Tell you what, David: you count up the stars of the war's critics, we'll count up the stars of the war's supporters, and then we'll take both numbers, write 'em on a piece of paper, make a bunch of copies, then fold 'em up into sharp corners and every single asshole who tosses around the "chickenhawk/yellow elephant" argument can shove 'em up their asses.

1) There is a REASON the United States Constitution specifies civilian control of the military. You prefer the military to control the government? Go look up "junta." It might do you a world of good.

2) During World War II, the US was led by two men -- FDR and Harry Truman -- who never served a day in their lives. On the flip side, Viet Nam was a gift to us from Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon -- all of whom served honorably in the US Navy during World War II.

3) Where the fuck was the left's deference for veterans back in the 90's? I seem to recall that, when given a choice between a draft dodger who evaded military service with every tool at his disposal and a genuine war hero, they chose the coward. In fact, they chose the coward TWICE.

4) The whole "chickenhawk/yellow elephant" argument is a cheap rhetorical ploy, an attempt to win the argument by cheating. It's a shallow, transparent attempt to make the argument NOT about the issues, but about the debaters. It's sheer laziness and dishonesty, and quite frankly you oughta be above it.

Geez, I can't believe how worked up you got me. I didn't even steal the Car Talk Guys' "1 - B - III - d" style for numbering my points. I think it's because I respect you, David, and this is just so beneath you.

J.

Okay Jay, lets look at this shall we.

1. I forgot how pissed the whole Yellow Elephant thing gets you. As previously discussed, I dont expect someone with your health issues to go to Iraq. In fact, in all honesty, I dont want to see anyone else go to Iraq.
2. What I am pointing out in this post is the hypocrisy of those on the Right who disparage people who have been on the ground and in war, because they dont happen to agree with their assesment of it... an assessment formed from the comfort of their computer chairs.
3. I do believe in Civilian control of the Military. But I also believe that when someone is incompetent, they need to be removed. If I hired a Manager to manage my programmers and the programmers came to me and said the Manager doesnt know shit about code and is bungling the project, you better believe I would consider removing him, especially after he has botched several projects already.
4. I dont advocate sending a Bloggers Battalion to Iraq. That is more of a joke than anything. But I do feel and feel strongly, that some of your bretheren who constantly harp on the MSM and claim that Iraq is not being reported fairly, should get off their asses and head to Iraq to provide us some "real" reporting, that is... unless they are afraid to do so, or "have other priorities."

1) My health issues are irrelevant, David. Even if I was perfectly fit, I probably wouldn't still serve. I simply don't have the mentality to succeed in the service. But that's why we don't have a draft. Those who are in are there because they WANT to and FIGHT to be there. And I don't accept your excusing me but no others -- the essence of my objection is that it makes NO DIFFERENCE who makes the argument; it is the argument itself that matters.

2) There is enough conflicting information that both sides can make a good case. We can argue back and forth about what is a trend and what is an aberration. The US casualties have been declining steadily for MONTHS, for example. And yes, mistakes have been made, but that's the way we LEARN. Our military, prior to the invasion of Iraq, was the best the world had ever seen. Now, it's even BETTER.

3) I am not convinced that Rumsfeld is incompetent. On paper, he's quite possibly the best qualified SecDef we've ever had. Also, I've read reports that the six flag officers who have spoken out all were champions of the "old way" that Rumsfeld wanted to scrap (with the President's approval) and reshape the military.

I happen to think that Rumsfeld's done a pretty good job at DoD. He regularly meets with and listens to service members of all ranks and all branches -- but he doesn't take their orders. For example, he was the first SecDef, I believe, to take open questions from troops, and answered them candidly, honestly, and forthrightly. For example, his oft-criticized "you go to war with the Army you have" is exactly the kind of thing that soldiers know in their guts -- when it's time to fight, you fight. You don't ask for a "time out" while you finish cleaning and assembling your weapon, change into your new BDUs, and make sure everyone in the unit has all their equipment properly stowed.

On the flip side, flag officers tend to be extremely politically aware. Did you know that no one can be promoted to flag rank except by direct Presidential appointment? The only way one becomes a General or an Admiral is if the POTUS himself says so. All the flag officers who have spoken up so far all were given their stars by Bill Clinton -- and it's not an unreasonable speculation that they might be angling for some work in a potential 2009 Democratic presidential administration.

4) Blogger's Battalion to Iraq? Two words, David -- Michael Yon. Ex-Special Forces, now freelance journalist and blogger who's currently in Iraq for the umpteenth time. He's Seen The Elephant. I've spoken with him, and stood up for him when the Army tried to dick him over. He's done an outstanding job at collecting and disseminating information about Iraq, and I don't think he's on the "get the hell out now" bandwagon. I don't follow him blindly, but I put a great deal of weight on his observations.

One more point: honorable military service is to be respected, but it doesn't make one a saint. John McCain and Max Cleland, to name just two, served honorably and made great sacrifices while in uniform. But that doesn't make them exceptionally qualified for anything. Timothy McVeigh also served honorably.

Finally, I note you didn't address two of my key points: the crux of the "chickenhawk/yellow elephant" argument is to make the argument about the PEOPLE, not the ISSUES; and prior military service is no indicator of a successful wartime president. FDR and Truman (both Democrats, you'll note) were exceptionally successful war presidents, while JFK, Johnson, and Nixon all did crappy jobs on Viet Nam despite honorable Navy service in World War II. Lincoln also never served, but was great; Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower also did all right, and were veterans. It might be a good indicator of character in some ways (look at Bill Clinton), but it most likely won't mean anything about how they'll do as president.

J.

Just a preface to my comment before jumping in here: I never like to enter a conversation when I don't have the time to comment on all the points. But since I don't have much time to do jackshit these days...

So, the one point I'd like to comment on:

There is a REASON the United States Constitution specifies civilian control of the military. You prefer the military to control the government? Go look up "junta." It might do you a world of good.

Typically, I've seen this argument used by people on the left against generals who are seeking to gain more power for the military. For example, this argument would have been used to show just why general's like Curtis LeMay shouldn't have a sa over government affairs since the guy was nuts and would have nuke the USSR and started WWIII whenever he was given the opportunity to do such.

I think what's unique about the generals who have registered their complaints against Rumsfeld is that their complaints haven't been made for gung-ho, "the military needs more power" reasons. These generals are voicing their opinion because they think Rumsfeld is a piss poor administrator who only seems to be getting the military into more trouble.

While everyone should be afraid of military juntas, and they should certainly suport civilian control over our military, I don't see the specter of a military junta loomiing on the horizon of these general's complaints. Now with a Bush administration that looks like it's veering towards attacking Iran, that I find more a bit more troubling.

tas, I wasn't saying that the US was anywhere near a junta. I was just pointing out the logical extension of the "let's listen to the ex-military, as long as they agree with me" argument -- while also pointing out the hypocrisy of supporting Kerry based on his war record, when in '92 and '96 that reasoning would have demanded a Republican victory. (For the record: I always slammed Kerry not on the basis of his service, but on the fact that he did almost NOTHING noteworthy or praiseworthy once the Viet Nam War was over -- BCCI excluded.)

That is not to say that I don't see a potential political agenda behind the generals. As Dafydd ab Hugh pointed out (http://biglizards.net/blog/archives/2006/04/retired_general.html), the generals' statements were promptly taken up by leading Democrats, who carried it further -- not only should Rumsfeld resign, but the Republicans should be punished in the polls.

As Dafydd said, IF those generals don't speak up against their statements being "hijacked" for crass political gain, then it seems safe to assume they don't object -- and their own political motivations are fair game.

Could these generals -- all personally promoted to flag rank by Bill Clinton -- be angling for positions in a theoretical 2009 Democratic administration? I think that's a fair question.

J.

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: