Posted on 07/23/2006 6:38:41 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
``IT'S TOUCHING that you're so concerned about the military in Iraq," a reader in Wyoming e-mails in response to one of my columns on the war. ``But I have a suspicion you're a phony. So tell me, what's your combat record? Ever serve?"
You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a ``chicken hawk" -- one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who ``shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war.
``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
I disagree. If you have served and experienced the effects of war, you are less likely to use force and see it only as the last resort.
Abraham Lincolns Military Service During the Black Hawk War, 1832
I served. I saw the effects of war. And force is often my first choice for foreign policy problems.
What I read as his argument was "just because I am not willing to risk my personal safety and comfort, that does not mean Iraq is not worth other people dying for."
Did I miss something?
"Chickenhawk" refers to those who strongly support the use of military force but avoided military service and combat themselves. It has nothing to do with a particular party.
I served. I saw the effects of war and force is never my first choice for foreign policy problems.
I normally avoid this stuff, not even sure what a neo-con is supposed to be.
But the lady has nailed this one as well as it can be nailed:
the contrast/hypocracy/selective memory is (or are) repulsive.
PS: Lincoln ran through a bucket full of generals before he found Grant, his main strengths were tenacity & willingness to ignore intended restraints ... not uncommon in megalomania.
I'm sure Jacoby is just waiting for the military draft, which John Kerry promised would occur if Bush was elected.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35517-2004Oct15.html
I recall reading that once, when the moonbats of his day accused him of allowing Pearl Harbor to get us in the war (Roosevelt Knew! He knew what?), he said he would never do anything to harm the Navy, he LOVED the Navy.
Did I miss something?
Reading comprehension.
You've never been a journalist, you have no right to comment, according to idiot lib reasoning
I never served. Does that mean that now I should go out and pull off the "Support our Troops" signs on my vehicle? Does that mean I should also surrender the "Support our Troops" license plate on my vehicle?
Since I never served, does this mean now that I should never be allowed to have any opinion what so ever on whether or not U.S. military force should be used?
I suppose that we could logically extend this further and say that anyone who never served in the Israeli armed forces should not have any opinion about Israel using force to chase down terrorists.
How far do you want to go with this? Where is the limit?
I a man. I have never given birth. Therefore I should have no opinion in any way about abortion?
And it is always used by people that have lost every other arguement on whatever conflict they are discussing. It is used as a last ditch effort to discount the opinions of those that they disagree with.
The premise put forth by the persons using the chickenhawk slur is that people that have not served in combat are not allowed to argue in favor of combat. Taking that to it's logical end, we could no longer elect a president that had not served in combat lest we not be able to defend ourselves if attacked.
Hey Red, Do you have a link on Carter's Iran FUBAR? There are a couple of libs I know that think Carter was a great Prez. I'd like factual ammo to prove them wrong.
Thanks.
Are you eligible for the National Guard or Reserves?
One who has not served in the military is not necessarily a coward. Many who haven't served are in fact quite courageous.
Most who have served (~ 95%, last I saw some numbers) are what we combat soldiers called "REMFs"--a vulgar acronym meaning "rear-echelon" [something] [expletive]. I have much respect for non-combat people who served, though, because the hardest part for most is being away from home. Some of them also work(ed) around the clock, at times.
Combat and other specialties that taught overall tactics did teach much about what our military is capable of (with current and obvious positioning and strategy, occupying Iran very quickly and relatively easily, for one).
But some civilians put a lot of effort into learning about what our military forces can do. Some of those who try to learn are very concerned about our national security. Others did many years of education and do research to improve our warfighting capabilities. Many civilians do their part, and my hat is off to them.
Before my mother married my dad she married a pilot ...This was at the beginning of WW2...He was flying supplies around the US for the military...His plane went down and he was killed. Did for his country?
My dad was a grunt in Okinawa..He got jungle rot and pneumonia and was sent home....did he serve his country?
My cousin was a Marine in Viet Nam in 1965 ...All his friends died and he was shot.He came back and became a really bad alcoholic.
My brother dropped out of college, was drafted in 68 and was trained as a medic. He figured he was off to get shot in Nam ...so he got drunk and married ....then was sent to Colorado to treat GIs with VD...did he serve his country?
I smoked dope, went to college, got a high draft #, was nuts and deaf ...the military wisely chose to leave me alone.I dont claim to have have served my country but I can be as pro war as I want.
I think it is more appropriate to use that term when describing those who are quick to advocate the use of military force, but intentionally tried to avoid military service themselves. Ergo, it is ok for others to risk their lives just as long as I don't have to. Kerry, Murtha, Zinni, et. al. have used it against Cheney, Perle, and others who managed to avoid service in Vietnam. We have used "draft dodger" against Clinton.
I agree it is meant to silence or demean those who support our military intervention in Iraq.
But occasionally someone should ask a farmer for his opinion.
Or get Sally Fields to testify. ;-P
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.