "how do we square the 'Bush lied about WMD'accusations with several years of intelligence...", if I give Bush the benefit of the doubt and think that he wasn't lying and really thought they had WMDs, then why would he start the war when weapons inspectors were in the country searching for WMDs in March of 2003? The primary reason given for going to war was to disarm Saddam of WMDs, so why wouldn't Bush let the weapons inspections continue?

The timing of the war was determined by the allegedly false statements in Iraq's December 2002 disclosures to the UN inspection team, and by climate/seasonal issues. Now, you can take issue with these, but I think it's a little far-fetched to connect the timing necessarily to some sort of master conspiracy to lie by the administration.

Was Clinton lying when he made the same claims about Iraqi WMDs? Were Democrats advocating an illegal and unjust war when they signed on, en masse, to the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, which officially committed the United States to regime change by the necessary means?

If Iraq's December 2002 disclosures to the UN were the determining factor for the timing of the war, then why go through with allowing of Inspectors back in the country? Was that just a charade? It would seem that allowing inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq's December 2002 disclosures were true or not would be the true course for somebody who "hadn't made the decision to go to war yet." The bit about the weather is another thing. Did Bush just decide that in March, "hey, this is good invasion weather!", or was it part of the plan all along, even when he was claiming that he hadn't made the decision to go to war yet?
Was Clinton lying? Maybe, I don't know. It is certainly possible, as he lied about other things. Were Democrats advocating an illegal and unjust war with the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998? My understanding of that act was that it was not advocating a regime change through an invasion of the country. How is "necessary means" defined by the act?

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Subscribe to this comment thread.

Comments: