My Pet Jawa examines bloggers and military service. Intertesting idea, but I am not sure how useful the outcome is…
Reader Interactions
35Comments
Comments are closed.
by John Cole| 35 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Blogospheric Navel-Gazing
My Pet Jawa examines bloggers and military service. Intertesting idea, but I am not sure how useful the outcome is…
Comments are closed.
Steve
I think it’s clear that the “chickenhawk” term is targeted towards the high-profile cheerleaders on the Right, and is not meant to suggest that no one who supports the war has any military experience.
While the Right suggests that “chickenhawk” is just a slur, I have to say that I find the pro-war views of those who have actually served to be much more cogent and interesting than the same old platitudes from Powerline. Blackfive is a good example, and this blog as well I guess, although I don’t exactly think of it as a milblog.
I do think there’s not a lot of punch when someone implicitly says, “This war is important enough for other people’s kids to go die in.” When someone who actually served, or has family members who serve, talks about whether the war is worth it or not, there’s a lot more significance to their opinion. It’s not just a theoretical debate to them.
Geek, Esq.
It would be more useful to correlate military service against a willingness to criticize the conduct of the war, especially amongst members of the right.
It was a truism back in the day, and still may be, that veterans’ lobbying groups greatly preferred to deal with bureaucrats who had never served as opposed to those who had served–the latter group being much more difficult to roll over.
Likewise, bloggers like JC and Josh Trevino show much more willingness to criticize the handling of prison abuse and the overall conduct of the war by high-ranking Pentagon and WH officials than do people like Malkin or Prof. Glennuendo.
Nash
Textual analysis of this Jawa Report study indicates it was actually ghost-authored by either Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray or Mary Rosh and John Lott.
Nash
BTW, I quibble with categorizing this as “Blogospheric Navel-Gazing,” John.
I’d suggest “Blogospheric Navel Lint Removal and Use as Food” is more accurate.
jg
In this war they’re called ‘chickenhawk’. In the Vietnam War CCR had a different name for them. Fortunate Son.
It ain’t me
It ain’t me
I ain’t no fortunate son
TallDave
The whole chickenhawk idea usually gives me a chuckle, considering how patently unserious it is.
First off, the military leans right by around 70% to 30%. So if leftists want only the military to have a voice in military policy, I don’t think they’ll be happy with the policies that emerge from such a system.
Second, the above raises the obvious concern that such an outcome would make us essentially a military dictatorship. Civilian control of the military is one of our most important tenets. Civilian debate of military issues is obviously necessary for civilian control of the military.
Third, historical “chickenhawks” include people like FDR, Abe Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson. So when throw out the “chickenhawk” slur, you’re casting a pretty wide net there.
ArmyVet82ndAbn
There are those who talk the talk…
There are those who walk the walk…
And we know who’s who
TallDave
To be fair, CCR was talking about privileged sons who avoided the draft, which charge did have some serious moral weight to it.
Of course, the draft itself was in some measure an attempt to enforce equality of service. As is nearly always the case with such attempts at coercive equality, it failed miserably, and it didn’t do the military any favors either. Which is one reason why we’ll probably never have another.
Nash
TallDave, methinks thou doth protest too much:
You know, through most of the 2003-2004 timeframe, I didn’t think the “chickenhawk” meme had much effect as a barb or goad, because most rightwingers ignored it before it was apparent even to them how badly their war was going. But now, the more I watch the myriad TallDave’s let out a faux yawn, do a lazy stretch and tell us how much they don’t get offended by the charge because, after all, it’s just not true and oh yeah, look at who else is a chickenhawk, the more I’m absolutely convinced that
Republicans hate being called chickenhawks, because it stings like a bitch.
As I’ve said before, the beauty of the meme is you don’t even have to believe in it as a charge against one whole group of people (and I don’t believe in it) to use it to such devastating effect. It is really pissing off Republicans, as evidenced by how much the TallDave’s yearn to tell us that it isn’t pissing them off. It is pissing them off for two reasons:
— Deep down inside, there are a small number of Republicans who quietly look at themselves and find themselves wanting and the rest of the Republicans are fully aware that some of their compadres feel this way.
— The Republicans have effectively demonstrated for years now that a charge doesn’t have to be true to be devastating. It can be “patently unserious” and still unnerve the TallDave’s of the right, in spite of their protestations to the contrary.
Once you finally realize you are no longer chained by the truth and don’t feel like you owe Marshall Wittmann the time of day, it’s sweet payback time. I know revenge is a dish best served cold, but man is this fun to watch. I’ll take mine hot, thank you.
Steve
FDR was a chickenhawk? That’s rich.
Jorge
And of course, the heart of the chicken hawk meme right now is the fact that our armed forces need people to sign-up. If you believe in this war, then your country needs you to enlist, not to type or put a magnetic ribbon on your 12 miles to the gallon SUV. If you aren’t willing to serve, then all your doing is talking. Does it make you a hypocrite? Hard to say. But it does make you nothing but hot air.
You know what tells me that the meme isn’t completely off base – those who criticize it never, ever directly address the troop shortages. Too close to the fire, you get burned.
Nash
Precisely! And that’s why there are a small number of Republicans who actually do feel shame.
Agreed. And if you are unable to enlist by reason of being too old or too doughy, then your country needs you to use your impressive rhetorical skills to convince your younger, harder-bodied kin to enlist.
jg
People like Bush? A senators son IIRC. Avoided the draft by getting placed in TANG. Dick ‘I had other priories’ Cheney. And yes, Clinton was a draft dodging puke too.
Specifically it referred to the draft but in general I think it applies also to those college republicans who love this war but aren’t the kind of people who enlist.
jg
I think a lot of good could come from Bush asking people to serve, asking for some sacrifice on the homefront. As long as he keeps saying ‘freedom is winning’ he gives the chickenhawks the belief their service isn’t needed. It keeps their delusion that they can serve by having campus rallies alive.
Bush won’t do that though. He’d consider it admitting a mistake. Its not though. It doesn’t say we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq, it says we’re committed to kicking the insurgency’s ass and finishing the democratization of Iraq. They can’t beat us if we fully commit to this. But like Vietnam where we’re just trying to wear them down instead of bringing the thunder. Wearing them down would work against a hippie commune but not a determined enemy. I think Afghanistan in the 80’s proved that.
Vlad
To me, that list suggests that people who read right-wing blogs are in large part reading the wrong ones.
Mike
“Nash Says:
If you believe in this war, then your country needs you to enlist, not to type or put a magnetic ribbon on your 12 miles to the gallon SUV.
Agreed. And if you are unable to enlist by reason of being too old or too doughy, then your country needs you to use your impressive rhetorical skills to convince your younger, harder-bodied kin to enlist.”
Naturally both you guys are ex-military so you speak from higher moral ground correct?
Stormy70
People who resort to chickenhawk arguments sound like 12 year olds. It is just a way for the left to stifle debate. It is not a legitimate point, and therefore no need to engage the person calling others chickenhawks, since they are not worth the effort. It’s just a game played to discount the opinion of anyone not sitting in Iraq, who believes what we are doing is a good thing. I find it interesting that posters call people chickenhawk or ask when they are signing up in the reserves, without knowing their backgrounds. Someone pulled that on John once, and he smacked him down with the quickness. How do you know which posters have served or have a family member serving? It’s none of your business, and should not affect the debate going on about the war.
jg
Now that is funny. I don’t care who you are. Calling people who glorify war but who couldn’t be bothered to serve, chickenhawks, is stifling debate? The LEFT is trying to stifle debate? WOW.
Dr. Weevil
Steve is apparently ignorant of FDR’s life. Born in 1882, he was a little too young for the Spanish-American War, but he could have joined the army and served in the Philippines, and did not. He could have fought in World War I, but did not. He was Assistant Secretary of the Navy during the war, but without any military experience at all, which is a fairly unusual (lack of) background for such a job. He didn’t get polio until after the war. So by the standards of the kind of moron who assumes that anyone is a chickenhawk who supports any war without having previously served in one, FDR is a chickenhawk. Of course, that just shows how stupid the slur is.
Dr. Weevil
Nash thinks that Republicans hate being called “chickenhawks” because they feel guilty of being exactly that. I imagine if I went around calling Democrats “motherf***ers” (I don’t and won’t), quite a few of them would get really pissed. Would that prove that they were f***ing their mothers, or would like to do so? Or would it just prove that when you tell vicious lies about people, it tends to piss them off? It’s nice that Nash admits that the accusation is dishonest. Too bad that doesn’t stop him from making it.
Mike
“jg Says:
People who resort to chickenhawk arguments sound like 12 year olds. It is just a way for the left to stifle debate.
Now that is funny. I don’t care who you are. Calling people who glorify war but who couldn’t be bothered to serve, chickenhawks, is stifling debate? The LEFT is trying to stifle debate? WOW.”
How is supporting a policy you think will make America safer “glorifying war”. You can argue the policies of course, but just because one side thinks (even wrongly) that going to war is the right thing for protecting the country, that doesn’t mean they are “glorifying war”.
Geek, Esq.
I would feel a little more hesitant about the whole chickenhawk theme but for the fact that the rightwing is already beginning to blame any failure in Iraq on . . . you guessed it . . . liberals!
Misha I
Mind if I put that on my endorsement section on my sidebar?
Thanks.
Nash
Mike, Stormy70 and DrWeevil are more TallDave’s and prove my original point. They need to tell you why it isn’t true that Republicans are chickenhawks. Need to tell you how it doesn’t hurt their wee psyche when they are called chickenhawks. Need to tell you why it’s the same hypocritical ploy as [fill in the rightwing slur on the left here].
You err. It’s quite honest as applied to specific people. It’s only dishonest as applied to an entire group. As I said, you guys taught us well that we don’t have to agree with your version of the “Truth” because you have also taught us that there is no such thing as objective truth anymore. (You know, global warming doesn’t exist, intelligent design is science, I could go on, but I want to keep my breakfast down.)
The truth that Republicans are chickenhawks? Yes, that’s a real shame, isn’t it? As I said, I like my chickenhawk revenge hot.
You guys should take a page from John and ignore it. That was and is the proper response when the rightwing calls Democrats traitors. It is also the proper response when we call all you TallDave Republicans “chickenhawks.”
Republicans are chickenhawks.
Count to one million and then stay silent. There, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
Mike
“The truth that Republicans are chickenhawks? Yes, that’s a real shame, isn’t it? As I said, I like my chickenhawk revenge hot.”
I’ve always thought that you should never call anyone anything on the Internet you wouldn’t say to their face. if you’re not willing to call someone a chickhawk or a traitor unless you’re hiding behind your keyboard, then what you have to say is meaningless.
John S.
Then by your standard, everything you (and I) say is meaningless, since we are all ‘hiding’ behind our keyboards. And since there is no way to gauge whether what someone says in here is commensurate with what they would say in person, your point is rather moot.
But if you’re such a tough guy, kindly post your address and phone number so those of us who are so inclined may tell you exactly how we feel to your face.
ppGaz
Well, that’s a fool’s bargain. Someone who has “served” is not an expert on anything but serving. Not foreign affairs, not Middle East policy, not oil reserves and production curves, not nation-building, not the true origins and nature of terrorism.
While “people who served” deserve the greatest thanks and respect, their ideas should stand and fall on their own merits to the same degree that anyone else’s ideas should stand and fall on their own merits.
Asking “people who served” about this war is like asking a DEA officer why we should have a war on drugs.
Dr. Weevil
When someone on the internet tells his opponent to “Shut up”, he has just confessed (whether he knows it or not) to losing the argument. That is exactly what ‘Nash’ does in the last sentence of his last comment. I will write exactly as much or as little as I please, and if ‘Nash’ continues to lie, I will continue to call him on it. Perhaps if he weren’t so intent on ‘having his revenge hot’, he could at least make his lies consistent. Admitting that the chickenhawk slur is “dishonest as applied to an entire group” and then shouting “Republicans are chickenhawks!” in the very next paragraph is the sort of thing only a liar, or someone who believes “that there is no such thing as objective truth”, could do.
Nash
Love it. Snagged two with that lure. A nice shiny spoon it was. Swimming, darting…hooked!
Dr. Weevil
Poor Nash, walking around with his own hook stuck in the seat of his pants, pulling hard on the line shouting “I got one, I got one!”, as everyone else tries not to laugh out loud. Perhaps he should try answering the rational arguments offered by others and explain how what he has written could possibly be construed as anything but a bald-faced lie?
Bob
I was in the army when there was a draft, during the Vietnam War. The good thing about the draft was that, even with the loopholes available, there were a lot of people against the war (including me) who still ended up in the armed services.
Serving in the military does not give anyone any moral high ground speaking about war. But people who use military actions to advance their international goals (and we pretty much know who we are talking about these days) and who don’t have military experience are at a disadvantage regarding the adverse effects on people sent into war zones such as psychological damage, dismemberment and death. It’s the isolation from this damage that makes these chickenhawks so cavalier about war. Maybe politicians who promote war should spend their Augusts cleaning stump wounds in VA hospitals, or, better, riding shotgun in an unarmored Humvee in Baghdad.
John S.
It begs the question, what do those who are primarily in charge of our military operations actually know about warfare?
For some things, there are no substitutes for first-hand experience.
TallDave
Republicans hate being called chickenhawks, because it stings like a bitch.
One could just as easily say
Democrats hate being called traitors, because it stings like a bitch.
TallDave
Of course, I’m not a Republican and I find it amusing. Nor do I think Democrats are traitors. Tne fact that they don’t like being called that doesn’t make it any more true, despite whatever gleeful nonsense Nash posts.
But thanks for the laugh, Nash.
TallDave
And lastly, as Michael Totten points out, there are lots of people throwing around the term “chickenhawks” who supported action in Afghanistan, not to mention Kosovo.
So it’s possible Nash himself is a chickenhawk.