In defense of ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS UNDERLYING USE OF the chickenhawk aspersion
I get that conservatives are understandably tired of the trite attack that "if you support the war you should enlist" (or variations on that theme). It's perfectly valid to be in favor of something without directly participating; as corky said elsewhere, one can support the mission of the police despite not being a cop. I also appreciate Wagster's point that by "chickenhawk standards" liberals who truly believe the war is disastrous have a duty to actively oppose it. Finally, I agree that the chickenhawk slur escalates tensions between conservatives and liberals and makes rational discussion more difficult.
Having said all that, I think there is some merit to the chickenhawk criticism, IF NOT THE USE OF THE ACTUAL TERM ITSELF, WHICH LIKE I ALREADY SAID AND NOTED REPEATEDLY IN COMMENTS IS CLEARLY DETRIMENTAL TO DISCUSSION. Specifically, I believe those who have experienced war themselves are better able to weigh the costs and benefits of military action. I believe that years of training and firsthand experience confers an expertise that ought to be acknowledged. I would (preemptively) agree that a deep understanding of military strategy and international politics doesn't comes standard with service in the armed forces, that civilian control of the military is desirable, and that a poll of the military would show majority support for remaining in Iraq. However, the lack of military experience among those who led us into Iraq (some of whom actively avoided serving in Vietnam) is troubling to me, as is their apparent choice to ignore the advice of many generals (this last appears to be improving recently). This holds also for those conservatives who pontificate about the will to win and the importance of victory while cheerleading from the sidelines.
It is not that I think Bush ought to lead the troops into battle, or that Jonah Goldberg should trade in his keyboard for a rifle -- neither strike me as particularly useful soldiers, to be honest. Rather, I object to the naive certainty with which they present their uninformed opinions as definitive, and I object to their self-righteous rhetoric about the cost of a war they'll never personally bear. When pundits wrap themselves in the flag and bang the drum for others to go to war, they shoulder some responsibility for the outcome of that war. When our political leaders push the nation into a war while lacking the experience to evaluate the costs and disregarding advice from those qualified to analyze the outcome, the result is far more grave. I agree with Lieutenant General Newbold: My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions—or bury the results.
The chickenhawk criticism, then, has no merit when applied to what the target should be doing, but it is certainly valid to point out the lack of military experience of those who would send others to fight in the context of evaluating the ability of the "chickenhawk" to accurately understand the costs and consequences of war. To return to our initial analogy, if I were to demand that police confront a dangerous gang with insufficient force and inadequate weapons and armor, it is not valid to suggest I must be a cop myself but it is valid to suggest my lack of experience with police tactics colors my judgment. An obvious way to defuse the criticism is to enlist (or become a cop); another possibility is to look to military professionals (or police chiefs) for advice. Characterizing those who point out shortcomings in policy traceable to inexperience as being against achieving the goal is counterproductive.
I will go further, and controversially suggest that this is part of a wider issue I have with many of the conservatives I've had the pleasure of interacting with online. In matters ranging from science to journalism to military strategy to education policy, I see a disturbing tendency to devalue the experience and training of experts in the field, to view professional evaluations as equivalent to armchair opinions. Whether it is questioning the overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, or labeling as "biased" the reporting of journalists with decades of experience, or ignoring the warnings of the many experts who foresaw difficulties with the post-Saddam phase of the Iraq war, or disregarding the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of teachers in favor of untested quick-fix approaches to improving education, there is a consistent pattern of minimalizing expertise. In some ways this is refreshing: the willingness to challenge the status quo led to excellent work analyzing the documents in Rathergate, for example. In other ways it is disturbing: when unsourced and often uninformed opinions are treated as equivalent in importance to exhaustively researched expert conclusions, the community consensus on that topic cannot be trusted. Of course liberals do this sort of thing too (most notably when it comes to economics) but in my opinion not nearly to the same degree as do conservatives. I'd hypothesize that this is because expertise is often associated with intellectualism (I would say rather that expertise arises from a mix of schooling and experience) and (stereotyping broadly) intellectuals are more often perceived as liberal and hence distrusted by conservatives.
To summarize, I submit that there is an aspect of validity to the chickenhawk argument where it points out a lack of experience that calls into question the understanding of war. This certainly doesn't mean that everyone who supports the war must enlist (although that is one possible counter to the chickenhawk argument), or that only those who served should be permitted input into policy, but it does mean that not everyone's opinion is equal, just as with many other topics.
P.S. I DON'T CONDONE USING THE TERM CHICKENHAWK AND I DON'T THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE COWARDS OR HYPOCRITES FOR NOT ENLISTING AND I APOLOGIZE PROFUSELY FOR ANY OFFENSE THIS DIARY MAY HAVE CAUSED
--
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- brendanm98's blog
- Login or register to post comments
IMO, it is summed up in this question:
If you want to claim that winning the GWOT is necessary to keep the country safe then why aren't you willing to make a personal sacrifice in order to achieve that objective?
In my mind that is a valid question. As I said earlier if the GWOT was that important then college age Repbulcians would be willing to pay a high price for it. The fact that many of them do not pay that price is a very good indication of how much they truly value the GWOT.
IOW, if you don't want to join the service then don't, but please stop pretending the stakes in the GWOT are so high.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
)Your last sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If people believe (as I, along with millions of others, certainly do) that the GWOT is essential to prevent a repeat of 9/11, they have an absolute right to support it, without the obligations you're trying to impose. If they like, they can make sacrifices at various levels, from supporting the government's expenditure of blood and treasure on the GWOT, to cutting back on oil consumption to reduce the poer and funds of enemies such as Saudi Arabia, to enlisting. If they chose to. Your attempt to require the latter as a condition of the former is totally insignificant to them, and certainly to me.
And they also have a perfect right to denounce efforts by the Democrats fo ingnore the risks, which might constitute anything from claiming that the lack of another attack on the homeland is a coincidence, to Harry Reid's brag that "We killed the Patriot Act!' to the ultimate in sophism, banning the use of the term "GWOT."itself. Who in their right mind would trust politicians who believe a problem can be solved by banning references to it?
What you're essentially claiming is that there's a test that must be passed before an opinion, and support for the administraion's actions, are valid. OK, here's back at you: in order for someone to express valid opposition to the war, they must prove they've made a significant sacrifice themselves: quit their jobs to join Cindy Sheehan's coterie of sycophants, donated lots of money to Reid's reelection coffers, volunteered to work for a candidate aiming to unseat John McCain in thenext Senate election, or something else life-changing. Otherwise, they have no right to express an opinion against the war; in fact, by doing so while doing nothing concrete in support of their position, they are "traitors." In fact, they should stop "pretending" that the GWOT isn't working.
Or better yet, they must force their children to do these things, whether those kids agree on the principles involved or not. This is entirely consistent with the ridiculous challenge that "if you support the war so much, why don't you send your own kids to fight it?" (You haven't claimed that above, but it goes with the territory.)
Your words suggest that you think means-testing will somehow encourage intelligent discourse among citizens on this subject. If so, under your logic it would be hypocritical to state a position until you've met that test yourself.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )As I stated below the value of something is equal to what someone is willing to pay for it. I think it is telling that those who claim to value the GWOT so much, like the college Repubs in maynard's diary, are not willing to sacrifice for it, like the college Repubs in maynard's diary. To me, that indicates that such people do not actually think the GWOT is that important but only use it as a political cudgel with which to beat on their political opponents, or such people do believe the GWOT is that important but are too cowardly to join up and fight it. I generally don't like zero sum arguments but I think one is merited in this case.
As I also stated below, the chickenhawk meme is overused. I don't expect a man with a wife, children and a mortgage to drop everything in order to go and fight the GWOT, but I do expect healthy 21 year olds without such responsibilities to sign up and fight if they want to claim that the GWOT is the most important battle facing our country for generations to come. If they don't choose to enlist then that choice tells me a lot about how much they truly value the GWOT.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or such people do believe the GWOT is that important but are too cowardly to join up and fight it.
What's the substantive difference between your "coward" meme and the "traitor" meme? I sure don't see it.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you think I am just calling people names then I don't see why you are getting so riled up about it.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )name calling is okay in your view while yet other name calling is unacceptable and undeserved
Sounds sort of double standardish, I think...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )-o-0-o-
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I thought I explained clearly what I consider to be a chickenhawk. Yet, you never addressed my argument you just referred to it as name calling. For someone who seems to be so concerned about being dismissive you seem to do it when it suits you.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You responded to my point by claiming I was "riled up". Wrong, but so what?
And I don't think the chickenhawk meme is dismissive as much as it is an admission that the name-caller doesn't have anything substantive to say in response to the call-ee's arguments.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You derided my "name calling" by calling me a name caller.
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Reductio ad absurdum, anyone?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and the other is an accusation of vicious intent?
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Both are vicious insults. Would it change things to call people who refuse to support the government cowards instead of traitors?
I don't get why this seems so hard for some to figure out. The chickenhawk meme is based on cheap, moronic but still vicious name-calling, an obvious effort to dismiss someone who disagrees with the person dishing out the insult. So is the traitor meme; both are substance-free. Someone vouching for its validity really is saying they have nothing but ad hom to present in response to the "chickenhawk's" position on the war.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )spreading the chicken-hawk meme?
Call for Karl Rove to resign because of the traitor meme and I'll cut you some slack. Otherwise? No.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that you presumably do.
Whether you "cut me slack" is insignificant AFAIC (I've already bribed the Bulgarian Olympics judge). I have all the slack I need. Just make your own arguments and see how they fare.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )1) Of course it would change things; conservatives have been calling people who oppose their views traitors since before FDR, but "coward" would represent a major extension of the lexicon.
2) It's cheap, but it's not moronic, and it's not vicious. The question of, "Why is it vital that someone else and not you go risk their lives in a war of choice?" is a reasonable one.
3) Of course I have plenty of other, more logical, arguments in response to the Yellow Elephants. I just particularly enjoy this one, probably due to my class consciousness. Basically, I cheerfully loathe and disdain those entitled little scumbags -- and I appreciate an opportunity to show them for the hollow, sad, weak, and unworthy worms they are.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )particularly this:
The question of, "Why is it vital that someone else and not you go risk their lives in a war of choice?" is a reasonable one.
I also feel a lot like you say you do in your third point, which I'll get to in a moment.
On your first point, calling people cowards because they don't put their money (personal lifestyles) where their mouths are applies equally to those who claim the country is on a path towards wreck and ruin because of Bush and his cohorts (see most of the comments below), but won't make the slightest personal sacrifice to do anything about it.
I generally agree with your third point, at least emotionally. Meaning here that I don't buy the automatic invalidity of an ad hominem argument; I think it's legitimate to question the motives of someone who claims to passionately support a given position, but is himself acting in contradiction to that position. IOW, hypocrisy.
Deriding someone who acts that way is, to me, a valid point that erodes the legitimacy of their positions. But there's real irony at work here WRT my occasional shots at one of my favorite pinatas, Al Gore. When I (and others here, of course) pointed out Gore's complete hypocrisy in demanding serious sacrifices by hoi polloi to reduce energy consumption, while being a major energy hog himself, a number of his fans here (including you, IIRC) accused me of class envy.
The same view can be applied to Hollywood has-beens like Ed Asner and what's-his-name from MASH - people who've made $$ by exploiting God-given looks and limited small-screen talents to get publicity by loudly espousing extreme positions they have made no sacrifices for. (I explicitly except intellectual property/content creators like screenwriters from this general point. %^> And that includes anyone who brought us one of the greatest shows ever to grace TV, Twin Peaks.)
Too bad your comment ended in name-calling, but I acknowledge that that can be very cathartic, and fun to listen to if there's some sharp-edged humor involved.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I thought the charge was unfair, due to his home's status as both home and place of business, but that was the beginning and end of my argument.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Al Gore is a wealthy man, a former Vice President and a prominent activist. Even if he moved his offices and business interests to some commercial building and bought a smaller home, he still has privacy and security concerns that would prevent him from owning anything close to an "average" house in Tennessee.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...is the head of our National Government now.
Be that as it may, I saw parts of the Dem YouTube debates tonight and I was fairly impressed by everyone...Pretty Cool.
Though I do wish that Richardson would stop sweating so. Dodd, Hillary, Obama and even Edwards were pretty good on the question of...Women should Enroll for the Draft and, as Hillary posited, There should be a National Service Academy like West Point.
To stay on topic of this conversation...all Dems felt that there should be greater National Service of one form or another by everybody.
Nice, I can get behind that.
I didn't like Edwards calling out the female pilot that flew over Baghdad...too Bush/Clinton like.
Winners:
1. Hillary...Surprisingly, I'd vote for her now.
2. Dodd
3. Obama
4. Richardson
5. Edwards
6. Biden
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Do you refer to Fred Thompson, or Rudy G, or Mitt Romney? I couldn't tell.
Related, I saw a report that Newt Gingrich announced he is tanned, ready and rested were the GOP to decide that their other candidates were all weenies.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...go actually to the source.
You know, I write and say this or that, (ie I don't like Hillary) without sometimes updating myself sufficiently.
I have thought, and maybe even have written, that I'm disappointed by the entire Dem slate of candidates...hence some interest in Bloomberg.
But actually watching them tonight, I thought they were pretty good...almost all of them...except for Gavel.
Though I still have an interest in Bloomberg.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the Dems really do have a very impressive set of folks running for President. And boy howdy do we have a big tent.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the interest in Bloomberg is more of a yearning for someone or some thing that will break the current duopoly? I could sympathize or even agree, in more normal times. But these are not normal times and there are more pressing needs that demand our attention. That would be consigning Bushism and the current iteration of Republicanism to the dustbin of history as job #1.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )visited by fire. Does this mean I should join the fire Department and that if I do not, I don't really care if my house catches fire?
By your logic, your payment of taxes that support a war with which you do not agree indicate that you disagree with it -- but not that much.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )My adherence to the Social Contract requires me to pay taxes, whether or not I agree with a particular action or program. A decision not to do so represents a decision to leave the Social Contract, which is a huge, huge deal.
Also, I don't have a choice on whether or not to be a firefighter; I'm patently less qualified than the many folks who would beat me out of a place in the school, so there's no way for me to join up.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )though I'm not at all sure it negates the principle. I suppose it depends on how much one opposes the war -- which was my point. However, I'll give you that one...
On the second paragraph, based on my view of that video, I suspect the kids shown would also have a qualification problem -- and not just for firefighting.
Yet that does not mean they or you should not support firefighters...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )so does your firefighter logic apply if I support the war but don't enlist?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The quintessential element of chicken hawkery, I think, is supporting war without any willingness to take on any serious personal sacrifice for that support. They aren't willing to go and fight. They aren't willing to try and encourage their sons and daughters to consider joining up. They aren't even willing to give up their tax cuts to pay for it.
Consider our decider-in-chief. Has there ever been such a protracted war where the President didn't send their eligible sons off to fight? Given our more gender-neutral military and the large numbers of brave women sweating their butts off in Iraq, why aren't the Bush twins in uniform?
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to support Peacekeeper Teams or to other NGOs in Iraq to aid the people of Iraq? you're opposed to the war; what are you really doing about it?
Uh, yeah -- I think if you'll check, WW II will count as the only protracted war where the Prez did send relatives. That's sort of a function of many synergies hitting at the same time. Or not.
On the Bush twins, probably for the same reason you aren't there; they don't want to. Same applies for a lot of people. It's a volunteer military and it is not for everyone. Not to mention the fact that you don't know what their opinion on the war really is...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...though I don't know about WWI, Korea, or Vietnam.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Robert Lincoln set out the War at Harvard (1860-64), started law school in 1864, quit and his daddy got him a job on Grant's Staff as a Captain in early 1865. He saw no combat.
Wilson had three daughters, none served. Truman had one daughter, she did not serve. McKinley had two duaghters, they didn't serve.
Johnson had two daughters, one married a Marine so Johnson did have a son in law who served in his war, two tours -- but Chuck Robb was a Marine before he met and married Lynda Johnson. Neither daqughter served.
Washington, Madison and Polk had no Children.
So FDR is it...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Thanks for the info.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First it was "enlist of you really support the war." Then "how can you support the war when you won't send your own son there to fight?" Now it's "send any blood relative who's of age."
Someone old enough to be a soldier is an adult by definition. Does your world view seriously include anyone ordering another adult to enlist in the military to make a point, either in order to prove something to you or for any other conceivable reason? Ridiculous.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...tongue in cheek. And I hope you don't think that I was accusing you personally. If so, I apologize.
Obviously, young men and women of military age are adults and must make the decision to enlist on their own. Still, as any parent knows, that's not the whole story.
I'm pretty sure that none of the neocon kids in that video got much encouragement to consider joining the fight in Iraq from their neocon parents. It's pretty unlikely that they invited a local recruiter over for dinner so that he could convince their son or daughter how much they're needed in the military.
Like I said, it's about waging war without personal sacrifice.
Just as an aside, proper chicken hawkery requires more than simply supporting the war. It means stressing the extreme importance of the conflict, congratulating yourself and people like you as brave or steadfast for being in favor of fighting, conflating flapping your lips or typing on your keyboard with actually participating in the conflict and denigrating those who disagree with the war as traitors or cowards or loser-defeatists and blaming lack of support for the fight with "lack of will" or "not having the belly for it".
I deny that calling someone a chicken hawk is a slur. It's an insult, but it's occasionally well deserved.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but your sensitivity is appreciated.
A slur is an insult in my book. But you're right that this is wrong:
congratulating yourself and people like you as brave or steadfast for being in favor of fighting
and so is this:
denigrating those who disagree with the war as traitors or cowards or loser-defeatists
I guess we just have different names for it, but that type of conduct is reprehensible, and the opposite of intelligent discourse. Any civilian (not a vet) who has had significant contact with soldiers who have done tours in Iraq knows that equating oneself to them is a ridiculous farce. Saying you are like them because you support them is total BS.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Way back when this war started, I think there was a reasonable argument to be made that joining up wasn't really necessary. We had a professional, capable military. They could handle the job and they didn't need any more recruits.
I think it's obvious that this is no longer true. The active military is being worn out. Many who want to leave are being stop-lossed. Soldiers in the National Guard and the reserves are doing multiple, year-long tours. Thousands in the IRR are being recalled or being bullied into re-upping. The Army is even sending soldiers with serious mental or physical problems back into the combat zone.
At this point, more troops are seriously needed if we're going to continue this war much longer. If you are a war-supporter, believe the fight is critical to our nation's survival and that it's one we must win and you could join up, I think you need to explain why you won't.
I don't think "I don't want to" is a reasonable excuse. Not at this stage of the game. There are plenty of soldiers in Iraq who don't want to be there, especially the Guard and Reserve guys whose families are experiencing serious economic hardships while they're deployed for a year or more at a clip.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I've tried to reenlist three time and been rejected by recruiters for two DUI's I had in college. When the military remains that picky I'm not convinced they are overly desperate for new recruits.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's a waivable offense. See here. There must have been other factors that led to their decision not to take you.
The Army has been falling short of their recruitment goals. They've been lowering standards, taking more people with felonies and lower IQs. Recruiters are under enormous pressure to find more bodies. They've been acting inappropriately and some have been disciplined for it.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if they are desperate enough. But they are not that desperate, because this healthy 35 year old former infantryman was told by recruiters not to even bother with starting the paper work because my DUIs would kill my chances when it was reviewed further up. So while technically I can try to join back up inasmuch as there are mechanisms in place that will allow it, the recruiters told me not to bother because it would eventually prove to be a waste of everyone's time involved. And apart from the DUIs I have had no other legal troubles since being honorably discharged, and the only medical problem I had was a hernia operation- that's it. So apart from my age there are no other factors that could play into it.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If you were 25, they'd be more than happy to do the work to get you a waiver. At 35, prior service or no, they're not going to take you unless there are no other negative factors or you've got some badly needed skill. Maybe you could try brushing up on your Arabic.
Not everything is waivable. There are still a bunch of things that they won't waive.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )there is this weird institutional hang up on guys who left. Had I tried anytime while I was in the IRR I'm sure I'd been accepted no problem, but my IRR ended in 1998 and after that point it is as if I crossed some sort of Rubicon.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Once that ends, you need to go through AIT and maybe even basic again.
Thing is, just because the Army didn't want you back, it doesn't mean that they're not desperate for recruits. It just means they're not that desperate. At least not yet.
Relevant to this discussion, I poked around some military/recruiting forums to see what was up. They are taking some old geezers back into the service. A few people mentioned that they were in their mid to late 40's, with prior service, and got back in. It seems that weight is a big issue these days. We Americans are too damn fat and even a lot of young guys are being rejected because of their weight.
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )while I'm not an olympic athlete I’m in decent shape. And if the Army is still rejecting fat kids then I’m even less sold on how desperate they are. Sure, they are scrambling to make their quota even after lessening their restrictions on who to recruit, but that does not mean the fewer restrictions opened up the Army to wide swaths of the population. As I said before they are not taking all comers.
And just for the record, it was the Marines I asked about rejoining and not the Army.
--"That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am!"- Dr. Seuss
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )barriers. They want young, fresh HS Grads for grunts; for the harder to fill specialties; Avionics repairmen, linguists, interrogators, A&E mechanics, SF, carpenters, surveyors, trained heavy equipment operators and such, they want the experience and will waive most problems.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If that is true, then why is this not true:
I would say that too is an insult but is occasionally well deserved.
Who gets, on either side, to make the determination on whether either appellation is 'deserved?'
Just askin'...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )answer as usual on these occasions is that one insult begot the other.
So who cast the 1st stone?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )http://theforvm.org/diary/brendanm98/in-defense-of-the-chickenhawk-aspersion#comment-51129
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and while it is really neat and rude -- er, erudite -- quite; and wordy as well, it also doesn't answer either question.
Shall we put you down as unable to answer?
Or just unwilling?
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd call it a lie. It's simply untrue that those of us who oppose the war are either traitors or cowards. However, it may be true that some of us "don't have the belly" for continuing the war. I myself have very little stomach for sending young Americans off to die for no reason.
But, if your false equivalence makes sense to you, who am I to argue?
--Guard, protect and cherish your land, for there is no afterlife for a place that started out as Heaven.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )involved in this conversation it is in your mind. I merely asked two distinct questions -- neither of which which you attempted to answer but instead elected to take personally when no personal attack was said, implied or meant.
So I'd ask you to relook at the questions and I'm truly curious as to the answers.
Your response above even engenders two more questions. In addition to why the two quotes are not equally true in some cases, as I said; and the determination of who gets to make the 'deserved' appellation you contend is sometimes correct; who gets to make the determination as to whether young Americans are getting sent off to die -- and whether any sending is in fact for "no reason?"
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's not like our fighting men and women do not themselves have families whom they are leaving behind, especially our reservists, who really did not sign up for these sorts of extended tours.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )available for them to read and it is quite clear. However, I do agree that based on historic norms and therefor expectations, they're placed in a hurt.
Don't agree at all on the active guys and gals. Contract is also clear and they knew what they were getting into, it goes with the territory
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Who evaded Vietnam military duty by doing this:
Good diary, Brendan. And remember, "chickenhawk" is not an aspersion, it's a quality.
Also, don't let certain people buffalo you with their old rewarmed republican operative talking points re: the 'chicken-hawk slur' meme. Glenn Greenwald zeroed in on it and put it to bed a year ago.
“It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.”--William Tecumseh Sherman
- Login or register to post comments
)that he might be pimping them?
And whoever hyperventilated on your link about him assaulting an anti-fur protester was overreacting - it's not like he skinned and mounted the protester, after all.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )While I'm all for promoting Marquis of Queensberry rules in the arena of political discussion, particularly at this site. Being mindful of the way this Administration has deployed questionable rhetorical tactics, repeated uncritically by the likes of the College Republicans, that have clearly worked to preserve the minimum support necessary to maintain our misguided occupation of Iraq and its pre-eminent status in all things WOT, at this stage I am inclined to turn that weapon around and go with what works in respect to certain target audiences as opposed to a broad brush. And as the video shows the chickenhawk meme does seem to have the desired effect in confounding the facile arguments and dampening the enthusiasm of said youthful defenders of this Administrations at its worst.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
)Diary fixed. Really appreciate those who somehow managed to find something useful to discuss here prior to these essential corrections.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
)The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Remember what happens when those two perfectly machined hemispheres of U-235 are foreced into, er, intimate contact by perfectly timed high explosives in a chamber evacuated by your diaphragm pump? Wellll . . . .
Well, I forgot my point. Sorry. Back to Sat morning cartoons (Sesame Street's been Tivo-ed JIC).
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...nothing to see here, move along folks, down here at the end of the midway is the Shark Tank...Munching on Lawyers....
No that's a fun exhibit.
http://theforvm.org/diary/brendanm98/in-defense-of-the-chickenhawk-aspersion#comment-51127
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You obviously put a lot of work and thought into this diary, And it obviously resulted in thought-provoking discussions, even with many of the people that resented the perceived name-calling. And IMO there's nothing wrong with a provocative diary title intended to prompt discussion - I do it all the time. If the NYT does it with its headlines, why can't we?
So don't give up, and don't be discouraged from doing this again.
Discalimer: This is my personal view, and is not intended to reflect the other moderators' drinking habits or personal hygiene.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )from any comment on your discalimer*. Pity, drinking habits and personal hygiene in combination are to die for targets...
Sigh.
Good post, BTW.
* Used to have one, had to give it to Goodwill, it didn't alime my discs at all well. :)
P.S.
That pump is going to have to go to them as well, I'm afraid. that er-r-r, object, is totally clogging up the works...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )at least one drunken slob as a moderator. I did my best last term, tomsyl is an able successor.
BTW, I can see why tomsyl confused this with this, especially considering where the "reciprocating motion" occurs.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )one of you gets one of these high-tech devices, while the loser gets a walk-on in Grey's Anatomy.
Can we quit while we're ahead? Or are we so far behind that it's already too late?
Time to bend the crank on my solar-powered ACME Adjustable Yardarm (Pat. Pend), which aautomatically moves so that the sun is always over it. Ken, the plans from Popular Mechanics are in the mail.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )around this Southern Baptist with whom I'm domiciled. Already got her not going to church and having a drink or two, the AAY (Pat.Pend) should be all I need to tip the balance. May be able to get her dancing on the tables before too long...
I already am endowed, passed on to me by my dear departed father, one of those devices or something similar, he said, blushingly, so I guess I get the walk on part. Think Peter O'Toole in My Favorite Year...
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That way the whole family can participate.
My older brother told me that Episcopalians drink like fish - something to do with that "groves and fishes" stuff in the Bible. (Of course, he also told me that Holy Rollers smoked huge spliffs during their services - that didn't pan out either.)
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )so your head is all eccentric? Finally, a point of agreement.
Quitting while you're ahead is for pvssies. I say push it to the limits, or until we're shut down by the hosting company.
BTW, be careful about that yardarm. You may find this of interest.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Can't say there are any '70's memories there to be brought back, though, for the usual reason. Now I find that electricity is a natural high, long as your life is well-grounded. Hmmm, will add that to the Tom Eagleton bio I'm writing in my spare time.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )need is an excessively drunken slob as a Moderator, thus my continuing cry; "If numerated I will not ran; if elecivated, I will nor swerve!"
Thank you for the diagrams. You'd really think a guy who says he like to dig into things would know the difference...
I'd also include a Lawyer joke but Traveller beat me to it. :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )from Tom Eagleton. And it's "If electrocuted, I will not serve." JFTR.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )if electromotive I will be served. Then again, at my age the memory goes as does the memory of what one wanted to remember. Or why...
I say I'm dyslexic, my wife says I'm drunk, I don't know who to believe. Anyway, I have it now. If Electrolux is served I'll sell my Dyson.
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )don't ever imply that I'm a moderately drunken slob, I've been working at it for over 30 years now. There are few things that I take pride in, but that's one of them.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Or something. Blurred, anyway.
As Tomsyl always says, "We all have our bearings crossed." Or words to that effect
(I still can't figure out how the boy did that to the pump...)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The "chickenhawk argument" has nothing to do with pointing out the "lack of experience that calls into question the understanding of war." Those who wish to do so are able to do so without using the epithet in the first place. The term has everything to do with dismissing and derogating and belittling the opinions of an increasingly large group of people who have never faced combat, all because they have opinions that strongly differ with many on the hardline Left.
I came of age in a time and place where the military was looked down upon. By the time my opinons changed about military service, my life had taken a certain path and there was too much inertia to change course. In the absense of that experience, I've drawn on history, general principles and philosophy, the experiences of others who've been there, and knowledge of human nature to arrive at the conclusions that I do.
I'm sure those on the anti-war Left draw on similar resources in coming to their opinions, or maybe not. But that you've come to different conclusions than me does not give you the rationale to insult, and that's exactly what you do when you toss around slurs like "chickenhawk". The term is just as valid as my calling the anti-war side a bunch of anti-American terrorist-enabling bastards. In other words, it's not. For purposes of comity and for upholding the spirit of the posting rules, I would prefer that such language not be used by either side.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
)When have I ever thrown around the term chickenhawk? Am I on the anti-war left? Is this diary in any way treading close to violating the posting rules? Come now.
The diary examines the argument* that is implied by the term or (more often, I think) the argument that precipitates an offended rebuke from a conservative to not "engage in chickenhawking" regardless of whether the liberal used the literal term. The essay concludes that one aspect of the argument is invalid (that war supporters must go serve to be pro-war) and one aspect is IMHO valid (that those lacking military experience are less capable of weighing the costs of war). I've said repeatedly in comments and the essay that I think the actual term "chickenhawk" is harmful to discussion, and the essay only condones select aspects of the argument underlying use of the term. If you don't like the title, read through the subthread starting with Jordan's comment below.
*obviously I don't agree with your conveniently narrow definition of the argument underlying the term, or I wouldn't have written the essay. I mean, "nothing" to do? "Everything" to do? You're so confident that you can determine the intent of every liberal who has used either the term or been accused of using the argument? I'm not so confident myself, so I examine both of the logical components, and totally dismiss the validity of one.
--Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Prior to your changing it, the title spoke for itself, and I appreciate the edit. I don't have an objection to your argument re the weight of opinions between those who served and those who did not. My objection is confined to the term itself. It's simply too loaded. There's no way that the word can be taken by the pro-war side as benevolent or even neutral, and I've never heard an anti-war fella use the term without dismissal or derogation. That may sound absolute or "narrow", but that's my experience with it.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Chickenhawk is a derogatory term, hurtful and mean to be so.
But so what? This is not unlike other terms that came out of our own Civil War, Scallywag or Carpetbagger...they were meant to be insulting....and yet, they were perfectly and accurately descriptive.
No big.
Carry on.
Best Wishes, Traveller
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )After Baby Killer, it's all been sorta mild... :)
--The K Codes explained HERE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which is easily demonstrated as being complete BS. There is no "overwhelming consensus"; even scientists sympathetic to the cause have pointed out the gross exaggeration in the party line as preached by Al Gore.
I'm sure you would agree that before you can accuse others of ignorance on a particular subject, you need to understand it yourself. AGW is not a simple subject, and understanding the rudiments requires some fairly detailed study over a significant period of time; I know of at least one Republican who's at least attempted to do this. It also requires that you ignore almost everything covered in the press, which largely serves up predigested pap written by people who clearly lack any comprehension of the underlying science.
Off the top of my head, here is a small sampling of what you need to understand if you want to form a legitimate opinion on the causes, effects and potential remediation of AGW:
-The selective data and statistical flaws in Michael Mann's research on which his hockey puck graph is based. His work was largely responsible for the IPCC's pronouncements that started this entire controversy. You might also look at how Mann's predictions subsequently have been treated by various scientific bodies, including the IPCC itself.)
-The inherent flaws in the General Circulation Model when it comes to predicting future weather. (A rudimentary understanding of finite element analysis is helpful in understanding why computer models based on atmospheric cells that are one kilometer cubes aren't useful when it comes to the long-, or even short-term effects of atmospheric carbon emissions.) This will help you understand why many experts have debunked Gore's predictions regarding global change due to carbon emissions. Of course, you have to reaad his book to find out what those predictions actually are. You've read his book, I presume.)
-What the Kyoto Accord actually provides. You need to know enough about what the underlying documents say to assess the impact of exempting China (which just passed the US in carbon emissions) and India. Also, the economic impact of compliance needs to be assessed at some level, which can be done by, e.g. studying the history of Canada's attempts to comply. Researching whether the chief finger-pointers in Europe have themselves complied with their Kyoto obligations certainly is relevant, too, as is some familiarity with the economic incentives that made the Montreal Accord so successful in reducing chloroflourocarbon emissions.
-The net effect of proposed CAFE increases on carbon emissions. (All this really requires is knowledge of the fraction of total corbon emissions represented by automobiles, factored by the net reduction effected by each MPG by which CAFE is increased.)
-The "dust to dust" total environmental impact of hybrid cars, which is particularly affected by the size and chemisty of the batteries they contain. This will allow you to compare the cradle to grave impact of a Prius to, say, a Hummer H2.)
I could go on, but I've bored even myself. With appropriate immodest, I've studied this stuff on and off for years, and I have no doubt that I would kick Al Gore's a- er, posterior in a debate on the underlying science of AGW. (Of course, he would trounce me on the political and PR elements. But that's not what his book's about, is it?)
So to come full circle, when an expert speaks out, I want to know what his/her opinion is based on so that I can independently evaluate how it fits into that of others, and to what extent it is based on theory/guesswork versus actual data. That's the polar opposite of what you accuse Republicans of doing.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
)I just cannot agree that there is not a consensus; there is not a single climatological paper published in the past seven years which holds that anthropogenic global warming is not currently taking place.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )cites to show why that's so. I'll do it again if I have to, but that would be against my principles (sloth and ennui).
The problem is that you're probably reading articles that tell you what scientific papers say and don't say; some of us here are trying to read the actual papers themselves. I'm betting that you read something that said "no paper's been published proving there's no AGW" or somesuch, and you believed it. Have you actually tried to look for the supposedly nonexistent papers to see what you can find?
You seem to see this as a black-or-white issue, but it's not. I doubt any self-respecting scientist is going to state categorically that there's no possibility of a correlation between increased greenhouse gases and an upward trend in global temperatures in the last century. Two independent upward-trending events have been observed; but linking those data is hypothetical, theoretical a wild-a$$ed guess, or whatever you want to call it. It is not a "fact" that there is a link between the two observations.
Maybe we differ on what the meaning of "is" is. You've given every indication that you believe it's been conclusively established that AGW "is currently taking place". That's the way the press and Gore (The "AG" in AGW, of course) put it; of course, they're wrong. Even the IPCC itself is not claiming that AGW is a fact; if you look at the summary chart (Table SPM-1) buried in their 2007 report, you'll find that the IPCC rates various forms of climate change in terms of human causation as probabilities or possibilities, ranging from "more likely than not" to "likely". There's obviously a world of difference between saying something is true and saying that it is likely to be true, or more likely than not to be true. So dogmatic certainty on this subject should be checked at the door.
Once you acknowledge that we're dealing with inherently uncertain predictions, you'll have no problem accepting that there are plenty of theories, studies and papers that provide other likely causes of GW. Meaning that AGW is not an accepted fact, regardless of what you might read in the press.
Can we at least agree that AGW theories are useless unless they're predictive? Assuming that's the case, please read this and tell me what you think. The footnotes reference articles of interest as well.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )