One of the silliest arguments confronting pro-war supporters is the infantile “chickenhawk” accusation frequently floated by those swimming in the shallow end of the anti-war pool—the idea being, in theory, that if you aren’t a member of the military, you aren’t entitled to express a public opinion on the Iraqi war.¹ Of course, in practice, non-military personnel such as those who are quick to use the chickenhawk argument are themselves permitted to express an opinion on the war—provided it’s the correct opinion, namely, that the war is illegal and immoral, and that Bush and his cronies are evil lying scum. But then, consistency is not the strong suit of these folks—nor is logic, as Christopher Hitchens points out in “Don’t ‘Son’ Me”, Slate, June 28th:
Did I send my children to rescue the victims of the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center? No, I expected the police and fire departments to accept the risk of gruesome death on my behalf. All of them were volunteers (many of them needlessly thrown away, as we now know, because of poor communications), and one knew that their depleted ranks would soon be filled by equally tough and heroic citizens who would volunteer in their turn. We would certainly face a grave societal crisis if that expectation turned out to be false.
But when it comes to the confrontation in Iraq, the whole notion of grown-ups volunteering is dismissed or lampooned. Instead, it’s people’s children getting “sent.” Recall Michael Moore asking congressmen whether they would “send” one of their offspring, as if they had the power to do so, or the right? (John Ashcroft’s son was in the Gulf, but I doubt that his father dispatched him there, and in any case it would take a lot more than this to reconcile me to Ashcroft, as Moore implies that it should.) Nobody has to join the armed forces, and those who do are old enough to vote, get married, and do almost everything legal except buy themselves a drink. Why infantilize young people who are entitled to every presumption of adulthood?
The idea that one need volunteer for military service in order to speak publicly in favor of the war creates any number of crazy analogues (for instance, is it okay to speak out against slavery if you’ve never owned or been a slave?)—not to mention presumes a commitment on the part of those anti-war speakers who invoke the chickenhawk argument to join the insurgency, should they wish to argue against the legality and/or morality of the war.
Sadly, the chickenhawk argument, though logically puerile, can prove quite rhetorically effective—in the same sense that charges of homophobia and racism have proven effective in debates over gay marriage and government funded affirmative action programs: such charges, cynically delivered, tend to stifle substantive discourse, forcing one side of the argument onto the defensive by changing the focus of the debate from the issues themselves to the character of certain professors of those issues—and in that regard, they help to sustain the status quo.
The bottom line is, the chickenhawk argument is an impediment to legitimate discourse and debate—and legitimate discourse and debate over national security is a necessity in a free society; and for that reason, those who raise the chickenhawk argument should be treated by everyone—right and left—as intellectual pariahs.
It would be nice to see the blogosphere begin that trend.
¹ Or rather, you’re entitled to express an opinion, but that opinion is, ipso facto, devoid of legitimacy, so you should probably just save your cowardly Rethuglican breath, deathmonger.
****
(h/t QandO)
****
update: Check out the comments section here for a number of spirited defenses of the chickenhawk meme from delusionally self-righteous anti-war Deanhumpers who have never met a left-liberal talking point they won’t cling to like Michael Moore to a plate of spare ribs. The gist of most of the “arguments” in support of the meme’s righteousness is that people so willing to speak vociferously in favor of the war should put their money where their mouths are—and merely advocating for the cause doesn’t count. Which means, of course, FDR should’ve strapped on a helmet, picked up a rifle, and had one of his aides wheel his crippled ass in front of a Panzer. BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!
You know if you keep showing those bona fides too much, the South Park contingent is going to get restless.
Excellent point – and while you’re at it might as well open it up to include all attempts at human discourse – ad hominem attack, especially due to lack of specialization in the discipline of interest is, unfortunately, the rule rather than the exception to modern colloquium.
Spam buster: plane, do I need to catch one?
Re: Iraq War.
Wesley Clark argued last evening that the Iraq campaign is a great recruiting tool for terrorists—an argument that, it seems to me, structurally defends the Iraq war, and suggests that it was strategically compelling. Because if the war in Iraq is likely to create more terrorists in the short run, we can reasonable say that a democratic Iraq, once established, is likely to create more support for democracy in the long run. And in the short run, those predisposed to support tyranny will join the insurgency, come to Iraq, and—with any luck—be captured or killed.
Less capturing, more killing, Jeff. Captured terrorists tend to get shitloads of doubt benefit by the press and those that enjoy calling our troops cannon fodder. But look, they’re the real patriots, right? What would I know? I’ve never served so I really should just shut up.
with any luckâ€â€be captured or killed.
Like your thinking there Jeff.
Said the same thing at my place. Only with bitter sarcasm. And no stinkin’ armadillos.
Exactly right…EXCEPT that it really doesn’t matter to the left whether you’ve served or not.
I’ve been called a chickenhawk by those who KNOW I’m a veteran (with a service-connected disability), because I was in the Air Force, because there wasn’t a “real” war on when I was in (nevermind the Gulf War)–because it’s “convenient” to have a VA-rated disability that disqualifies me from service, because I was “only” in the Air Force, because my regular job involved sitting at a desk, etc. Even the time I spent in Northern Iraq and Turkey as part of Operation Provide Comfort are summarily dismissed, because nobody happened to shoot at ME. Nevermind an Army guy was shot dead by a Saddam thug on the street in Zakho, Iraq the week before I arrived there–and this was AFTER the war was technically over.
But then I think the whole WMD question was utterly superfluous, although compelling. Those anti-war asshats simply aren’t interested in ANY arguments for war in Iraq, no matter who the arguments come from. And least of all, military and veterans, since we’re just a bunch of ignorant red-staters duped into serving by The Man.
Here is what I don’t get about the whole chickenhawk thing—by the moonbat logic, they should accept everything I say as gospel.
“What? You dare question me, granola eater? BOW! Bow before the uniform, I command thee!”
Even though I would benefit, it’s a stupid argument. Wearing a uniform doesn’t make me infallible. I’m wrong at least once a decade. Helps to keep me humble.
Once, over at LGF, I floated the counter-insult “turtle dove”. This would mean people who withdraw their heads into their shells and coo, “Peace, peace, peace”, no matter what was happening outside. It was well received and I was quite proud of myself, until I found out that Smash had actually coined it sometime earlier.
Arguable the most dangerous aspect of the liberals who spout the “chickenhawk” argument is their ignorance of just how important it is to have civilian control of the military.
Certainly it would be ideal to have ex-military members as a part of this civilian control (which we do) but it is impossible to expect the civilian control remain entirely of ex-soldiers.
Basically those who put forth this argument are essentially pining for a military that is controlled by itself.
Let’s go ask Cuba how well that one is working out.
Sharp as a Marble:
Well, it’s not like there’s many armadillos here lately, either. In fact, I feel a bit of vicarious humiliation on Jeff’s behalf, when I see that Cambodia has put a giant prehistoric armadillo on their postage stamp. This is doubtless their subtle way of pointing out that Jeff is mailin’ it in big time, armadillo-wise.
OK, OK, I’m bowing, dammit ! And my back is killing me, so can I get up now ?
Thanks for your service to our country, Blackjack, Beth; ‘tis a pity the pariahs don’t understand that it wasn’t just their right to free speech you were fighting for.
The main problem with using Wesley Clark as the base of any kind of argument Jeff is that Clark is just flat out incompetent.
Amusingly, even Bill Clinton thought so when Clark was SACEUR.
Thanks, Joe. Please get up and pop a Doans Pill for the back.
If somebody really wants to thank a troop, the best answer I can give is to do whatever job they do the best that they can. If somebody is a waiter at Red Lobster, they should be the best waiter at Red Lobster they can be. How does that support a troop? Simple—whenever somebody is deployed, they always need something to come home to. Right now, there may very well be a troop in Iraq thinking “when I get out of this crap, I’m going to go to Red Lobster and get the biggest lobster tail and crab legs I can eat”.
Bottom line—military folks might fight for freedom, but if there is nothing worth fighting for, who gives a crap? You see, it’s not that I’m brave or a great fighter or any of that stuff; truth is, I’m just a really lousy waiter.
Jeff,
If you run into any “chickenhawk” crap, let me know. I mean, I wasn’t in a real war, just Afghanistan, but I’ll try to be your sledgehammer…why don’t you call my name? Sorry ‘bout that…shouldn’t comment with a nice big glass of shiraz at hand.
So if asking young people to enlist isn’t the answer, how do you propose we stop the recruiting shortfalls?
Remember when Republicans called Clinton a draft-dodger? Were you outraged then? Well, he opposed the Vietnam war. Bush supported the Vietnam war, but didn’t go. Cheney didn’t even enlist. Rove, et al same story.
Pat Tillman gave everything up and enlisted. His family told you all to fuck off when you tried to use his death as a recruiting tool. Would you call Pat Tillman’s family traitors like you do all liberals?
So you’re going to have to put up with this chickenhawk shit until you get the College Republicans off the sauce and on the battlefield. We’ll thank you later when Iraq is a beacon of democracy and the mideast is transformed and nobody has to worry about terrorism because all these brave Republicans killed them all.
That’s the plan, isn’t it?
Also where is bin Laden? Goss says he knows, but he said we’re not going after him because we respect sovereign nations? WTF? I could give a shit about Saddam, he had Rumsfeld’s blessing in the 1980s.
I think it’s important you all know, we liberals you hate so much, we want bin Laden’s head as bad as you… worse, most of us live near real targets. But Saddam is NOT bin Laden. So quit blowing smoke up my ass about that. Quit pretending apples are oranges. A person can oppose the Iraq war and support waging war on terrorists. Any idiot knows the terrorists are in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
So if asking young people to enlist isn’t the answer, how do you propose we stop the recruiting shortfalls?
I don’t equate calling someone a chickenhawk with “asking young people to enlist.”
And I don’t “have to put up with this chickenhawk shit until you get the College Republicans off the sauce and on the battlefield.” I can mock it and call it out for what it is—a dishonest rhetorical ploy trotted out by the shallowest of thinkers to try to affirm their own bravado in a way that they feel comfortable—by cynically attacking their political rivals using the anonymity of cyberspace.
Incidentally, are you saying that you support going to war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Because those two countries are at least nonimal allies (which is why we’re using diplomacy at present, and why many of the Saudi and Pakistan nationals who support jihad are crossing into Iraq to fight).
Also, it bears mentioning that for a root causes type, you seem unnaturally willing to accept that the last 60 years of “containment” wasn’t the best policy when it comes to addressing problems in the middle east as they pertain to our skyscrapers and airplanes. And I don’t really hold out hope that the ideology that animates a medievalist holy war is taken with the kind of paper solutions favored by the likes of the UN and international criminal courts.
I’m thinking Mr. Cynical didn’t become an ex-hippie soon enough for his brain cells.
I believe recruiting met or exceeded goals in June.
I support the war, and have done so since 9/12. However, I have to admit that hearing someone describe The Flypaper Strategy always gives me flashes of Dien Bien Phu.
Maybe Walter Laqueur was right, we’ll just have to hold on and keep shooting until Jihadism ceases to exert such a powerful hold on the Middle Eastern imagination:
By happy happenstance, the Army slightly exceeded its recruiting quota this past month, according to ABC News.
The flypaper strategy is just incidental. I think the real strategy at play here is the delayed domino strategy.
We’re essentially applying pressure to the countries in the region in various ways: the Saudis in particular.
And whaddya know?–the Saudis and the Pakistanis have started giving the WOT more than lip service.
Beth, thanks so much for your service. But these people are never satisfied: a troll over at Baldilocks’ site was asking why she hadn’t “volunteered.” When we pointed out that she had, he asked why she hadn’t gone back into the service. There’s no reasoning with them.
I’m not willing to go down that rabbit hole any more: the civilian controls the military in this country, as Jeff and Hitch have been pointing out. And it’s not like the people who supported all Clinton’s splendid little wars were enlisting all over the place. Enough.
Turing: police. As in, “fuck off, thought police.”
hey cynical
this is an all volunteer military, meaning the young adults that go in have their own reasons, and a great deal of it goes with the values they were raised with.
Seeing as how the ivied halls of academia are profoundly Leftist and so scathingly hateful of anything US military, it’s a wonder any silverspooned offspring goes into the military …or even knows there is one considering even the likes of Harvard refuses to have ROTC or any military recruiters.
But you know, they STILL volunteer. My daughters’ high school draws on a very affluent demographic and several of my girls’ friends have gone into the military upon graduation.
Daughter Heather a couple of months ago flew out to Chicago to visit with two friends of hers, twins, who had finished Navy training and were about to get their first assignments (one has come back to CA, the other went to WA). They had every chance and opportunity to go to college or into the workforce, but they choose the Navy. Why?
As Dillon told Heather, it was because they felt they had a duty (and they felt honored to fulfill that duty) to serve and protect their family and friends.
Course, stuff like ‘duty, honor and family’ is either something that Leftists don’t understand, or they dismiss as the ravings of rubes.
Do the people using the chickenhawk meme realize that a chickenhawk is a predatory bird that hunts and devours chickens?
I would consider it a metaphorical badge of honor, seeing as how most of the chickens reside on the left.
My preferred solution for the recruting shortfall? Have all those people who segue without a comma from “You’re a chickenhawk” to “Where’s bin Laden?” sign up for the Special Forces so they can go get bin Laden.
Turing word: “rather”. Courage!
Awesome post!
“College Republicans off the sauce and on the battlefield.”
Crikey, all this time I thought that’s who was on the battlefield. I guess all the officers are sober College Anarchists. Who knew?
You know what, I love me some good pr0n. Does this mean I have to get my first-born implants and bus fare to Van Nuys?
I’m a huge fan of baseball, which can be a dangerous game to play. Just look at all of the guys on your favorite team who are on the Disabled List.
And yet, I’ve never strapped on a pair of cleats and headed down to Vero Beach to try out for the Dodgers…BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY!!!
Oh, wait, that’s not it. It’s…BECAUSE I REALIZE THAT I’D BE USELESS TO THE DODGERS, AND WOULD PROBABLY GET IN THE WAY!!!
Beth, Blackjack – I salute you.
Well said both of you.
The price of freedom is so great that it is incalculable. I’m thankful for people like you who know that and serve with gusto wherever your assignments take you. God bless!
spam buster: I ain’t sayin’ …
What Darleen said.
The part of the “those who volunteer and those that don’t” meme that sickens me is our finest young people are putting their lives on the line to protect the shallowest.
And worse, I wonder if the pool of “finest” hasn’t dwindled dangerously low. Think 1800 KIA is bad? Wait ‘til we’re in some nasty little police actions with Red China. “Dude, it’s blowback for the Opium Wars.”
On the one hand, I pity Beth and Blackjack, since they’re obviously childlike dupes who enlisted to serve the needs of KKKapitalist, war-profiteering plutocrats in their Illegal War For Oil. And, of course, Joooooooos!
On the other hand, I despise them for being amoral babykillers who have sullied our nation’s credibility with cherished allies the world over by implementing Bu$Hitler’s foreign policy. You know, by participating in the Illegal War For Oil and Jooooooos! Shame on you!
On the third hand (nobody said I was being reasonable, and besides, I’m bucking your Eurocentric notions of Anatomy!), more people ought to put up or shut up, and enlist to fight in an Illegal War For Oil and Joooooooos! that I never thought should be fought in the first place. Because, you know, that would somehow lend some semblance of credibility to their arguments in favor of the Illegal War, etc. that I never, ever agreed with.
Riiiiiight.
Lightbulb! So that’s how a perfectly good discussion of issues turns into a blazing rant about what a biggot/homophobe/baby killer I am. I was wondering….
Damn, Sean might be on to something. I should have known something was up when there was a gas pump in the recruiting office.
I ignored the gas pump, though. All I could think was that the knishes were to die for.
you misspelled ‘bigot’, you babykiller.
Hmmm. When I signed up in 1985, it was clearly for the oil…well, it’s been twenty years now, I even went and got a commission so I could have more oil when it got handed out…20 years now I have been in…and no oil, cripes! If this keeps up, I might just retire in 5 or 6 years. Bah.
If you’re not willing to have your son or daughter run their own blog, you have no right to comment on this one!
Chickenbloggers…
[Turing word – body – as in “no body thinks I’m all that funny”]
The concept that only active participants in a ‘thing’ can have a say in that ‘thing’ is quite interesting. Shall we apply that to other subjects as well?
How about:
Only those who pay taxes get to vote?
Only those with children have a voice in education?
Those with property set land use regulations?
Those with refineries determine drilling rights?
Those with weapons determine gun laws?
Those with auto manufacturing capabilities set labor practices and wages?
Hmmmm. Anarcho-capitalism. The lefties might be on to something here, after all.
While watching Wesley Clark last night on O’Reilly, all I could think of was how in the hell did he survive all those blanket partys the real men serving with him undoubtedly gave this pussy on a regular basis. How did he become a general? What would Patton say to this guy? Don’t ask, don’t tell must have been stitched into his pink undies. (not that there’s anything wrong with that )
One thing that bugs me is this real target horseshit. What’s a real target?
the one painted on his ass.
I love the elitism embodied in that quote Marc G. You conservatives (read: rubes) don’t live near anything anyone would want to attack anyway.
Well, good to know it’s rhetorically successful. Also good to know that after saying they needed 9,760 per month through September to meet its annual goal of 80,000 recruits, the Army lowers its goal to 5650 and beats it by 500.
Pretty much a metaphor for the whole crew you have here. Lower the bar until you can clear it, then call it victory and do the superiority dance.
Oh, and BTW, nice conflation of completely irrelevant chains of thought in the post, Jeff. I wonder if there was a fire in your neighborhood, would you roll up your sleeves and pitch in to help out? Or would you just go post another smarmy series of easy put downs about people who think you to be a coward for not joining in during the emergency?
The point about “chickenhawks” is decidedly not about civilian rule of the military. I mean, nice try and quite entertaining to your pack of zombies, but really – quite transparent in the attempt to change the subject to something no one even brought up. The point is, y’all think this is a big emergency, it’s your war, and now there’s a desperate need for help.
The best you can do is sit in the comfort of your home and ooze smarminess, post the easy put-down, regale your zombies with the sneer, the sarcasm, the glibness, the eye-rolling, and promote the massive distortion of whatever the person sitting across from you says (virtually speaking, of course).
I believe the reason why the chickenhawk meme has such rhetorical effect (and why y’all are going batshit over it) is that most people seem to understand the obvious wrt what’s happening in Iraq. We don’t have enough troops. Our military is being hollowed out. And the only thing y’all can do is show your contempt for anyone who points this out.
I’m sure your strategy will work to keep most of the converted assured of their superiority. But me thinks you’re also bleeding membership.
Still, keep it up. Sprinkle that magic fairy dust and keep sneering.
The Gnat’s ass?
Spam buster: off, a good spray for Gnats
Oh, I’m sorry Gnat’s ass, er, Trumpet. How ironic that you read elitism in my quote, yet your reply fairly drips with it. I guess that instead of considering a reply to my question, a reply in which you would probably end up embarassing yourself, you decided to skip thought, and proceeded straight to the embarassment.
I think Gnat was agreeing with Marc. Could be wrong.
The point about “chickenhawks†is decidedly not about the size of the army. That’s a great hike with the goalposts you’ve taken, though.
I was agreeing with Marc. Maybe I’ll think twice next time.
I think Gnat was agreeing with Marc. Could be wrong.
Well, Matt Moore, after going back and rereading his comment, I think that you might be right. And for that I apologize to Gnat’s Trumpet. Sorry, I misunderstood his posting.
Just to be clear, I was reading the elitism in the quote that you, too, were attacking. Not in your words.
Is that clear enough?
…….,
The reason military recruitment is down is because the left, ( who fully support our troops) are engaged in an all-out campaign to desroy it. If all I did was listen to Dean, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc., or get my news from the MSM, I wouldn’t sign up either. Why don’t you push for a little honest reporting instead?
P.S. You’re as dick!
I posted the last one before I read the apology, Marc G. Apology accepted. Although, to be fair to you, I re-read my original comment and it could easily have been taken in the way your read it.
Best regards,
I retract target on Gnat’s ass and place on my own.
“We don’t have enough troops. Our military is being hollowed out. And the only thing y’all can do is show your contempt for anyone who points this out.”
Hello ….. I’m concerned about our military being hollowed out, also. I haven’t shown my contempt for anyone suggesting that. So what’s your solution?
How about the draft? Or, failing that, how about leaving Iraq? I would much rather have an Army left than stay in Iraq. I think failing in Iraq would have serious consequences, but our Army is literally on the edge of implosion, and if we lose that we’re doomed.
I was just hearing about how the divorce rate in the military has doubled since 2001 due to the multiple deployments. Doesn’t look like there’s any volunteers, so there’s only two options – draft or leave.
Your choice.
Actually nameless, there is a 3rd choice. We can ignore your hysterical rantings that the sky is falling.
Hello …….
I’ve not read anything that suggests our military is “imploding.” What leads you to that conclusion?
According to the â€ÂMilitary Times Poll,†conducted by the publishers of the Army Times and the independent newspapers of the three other major services, only 9% of military officers and 16% of enlisted personnel describe themselves as Democrats.
On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, there were 77 votes in favor. Of those 77 votes, 23 were Democrats. This represents 30% of the total Yea vote.
Obviously, Democrats approved the resolution in a far greater percentage then are willing to fight.
You’re still off topic, string-of-ellipses.
I’ve never heard one single current or former military officer say that a draft would be better than the current situation with the all-volunteer army. Not even Wes Clark.
Well then, Matt, I guess we’ll just have to pull out of Iraq. Because he says those are our only two options.
Yes, happy, happy, happy, happy. Everything is going just great! No worries! Come on in, the water’s just fine! The real problem is the people warning of a crisis.
Matt, you’re obviously not listening. Of course we would be far better off with a volunteer Army. No one is saying a draft would be better. What people are saying is we have little choice right now. Either we get actual volunteers – the second derivative is negative, btw – or we draft. Or we leave. Again, your choice.
Keep sprinkling the magic fairy dust, though. I’m sure it’s going to work real soon now.
Note to Mr. Moore: As an active duty military member with 20 years in, I’d rather not have some congressman’s child in my unit. It would be a pain in the ass.
Anonymous: how about a draft? Are a draft or exiting Iraq the only two options you can think of to raise recruitment levels? How about increasing benefits? Changing age requirements? Hanging by the toenails any elected leaders who denigrate the troops as ‘Gulag’ workers? Having a media who reports good news and not just bombings? Only two options, huh? Not very bright, I’d say.
And you aren’t seriously considering a draft any more than the disgusting cowards who proposed it in the House and then backed away from it as the piece of garbage it was. You’d just like to be able to say “I told you so” at the expense of our security and the strength of the armed forces. That makes me sick. What a ‘patriot’.
The logic of the illogical. If you don’t agree with me it’s because you are not listening. Under no circumstances can I be wrong. I wonder what it’s like to have such an ego.
Well dotdotdot, we’re not leaving Iraq until they can stand on their own two feet. It still astounds me that some Americans see that as an option. Quitting. I don’t see how quitting fits into the American ethos anywhere.
A Victor Hanson June 27 piece which directly addresses the issues raised by Mr. Ellipsis.
Are “They in the Army Now? Cries of shortfall, exhaustion, and overstretch.”
turing word “truth”—no joke.
Well let’s see. I hear the bonuses now are above 50K. Doesn’t seem to be working. Hey, if you can convince this congress to sweeten the pot so we can get actual volunteers, then by all means do so. Strangely enough, no one seems to be doing that at all. Might have something to do with the half a trillion we’re bleeding every year in our budget, but who am I to guess the real reasons. And might I add that they had better get on the stick with these mythical alternatives? Unless you think we can wait a year or two to get the level of recruits we need just to tread water….
And I love the argument style over here. I must not be serious because the only reason I’d propose a draft is so I can stick it in your face afterward. I mean, really. What an adolescent form of reasoning.
And I do admire the whole “logic of the illogical”. Yes, just automatic gainsaying and denigration of the person your arguing with is a time honored tactic on the right.
But really guys, I don’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what you think of me or my arguments. I don’t come here for validation of my self worth or world view. I’m just pointing out the obvious.
Still, keep sprinkling the magic fairy dust. It’s working! I can feel it. Any minute now.
Still not seeing any links. Or fairy dust, for that matter.
Herr Dot-Dot-Dot:
What are you doing to remedy this crisis?
Turing Word Others, as in “do unto others…”
Believe what you want nameless. However, I am not the one stating there are only 2 (unpalatable) options, nor was I the one who begins his comments with ‘Happy, Happy, Happy’.
It is an odd little world you inhabit where you can only see in others what you do yourself.
They’s like us to cut and run to make it look more like Vietnam.
“Look! We were right!”
Yea, that’s what we want: cut n’ run. Do you people actually think this is a real argument or are you just doing this as a joke?
Like I said: your choice. If you want to stay, then draft.
BTW, Salt Lick, the VDH article was a hoot! We’ll check back in six months and see how well operation Magic Fairy Dust is working out.
And elipsis boy, why aren’t you whining about the troop levels in Germany? We won that war 60 years ago but we still have more than 100,000 troops there. Quagmire! Pull ‘em out! It isn’t working!
How about you give Iraq another few years before you cry failure?
But you support the troops, of course, so the best thing is to stop fighting this war and let the other side win. Yep. It’s all clear now. Iraq in chaos and the rise of Islamofascism is the safe plan of action at this time.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Herr Dot-Dot-Dot:
How exactly was the Hanson article “a hoot”? With what part or parts of his analysis did you find fault?
You’re just not making any sense, and then you’re not backing up your nonsensical crap with evidence, and then you accuse us of using fairy dust? Methinks the dots doth protest too much.
Logic of the illogical: Everyone (even you, line-of-dots) agrees our current army is stronger than a drafted one. Yet a draft is our only choice. Make the army stronger by making it weaker! That’s the ticket!
And if you didn’t, “come here for validation of my self worth or world view,” then why are you still arguing?
RS – He found fault with the constant mention of “magic fairy dust.” It does get annoying, VDH always saying, “We’re having problems with terrorist IEDs. My solution? Magic fairy dust!”
Matt: I’m glad to see I’m not the only one tiring of the argumentem ad Mary Martin theme.
Or should that be post hoc J.M. Barrie hoc?
Extended Elipses enters the comments by going after me this way:
Later, s/he posts this run of accusations, ending with the suggestion that it is we who are engaging in ad hominem attacks:
Hear that? On the right.
That, folks, is called cognitive dissonance. And I’d find it sneerworthy if it weren’t so fucking sad.
Sheesh, “You must pick ONE choice from my horseshit if-then scenario! Any attempts to right my terrible logic or to point out that my horseshit if-then scenario is itself proof that I know fuck all about the military are proof you wingnuts are DODGING the question! And HYPOCRISY!!!”
Dots, why not just save everyone the trouble and just go do whatever it is that filthy hippies do in place of bathing or productive work.
It is sad, because some of the regulars here actually tried to engage the guy in a discussion/debate and they got for their trouble was repetition of the initial talking points. Except with 37% more snark.
No links, no effort to substantiate his assertions with facts, and a false choice presented as the only possible alternatives.
And yet the crew here is the one with a problem recognizing reality? Talk about the dissonance. Cognitive, even.
I’ve been in a running dialogue with a liberal friend (yes, still a friend, and a good one at that) for over 3 years now and sadly, this sort of thing is not atypical.
However, I have to admit that hearing someone describe The Flypaper Strategy always gives me flashes of Dien Bien Phu.
Right country, wrong war and battle. Think more like Khe Sanh…
Hollowed out? ….., I am not sure which Army you are in, but the United States Army, the one I am in, isn’t hollowed out. 1977-1980, now that was a hollowed out military.
Ellipses, you clearly came into this with the wrong attitude. While I can certainly sympathize with your frustration and amazement at the right’s hypocrisy (screeching “traitor” every time someone criticizes Bush’s strategic vision, and then whining when the left finally responds with a meme of its own that, though mild by comparison, is no less unfair to those who sincerely believe in the necessity of this war), you obviously weren’t really looking for reasoned debate when you made your first comment. You were venting, but one unfortunate aspect of human nature is that people tend to take things personally. So when you paint the right with a broad brush, anyone who self-identifies as right-wing will take your words as a personal attack.
Basically what I’m saying is, unless all you want is a chance to blow of steam, chill out and at least try to make your points without unnecessary snark. Don’t expect reciprocation, because you’ll usually be disappointed, and do your best not to have the image of Sean Hannity’s arrogant, sneering mug spouting some nonsense about liberals hating applie pie or whatever his bullshit theme of the week is… because no matter what you think of the right, most righties don’t regard themselves as anything like Hannity, or Coulter, or any of a hundred others. If you attack, they’ll respond defensively, because that’s what people do.
Can’t stand Hannity. Coulter is funny (come on, you gotta admit she can pen a good zinger every now and then). Plus, there’s that whole “heroin-chic” thin thing she’s got going on. If you’re into that sort of thing. Which I am not. I’m just saying…
“But really guys, I don’t give a flying fuck at a rolling donut what you think of me or my arguments. I don’t come here for validation of my self worth or world view. I’m just pointing out the obvious.”
Don’t get so touchy, Mr. Ellipsis.
I’m sure no one here thinks that you’ve been sitting on this comment thread for the past several hours making ever more shrill, less substantive, and faux-nonchalant attempts at the last word because you’re both personally and ideologically too deeply insecure to withstand the possibility that someone, somewhere, disagrees with you.
Absolutely NOT.
Really.
Fred, I will admit nothing of the sort about Ann Coulter. Ann Coulter doesn’t “fire off zingers”; she froths like an 8-year-old who’s been accused of having cooties in front of the class. To be honest with you, while I’m sure righties find plenty of lefty commentators just as objectionable in their unyielding rhetoric and ad hominem, I really can’t come up with anyone in particular who reaches the heights of pure calculated offensiveness past which she soars by miles with every hate-filled drop of spittle that flies off her permanently-sneering lips.
” I really can’t come up with anyone in particular who reaches the heights of pure calculated offensiveness”
Al Franken comes to mind pretty quickly, and what’s worse is he hides behind the “I’m just a comedian” schtick.
Doth protest a little too much, Citizen?
You are not in the military; therefore you may not comment on the war.
We are against the war; therefore we may comment because we know what’s best.
You cannot win the world’s approval for the war; therefore you cannot win the war.
You have revised your recruiting requirements; therefore all previous requirements were bogus, and the new goals are artificially low.
You appear to be gradually winning this war; therefore you must be sprinkling magic fairy dust.
You can at best hope for a hollow victory in Iraq; therefore your Army is hollowed out.
These facts are indisputable. We are the progressives. You will be assimilated.
Citizen, admit that you’re hot for her. Even though she may be a guy.
Hee hee hee, lets see what’s happening in 6 months. sneer.
Here’s my prediction: We’ll still be supporting the war, progress will be being made in Iraq, and you fuckheads will still be foaming at the mouth, having your mass tantrums, claiming that the sky is falling.
And of course, losing elections.
Yeah, that sounds about right.
Doth protest a little too much, Citizen?
Nope. I’ve actually tried this exercise on a number of occasions, and while I do certainly understand why, say, Michael Moore would be infuriating to a righty, I just don’t see the same kind of carefully-choreographed performance intended, with every word, to try to provoke his opponents into responding emotionally, with absolutely nothing else of substance contained therein. You may say that Moore is wrong and deceitful (and I would even agree), but at least he’s sincere, and tries to make a specific case. Coulter just takes every possible angle to smear liberals, without regard for how closely she approaches the absolute frozen limit of crazy while she’s doing it.
Hey Dottie (and others using the “goalposts” fallacy):
If you knew anything about the military, you’d know that recruiting goals are NOT a constant. They fluctuate according to troop strength. If the military were over quota, do you think they’d still be trying to recruit the same levels? Surely you can understand THAT simple fact.
Or maybe not.
Obvious, as in obvious to those who use fallacious arguments and pretzel logic to engage in puffery that says “I’m right and the rest of you are ignorant.”
Seriously, do you actually think that you’re going to change anyone’s mind by shitting on the rug at a blog where no one knows who the hell you are and where you simply state your opinions? If you’re not trying to change anyone’s mind, then really, what ARE you doing here? Here’s a better place to waste your (and everyone else’s) time.
Turing: matter
As in, these chickenbloggers don’t really matter.
I’m still waiting for some evidence that our military is imploding. Or hell, in lieu of evidence, I’ll take a somewhat well reasoned explanation. A dip in recruitment levels means we’re at war- while the majority of the soldiers I know are just as interested (if not more so) in serving their country and fighting its enemies then collecting a check, I have met my share of those who just want the tech training or who want to see the world.
Not to mention, Biden and McCain et al can second guess the generals running the war all they want to on troop strenght (omg there’s not enough troops omg) but ultimately, if you have half a brain, you defer to the person thats actually RUNNING THE WAR IN IRAQ when determining if the troop levels are sufficient. The “we don’t have enough troops” memme is a complete dodge, an attempt by the left to convince the president to send more troops, only so they can continue to yell “quagmire” – “see see we need more troops, that PROVES we’re failing in Iraq”.
with every hate-filled drop of spittle that flies off her permanently-sneering lips.
Her….succulent….cupid’s bow….lips….
The “chickenhawk” argument marks the one using it as a liar or a blithering moron. Pure and simple.
Usually the one using the argument doesn’t mean it at all. They have no intention of allowing veterans and active service members from vetoing their foreign policy ideas. So its a flat out lie.
On the extraordinarily rare occasion when the person using the argument actually means it, they fail to understand that it is basically the same ideological viewpoint as the Argentinian junta – that the military knows best and rules best. So those people should get on the next flight to South America.
Thoughtcrime, you hit the nail squarely. But sadly elipsis and his ilk won’t give it the aforementioned 6 months, or even 6 hours. They have to declare defeat NOW! So they can be RIGHT! Because we can’t give the Iraqi people even ONE MORE SECOND of our time or help! The war on terror is a farce! It’s a loss! It’s all about oil! We’re losing! (ad nauseum absurdum)
Each life saved, every school built and new textbook printed, every sewer pipe laid, every well dug and road graded and bridge built, means a loss for these sad little creatures. It’s not about what’s best for the US, or the world, or even Iraq, it’s about hating Bush and wanting to be proven right so badly that they hope we fail and they actively work toward that end. Very sad.
I have it on good authorit-ii that CITIZEN Bill went out with Ann a couple of times, but she spurned his advances and pledges of fealty to her hate-filled spittle and permanently snearing lips.
Spam buster: Stage, all the world is…
Little Dotty seems to be obsessed with things magic involving faeries and dust …
A cry for help before he engages again in unnatural acts with a box of Lucky Charms?
” (omg there’s not enough troops omg)”
Honestly, whenever I hear somebody on the left make that arguement, I assume they want more troops over there only to increase the number of troops getting killed. That’s how low of an opinion I have for the left anti-war movement.