Centerfield

Supporting the war doesn't mean wanting to be a soldier any more than supporting gay marriage means wanting to be gay.

We are all Americans (plus a few Canadians) here. We all have, therefore both the right and the duty to express our strongly held beliefs on any subject affecting our country.

I have 3 cousins, like brothers to me, who have joined the Army since the Iraq war began. None of my brothers have joined up, but have gone straight to college instead. So my support for the war most certainly comes with a certain level of personal involvement.

As for sacrifices we can make, Rick makes an excellent point about Osama still being at large and our country still being at risk of attack on our own soil. I suspect the Red Cross would always love to have more disaster relief volunteers. And your training could be put to use to help regular disasters as well as terrorist disasters. Plus anybody can help organize shipments of donations of letters, children's drawings, and fun food to ship to our soldiers. Not to mention donating time, money, or supplies to relief agencies which will send them to the Middle East, Africa, or anywhere else there are refugees, to show them how generous America can be.

"Chickendove" needs to be defined. If it's the exact flipside of chickenhawk then it won't necessarily apply to a huge swath of Iraq War opponents who strongly supported the War on Terrorism in Afghanistan.

After all, chickenhawks are pretty much just pro-war unless it was started by a Democrat like Clinton. And provided that they don't have to actually risk their own backside in it. But, most opponents of the Iraq War strike me as far more nuanced in their approach to war and peace. They didn't oppose the Iraq War because they were just flat opposed to war. Nor did they oppose it because it was started by a Republican president. The vast majority of them having solidly supported the Afghan action, after all.

I frankly would be very surprised if Bush asked Americans to sacrifice as much as each of us are able to give. Doing so would totally fly in the face of his massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Surely pundits would connect the two and I really seriously don't think Rove would let him go there for that reason alone.

The enlistment thing is a straw man, of course. It has nothing to do with the argument. I remember long threads on Heinlein's Starship Troopers, where many antiwar posters thought Heinlein was evil for even writing about a situation where only military and civil service vets have the vote.

I decided back in 2001 that I'd do the US more good by supporting new technologies, as I do.

Chickendove defined: Would you live in a dictatorship like Saddam’s Iraq, or Iran, or Syria? No? Would you send your son or daughter? No? Do you oppose efforts to overturn those dictatorships? Yes? YOU ARE A CHICKENDOVE! It’s simple really, a person who would not live in a dictatorship but has no problem condemning others to do so.

This is not a serious or reasonable argument. It doesn't deserve to discussed, much less disputed. This leads me to suggest one of two things must be true about him:

Maybe Sirota is minimally inteligent enough to know the argument holds no water, and has just chosen to be inflammatory and provocative. This is a dishonest act, suggesting he's an untrustworthy character to enage in dialogue.

Or, he actually believes the argument is reasonable, in which case he is just a garden variety moron.

My suspicion is that it's the former. In cases where someone makes an unreasonable argument for the sake of inflaming and provoking, the only winning move is to remain unprovoked.

I agree with BK that it's essentially a meaningless argument, except that the GOP did successfully exploit their perceived strength in national defense vs. the democrats perceived weakness. It's probably the main reason Bush is still president.

Personally, I'm torn between two analogies. The U.S. goal of nation building in Iraq is eerily similar to Vietnamisation. The constant backbiting and undercutting by the opposition, particularly during times of bad news, is strikingly similar to northern opposition tactics during our own Civil War.

Either way, I would remind everybody that is tempted to give more political power to the military, that the constitution calls for civilian control.

I've always hated this argument because it is incredibly divisive in that it acts like only those Americans who support the war are actually at war. As if those who are opposed don't have any obligation to help the efforts or consider sacrificing.

We are all at war, here. Like it or not. And we all should be trying to ensure victory. For some, ensuring victory might been enlisting. For others it might mean strongly criticizing how the war is being conducted and trying to make sure things are changed to better improve our chances. For others, it just means lending moral support to the troops. For many, it means sending provisions to the troops.

But it should not mean sitting back and pretending like this is someone else's war. It doesn't work that way.

11 years 10 months and 7 days of honorable (my discharge says so!) service in the U.S. By-God Army.

I supported the war in Afganistan, and I am upset that we seem to be failing in our nation building efforts there.

I opposed, and oppose, the war in Iraq. I would not condemn anyone to live under a dictator, nor do I think we can rescue everyone that does.

I support a draft, and national service for that matter. I believe except in times of eminent threat to our borders Congress should not grant war powers to the President.

I believe we should support democracy everywhere and impose democracy nowhere.

Define that?

Wanted to add...I think Bush could have done and could still do a much better job of asking all of us to sacrifice for the sake of the war.

"Chickendove defined: Would you live in a dictatorship like Saddam’s Iraq, or Iran, or Syria? No? Would you send your son or daughter? No? Do you oppose efforts to overturn those dictatorships? Yes? YOU ARE A CHICKENDOVE! It’s simple really, a person who would not live in a dictatorship but has no problem condemning others to do so."

Alf,

I don't think your slander really deserves a serious respons. But if you really think that, then you are welcomed to join the army and see the world. Let's see; we've freed one dictatorship, but there sure are a lot more. How about Syria, North Korea, Iran? How about Africa? There are lots there. Or China? Or, Russia? Let's free em all--I don't want to be accused of condemning people to live in dictatorships. We're going to need a big military, though, so let's create a garrison state and draft EVERYONE.

If that's your definition of a chickendove, I think you probably have, oh say, 100 million or so chickendoves in the country. As a matter of fact, I plead guilty.

In Nov. '72, I was at Travis AFB, 6 hrs away from a flight to Saigon. The war ended; I didn't have to go. One of the many problems with Sirota's ridiculous argument is that it resolves very litte. Yes, I enlisted in the Army but I didn't fight in the war. So am I still a chickenhawk? Essentially, that's the Left's critique of Bush (National Guard service wasn't enough) and the Right's of Kerry (his Vietnam tour was truncated).

MWS,

First, what I wrote is the mirror image of the bullshit “chickenhawk” meme that you are repeating. It’s a parody that shows the ridiculousness of “chickenhawk.” Both are equally silly, the shame is that you don’t see that.

Second, I happen to be a military veteran. That should be irrelevant to the discussion but since the anti-liberation folks like to bring it up, there you go. Do you seriously think that only veterans should have a voice in military matters? I hope not because one of the most important principles of our country is civilian control of the military not to mention that pain in your ass called the First Amendment. (Yes, even those who are not veterans have the First Amendment right to an opinion on the war, as much as this pains you.)

Third, the only thing more ridiculous than the “chickenhawk” meme is the one that says “if we can’t fix everything at once, we should not do anything.” Utter bullshit and I think those of you pimping it in this thread know that. If it is true, why have law enforcement? We can’t solve all crime now so why bother? Why have medicine if we can’t cure everybody now? Why try to democratize one country if we can’t do the same for North Korea, China, Syria, and every other country NOW? See how you come off with that crap?

Fourth, do you people know what a chicken hawk is? It is not a chicken, it is a HAWK that kills chickens which totally goes against the meaning you are trying to convey.

Well put Tom and MWS.

Just for the record, I might as well come out of the closet. I will be getting a certificate for my 20 years in the DOD come January.

However when I tweaked Rick's nose about enlistment in the other thread I never said "shut up".

I simply think that arguing with great venom, from a comfy armchair, that we must stay in Iraq, undermines crediblity. How important can the war be if your only willing to risk other peoples live?

We are desperate for people in support rolls. Age and disablity are not an excuse. Pay will be very lucrative.

http://www.usajobs.opm.gov/

Go with a contractor and make at least double your current salary.

Ah, yes, the old "Why aren't YOU in the Army?" crap. "Enlist or shut up!" really just boils down to "Shut up!", doesn't it? An attempt to stifle speech by implying the right to speak in favor of anything military is restricted to the military itself, while the right to speak against all things military is available to everyone. Everyone who opposes the military, of course.

For those of us who are not in a position to enlist, what sacrifices could we make for our country?

Anyone actually interested in finding ways to support their nation and community through volunteer service will find there is no lack of ways to do so. You don't have to be willing or able to join the military to support your country. Just willing to support your country--including that right of free speech.

There are Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT).

There is the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS).

There's the American Red Cross.

The Coast Guard and Air Force auxiliaries are always looking for people. No enlistment required. No age limits and few physical barriers. Many different skills needed.

Those don't suit you? Then go to Volunteer Match and see what's available and wanting and waiting in your area.

Or shut up. ;-)

Alf,

First of all, "chickenhawk" is used as a descriptive term that was never intended to as a referance to any species of avian.

Secondly, I think you've boiled this debate down to it's bare essentials. Although I'm not sure you intended to in quite the manner which I perceive you to have.

The question is begged: Should America be a hegemony?

Is a "chickenhawk" one who advocates for world-wide hegamoneous domination by America?

Is a "chickendove" essentially an isolationist who believes that said hegamony is directly contrary to the Constitutional powers granted the federal government?

Seems to me that, except for the fringe on either side, this debate is really about the proper role for our federal government, and our military, within the community of nations.

Kevin, I could say this to you as well, “I think you've boiled this debate down to it's bare essentials. Although I'm not sure you intended to in quite the manner which I perceive you to have.”

You misused the term “beg the question” but I like the resulting meaning.

Your definitions of chicken -hawk and -dove are...”nonstandard” to say the least. It has less to do with hegemony than with the legitimacy (or not) of any use of the US military outside of the borders of the United States.

At any rate, as I implied above, both “chickenhawk” and “chickendove” are nonsensical terms that add nothing to the debate.

I simply think that arguing with great venom, from a comfy armchair, that we must stay in Iraq, undermines credibility.

Which is the great and obvious flaw. The force of an argument lies in its logic and allied forms of reasoning. Those who assess an argument's credibility based on the character and flaws of its speakers are allowing themselves to be distracted. Those who encourage others to pay attention to such distractions are dishonest rhetoricians digging in their toolbox of fallacies for whatever works to win the argument. If the argument can not be won on its merits...

Alf,

If you were trying to simply mock the use of chickenhawk and chickendove, I apologize for misunderstanding.

I certainly don't think that only the military has a right to discuss military matters and I don't accept Sirota's argument that unless you served or are willing to serve, you have no right to argue for war. That's a ridiculous argument. I especially dislike the argument that the left uses asking why Bush's daughters aren't serving. There's a very reasonable answer--there's no draft, they are over 18, and he can't tell them to go join the army.

However, I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that having military experience (as you do) changes the context of the argument and gives you more insight into the consequences of war. Politicians do a lot of things that effect other people's lives more than their own. Today, that includes making war since very few politicians are veterans and their children are not subject to a draft. That doesn't disqualify them from making the decision to go to war, but I do think it divorces them to an extent from the consequences of war. Colin Powell, for example, was averse to using military force (perhaps too averse) because he knew what it meant. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that George H.W. Bush's view on war might be different (and perhaps less sangine)than his son's.

My argument against your "liberation" thesis is not, as you put it, "if you can't fix everything at once, don't fix anything." My argument is against your idea that the only reason for opposing what you call liberation is because of a disregard for people living under dictatorship. I feel very much for people living under dictatorships. However, absent another compelling reason, invading countries to impose democracy at the point of a gun seems unwise to me. And, you mock my point about the other dictatorships. But, where do you stop? Are you going to make it a policy to invade other dictatorships? I think there is a place for humanitarian military intervention. But the logic of the "liberation" position is that there is no really principled way to decide when to intervene and when not to intervene in dictatorships.

The people who bother me are the ones- WSJ had a great article about this- who support the war, but don't want their kids to enlist even though they had been planning to do so pre war. What they're saying is basically I'm all for someone else doing it. If the cause is not worth risking your own son/daughter's life, then maybe we need to consider if it's worth it at all.

But the logic of the "liberation" position is that there is no really principled way to decide when to intervene and when not to intervene in dictatorships.

No "principled" way? Perhaps. There are many practical and pragmatic ways. The decision to go to war outside our borders, to go to war for any reason other than that strictest of self-defense reasons, is first and foremost and always a political decision. And politics is always a tradeoff between the desirable and the practical.

We hope those decisions are guided by principle. They are always at least rationalized by principle. The "chatter point" is usually the claim that principle isn't involved at all in a particular decision, because if it were, we'd ignore pragmatics to extend the principle to attempting everything that falls under the principle, including the impractical and the impossible. Inflatio ad absurdum, and ad infinitum. But pragmatism is also a principle, if not a morally uplifting one.

Stephanie, let's not forget that parents aren't the ones who make that decision. Their kids are the ones who make that decision. That a parent's view of that decision might shift based on the odds of their child being actually shot at is hardly surprising. Putting a parent in the position of answering a "will you help kill your kid for freedom" question kinda guarantees the answer, doesn't it?

I support us staying in Iraq. I've never served in the military but am, at 30, still young enough to do so. But here's the thing, I've got a wife and a 17 month old son. Under any other circumstance, wouldn't me going away for a year or two or more be considered pretty bad fathering? And if I were to die, my son would grow up fatherless. So then, to those who are arguing that my support of the war should lead me to enlist, let me ask: should my duty to country trump my duty to family? Or should I find a way to serve both country and family by staying here but sending provisions to the troops (which we do) and serving in our communities (which we do and which I think is also patriotic).

A lot of soldiers do leave children and spouses behind. That's why they're heroes. But should being a hero be a prerequisite to supporting the war?

It's ridiculous to say those who support the war should also serve in our armed forces.

Should being a hero be a prerequisite to supporting the war?

No. Absolutely not.

That said, I've been against this war from day one. I was for the war in Afghanistan, but I didn't feel that I needed to run out and enlist just because I supported the war. However, if the day came and the very future of our nation depended on everyone defending it, I'd be there.

I often regret not going into the Marines right out of college. I still think about it off and on, but things are different now. I have a child whose life would be torn apart if Daddy up and decided that he's taking a job that will send him away for 6 months (or more) at a time. Yes, people do it every day, but their children are often born into that situation--not thrown into it at the age of 3. I know how I feel on the 1 or 2 days a week when I can't be around my son--I'd be no use if I had to spend 6 months away.

The beauty of our country is that we are all entitled to speak our mind, regardless of whether we are in uniform or not.

You don't need to enlist to support the war any more than you need to become a police officer to complain about crime. We have a professional military to take care of that, who have, after all, volunteered to take the risk of dying in combat. It would frankly be derelict, in my opinion, for a person to leave his or her family to serve. (It should be said, though, that a lot of people in the reserves are being forced to disrupt their lives and their families to serve in Iraq. Sure, it was their decision to join the Reserves, but I think their sacrifices are far beyond the norm of fairness.)

Having said that, I think that it's a lot easier to support a war when you aren't likely to face any personal consequences for that support (ie, your own death of the death of a loved one). I'm not saying to you have to join the military to validly support the war and I'm certainly not suggesting that those who support the war are indifferent to the deaths of our troops. But I do think there is inevitably a disconnect when one part of society, in effect, sends another part out to fight our wars.

Tully,

I agree with you completely. My point was that when you adopt a general principle like "liberation" as policy, how do you rationally distinguish between times when war is valid and times when it is not? If, as you say, it is based on political or pragmatic reasons, then you shouldn't go around criticizing those who opposed the war as unprincipled (as I thought Alf did) unless you are willing to adopt that principle in all cases.

My uncles were in WWI, my dad's cousin in WWII, my dad was in the Army (in peace time), a nephew fought in Vietnam when he was only 17, and I have a grandson in the Navy now. I'm 100% against this war - but only because of the way it is being fought. I am 100% for fighting terrorism.

My thought's, after 9/11, was that we'd go into those countries where the terrorists came from, not with bombs, tanks, and all the old-time war machines, but with highly trained CIA undercover 007 types, with the latest in technology spyware, and an undercover army of also specially trained "assassins."

The idea of bombing the hell out of Afganistan, then Iraq, then Iran, then Syria, then whatever other country is added to the axis of evil label, seems so dumb to me. What happens when (and I have no doubt it will come to it at some point) the terrorists do start driving the death cars into crowded shopping malls, walking death into theaters, schools, etc., in the U.S. Do we start bombing the hell out of us too then?

For those of us who are not in a position to enlist, what sacrifices could we make for our country?

Of course, for the animal lovers among us, (no obscene comments from the peanut gallery, please) there's the military's adopt-a-pet program, where a family can temporarily adopt an animal whose owner is serving overseas. This can prove to be quite a sacrifice in itself, as last night's "KIng Of The Hill" demonstrates. ;-)

I understood you and agree, Marc. Why I brought up the inflatio ad absurdum thing.

Being a centrist, I eschew the dogmatic "bright line" and definitional tests in favor of situational analysis on a case-by-case basis. :-)

Jean--that's how I got my "spare" bird dog. He went home to his family two weeks ago. Real sweetie. Not bad on pheasants either. Lousy on quail.

LOL, Tully! Good for you! Maybe he was a Republican dog, and thought you meant to sic him on "Quayle". ;-)

Well, he was registered, but not to vote!

LMAO! Very punny! Very punny!

Was he blue?

I think limiting decisions about employing the military only to those who serve (or have served) in the military is about as ridiculous an idea as I have ever heard-- and it's so ridiculous that it exists only in the realm of fantasy... which is where it belongs: on the pages of _Starship Troopers_.

Now having said that, I have long since agreed with Senator McCain, who remarked that our culture seems completely devoid of sacrifice, or Senator Clinton, who has talked about inspiring our youth to want to belong to something greater than themselves. They're right. A life lived only for materialism and the self is as about meaningless as they come. Get involved in *something*.

The reality is that this country is dividing into those who are sacrificing and those who are not (the ares and the are nots), and that's not a good thing for anyone. And, in most cases, it seems like we're using this non-involvement as an excuse not to do something or to do more-- the SECDEF's remark that the factories were working 24/7 to get the armor to the soldiers and their vehicles was telling: had this been WWII, ex-President Hoover would have done a charity drive to recycle whatever scrap we could get our hands on in order to contribute. Or converted another factory. We would have done *something* to find a way.

But as it is, we're fighting this war with less than one-half of one percent of the American population. For the rest of the country, there might as well not even be a war going on. They might see it on television or read about it in the Internet, but as far as they're concerned, it has no impact on their lives.

White and brown, Chris, another English Setter like my dog. One of his cousins, in fact. Wonderful dogs.

Couldn't agree more, Bobby.

IMHO, the greatest failure of this administration has been their unwillingness to communicate with the public. Reagan had that ability, and used it. Clinton had that ability, and used it. Even when I thought they were full o' fertilizer there was no denying that they were willing to stand up, stand out, and make the call. The Bush admin is notably lacking in that direct communication with the public.

In 2004, pre-election, I could understand the practical aspect of that. Anything said would be immediately twisted and misrepresented, he was leading in the polls, why open up? But the elections are over.

As a volunteer, as a boss, as a consultant, and as a public official, whenever someone walks in and starts ranting I wait for them to wind down, and then I stop them and say one thing. "Talk to me." Now that you've blown off your angst, what's the core problem here? The big beef? Cut to the chase. I have found you accomplish tons more with less distraction to the piddling if you handle the core issues head-on and let the smaller ones sort themselves out into the (usually) obvious solutions.

Mr. President? Talk to me.

"IMHO, the greatest failure of this administration has been their unwillingness to communicate with the public."

Tully, I can't say AMEN enough. So I won't. I'll reduce it down to a simple "you're absolute right."