Redstate

Comments are below. Present me with your budgets, O meme-propagators! Because of course, policy prescriptions such as the ones you are offering have consequences and it is high time you spell those consequences out with cold, hard numbers. Draw up your own Budget for the United States and tell us how to implement your plan to have all of us "chickenhawks" serve. Tell us where you will get the money to accommodate a military as large as the one you say that you want.

Sacking various European countries with a much smaller military comes to mind...It worked for the Romans...

If all propents of the war must join the Army in order to avoid hypocrisy, does that mean that all propents of gay marriage must become homosexual?

I meant, of course, "proponents" not "propents"...

that you don't mention is the lower tax revenue that would be generated if all of us joined the military.

So what I want to know is how the propagators of the meme propose that we pay for a 60 million-plus person armed force.

60 million people leaving the private sector taking military jobs that probably on average pay MUCH less, would result in MUCH lower tax revenue unless those who remain, pay EXHORBANTLY more money.

Those who resort to the argument should be prepared to pay 10 times more in taxes, if not more than that just so the government will have the same amount of revenue coming in.  And of course this doesn't include all the new expenditures for equipment, training, and pay of all the new soldiers.

I'm tired of?  The folks who control the presidency, the House and the Senate, who have rigged every rule, changed every custom and run the place completely the way they want, blaming the minority for what's going wrong, and specifically for not coming up with alternative budgets, policy proposals, etc.

Hello?  YOU RUN THE $&##(* PLACE.  You're in charge.  For better or worse (mostly worse, IMO), what you say goes.  Don't whine and complain when stuff starts going bad; figure it out and fix it.  Of course, fixing it would require admitting that things aren't so great in the first place, which is something this administration is pathologically incapable of.

You know what, posts like this are why I despair of any kind of real political dialogue, either in the real world or in the blogosphere.  I used to be able to come here and read interesting stuff, maybe not that I agreed with, but thought-provoking, interesting stuff.  Lately, however, the group think and defensiveness and automatic rejection of all things not Bush worshipful has gotten kind of sad, actually.  It's turning into the right-wing equivalent of Democratic Underground.  It's become Powerline with diaries and comments.  Unfortunate, but I guess that's just the way it goes.

I'm sure this will result in a million troll ratings and probably Doverspa will finally get his wish and ban me, but so be it.  But this much is true -- I mourn the passing of what this place was, and have no use for what it's become.

See ya.

I agree that the 'chickenhawk' arguement is a bad one.  However, we are facing a large military shortage right now.  If that shortage continues, something will need to be done.  Who do you propose serves?  To me the answer is clear, if somebody is forced to serve as a result of this war, it should be those who supported it from the beginning.  Why should others pay the price for your mistakes?  Why should I serve in a war which I never wanted, don't believe in and don't think that it should have ever happened.  

And while I do believe in civilian control of the military, and I do believe that those who haven't or aren't serving can have an opinion on military matters, I also believe that you need to ask yourself that if you aren't willing to risk yourself for a cause, can you really ask others to risk themselves?  The answer may be yes, but I think you have to ask the question.

increase in Chickenhawk type rhetoric from the left it became necessary to address it.

Also, in case you don't realize, and i'm sure you do, Democrats are on all of those committees and the minority has quite alot of power in stopping legislation.

Many of us are equally frustrated by the seeming lack of ability to do much of anything in Congress.  Many of us blame our congressional representatives for not taking full advantage of the situation and actually "doing" stuff, and fixing things.  But, such is the way Congress works, because each elected official is not responsible to the party as a whole, but to the local individuals who elected them and will hopefully, in their minds, reelect them.  Thus they get distracted and don't hold to the party line on many issues, and fight amongst themselves for pork for their districts/states.  Also, the Congress is not controlled by the presiden, as I am sure you know.

There was a good discussion of this found here: Is there something wrong with the GOP?  http://redstate.org/story/2005/6/28/171129/792

Ok, just to point out the weaknesses of this argument and not necessarily argue for the "chickenhawk" slur:

(1) This month the Army apparently met its recruitment goal. Numbers, to my knowledge haven't been released, so who knows what the goal was or how far over they went. However, for the year they're still likely going to fall short. They need soldiers and Young Republicans are being told that their sacrifice of "time" is like the soldiers' sacrifice. That sort of rubs the wrong way at a time when recruitment levels aren't generally being met (again, I know June is a recent exception), you know?  

(2) This is probably the most important one: 60 million Americans wouldn't be in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces would be the same size -- or rather as big as it would be if recruiting goals were met -- but if goals were exceeded the Armed Forces would have the cream of the crop to pick from, and would be a stronger, smarter, more able force. No one can deny that'd be a good thing.

(3) I don't see why Bush voters should all enlist based on the chickenhawk slur. Many might be somewhat against the war -- or at least not all out in favor of it -- and so it makes no sense to assume a Bush voter is for the war. And they likely voted for Homeland Security, or a social issues, or for the tax cuts and not necessarily for the War in Iraq. So. My conception of the chickenhawk slur is that it's used for people who actively keep American forces in Iraq with their actions yet refuse to spend time there themselves. Most people who use the chickenhawk argument aren't talking about Bush voters, they're talking about public and strident war promoters.

(4) Bloggers aren't going to enlist anyway, so as you note it's just rhetoric.

Again, none of these are really arguments for calling people chickenhawks, but the argument against it provided here -- and I've seen it elsewhere as well -- is a little insufficient.

Can't we just have a public service requirement already? So that the functions troops perform over here at annexes, depots, training facilities, shipping & handling, etc. could be handled by volunteers, freeing up our troops to defend us?

those who are gung ho about the war but would never want to proactively contribute. This applies to any war. I think the claim goes too far and is used against too many well meaning people. Nonetheless, there are many who like talking tough from their living room while others go and fight.

Is anybody actually suggesting that 60 million people enter the military?

What does bother me is that, after watching all the partisan shrieking about how liberals can't defend America we have these huge recruiting shortages.  Obviously conservatives aren't so hot on defending america either.  Personally I'm serving in local gov't so while I'm not dodging bullets at least I'm doing something useful besides shooting my stupid mouth off.

but don't discount emotion in politics.  People tend to get real pissed when of the most vocal supporters of the war, as well as absolutely ALL of the architects of the war, not one has served or has children serving.  You have to admit, it's an uncomfortable problem, and it is not one that will easily go away by making extremely abstract arguments like "oh so you mean all 59 million Bush voters should go to war, hey what programs are you gonna cut."   That is enough of a stretch to me.  I can only imagine some Dad who sent his pride and joy and all he got back was a purple heart and a folded flag, listening to you and Jonah GOldberg go on about the "101st fighting keyboarders" and how noble and wonderful our purpose over there is etc. etc. and finding out that of Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, WOlfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Libby etc. etc. not one ever served in combat although all were of the right age and not one has kids in teh service even though many have children of the right age to serve.

Sorry, but you go tell that dad that he has no right to feel anger at chickenhawks because of some bizarre argument about 59 million people and anti-poverty programs.   It's about emotion...or don't you know, since Bush won largely on emotion, you know, wolves in the woods and you make me "feel" safe and "security moms" yadda yadda--and you won't do so well to dispell emotion with long stretches of abstract logical analogies.  

Plus, come on, I think people are referring specifically to you, P, and Goldberg and Ramesh and the whole gang who have been the most vociferous, the most prone to using patriotic, stirring language that conjures up a tear in the corner of one eye and old glory flapping ... but none of you will actually grab a weapon and go.  It seems to indicate that your support for the war, or at least the extreme intensity of your enthusiasm for Bush's Iraq policy, is due to the fact that none of Bush's decisions affect you personally.  It's easy to be for a war when the thought of your own death and dismemberment is not actually crossing your mind every hour or so.  I don't think people are referring to 89 year old women in Alabama or whatever when they make the chickenhawk argument about how supporters should go.  The chickenhawk argument is aimed right at you Pejman, and the rest of you, who spend most of your time praising the president and how great everything is going and how noble our cause is but not a one of you will go even though you easily could.

Finally, a word of advice.  Alot of people buy into the chickenhawk argument, at least a little, because of its emotional appeal.  When too many kids start coming home in coffins and with plastic hooks instead of limbs, and all you ever see in terms of the most vocal support for the president is people who've never gone through that, bush voter or no I think you might want to be careful calling this reaction "stupid."   It plays right into the elitist "ooh I'm a blogger so I'm smart and also I'm really patriotic even though I'm so smart I never enlisted" gut reaction alot of people will have.  My goodness, it is so elitist, you almost sound like a democrat.   Have you ever considered that the reason 60% of the public think Bush's policy sucks in Iraq and even more don't trust him to fix things is not because they are mindless sheep who are brainwashed by the insidious liberal media that only reports on carnage, but that they, us, the unwashed masses some of you love to self-identifiy with when it is convenient, actually have common sense, and know when something smells bad coming out of Washington, and they smell it with this President?  That these poll numbers are not some giant mistake but actually the fair verdict of the American people, and that alot of that verdict is precisely because the chickenhawk argument has tremendous emotion resonance?  

Has it ever occurred to you that calling those who share this emotional resonance "stupid" and suggesting that (as another poster did) that if you question the war you ought to join the insurgents...that this is the highest form of elitism, and incredibly stupid rhetoric in of itself?  Why not take people's concerns at face value?  WHy not fight the chickenhawk argument by organizing a number of your comfortable college-educated Heritage Institute interning national review reading internet blogging military-age colleagues to actually sign up for active duty, and then blogging from Baghdad, rather than hiding behind your keyboard and calling everyone who doubts the war stupid?  

I would think that a couple posts from your new digs in Iraq or Afghanistan would go alot further towards shutting the chickenhawk argument up than this mumbo-jumbo about "you're all stupid for feeling this way".  Don't you think that a bunch of you ditching your precious Georgetown lives for sand, blood and sweat would knock off about 5% at least from those negative poll numbers?

Think about it.  A major expose on CNN "conservative bloggers determined to put their money where their mouth is"  Wolf Blitzer interviewing PFC Mike Krempasky from inside the green zone "yeah I still do some blogging but less than before because I'm so tired at the end of each day from cleaning up body parts in the 120-degree heat while ducking RPGs, but I know how important it is for all REdState readers to know I really mean it when I say I support the war"   it would go alot further than more of the same vague rhetoric from the President towards shoring up support for the war.

Wikipedia even defined it so:

an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term is generally used in the ad hominem circumstantial context: since a supposed "chickenhawk" has not served in war, the implication is that the person is morally ill-equipped to support a war. On the contrary, implication is that any person who has served in a war will be less likely to support a war.

Anyone who uses the term doesn't want a conversation.  It kills debate and it's a shutdown tactic.  I lean libertarian on comment threads but, to me, use of this insult is a bannable offense.

Since when did a vote for Bush in '04 become tacit approval of the War in Iraq?  Last I checked, Kerry was also for the war when Bush initially presented his plan and he later supported a continued occupation of Iraq until the job was done.  Does that mean a vote for Bush or Kerry was a tacit approval of our invasion of Iraq?  Were there any other issues in this election to consider?

That said, in a poll done during the election, Some 60% of Iowa voters polled went to Bush while only 40% of those voters supported the war.  Many people suspect that if Kerry had come out firmly anti-Iraq he would have won.  Some suspect he would have won a landslide.

As for the chickenhawk arguement, its liberal bullplop to counter the conservative "You're either with us or your with the terrorists" garbage.  The logic follows that if you were really for the war (by unquestioningly supporting the army and the administration) than you'd be whole heartedly behind the idea of enlistment - be it enlistment of yourself or your friends and family.  If you're not for enlistment, then you're a hypocrite who's willing to let poor little black kids from Detroit and impoverished white kids in Arkansas and second generation immigrants looking to get ahead in the world get blown up in your place.  The chickenhawk arguement becomes an issue of class conflict.  The rich get tax cuts and revenue from lucrative investments in the military industry complex while the poor get suckered out into the dessert to "die for their country".

you replace:

tax cuts and revenue from lucrative investments in the military industry complex

with:

lucre from the military industrial complex

You make yourself appear intelligent while using a fancy, French-sounding word louded with connotations.  Works wonders.

Loaded.  Always funny to make a mistake while impugning someone else's intelligence.

such a bad thing for my poor, impoverished white husband from Arkansas.  The Bush tax cuts haven't been so bad for us either.  It meant an extra vacation between flights to the desert, where he was more than willing to die for his country.

Before you shoot your mouth off again, you might want to try to gauge your audience a little better.  You won't find many "chickenhawks" here.  Many have done their service to this country.  Have you done yours?  

There are several factors which make it difficult to minimize the use of private contractors within Iraq and other hostile areas, primarily the fact that they are, indeed, life-threatening. This is not to minimize the dangers which face volunteer forces in the same or other areas, but rather to highlight the differences that are afforded each when spoken of by the public at large, and in the treatment received by the federal and other United States governments.

Labelled condescendingly as mercenaries, or guns-for-hire, private contractors are not given the same status or structural support at times that may be provided to volunteer services. In perhaps the most abject comparison, the death of the former does not receive the same attention and respect as the latter, even though the absence of life is the same throughout. For this do I credit private contractors, and in the professional skills which they have acquired in order to be acknowledged by the Pentagon as needy thereof.

Unfortunately, the discord which has been created between compensation levels for private contractors and volunteer services has widened as members of the latter retire or are otherwise discharged, and realize that the skills which they were trained to utilize may still be of marketable value to the government. Rather than step out of retirement, these individuals have taken advantage of the American capital system so as to receive more money for the risk invested in their activities than their volunteer counterparts.

Note that I am not arguing against the existence of a difference in payment between those who have contracted themselves into the volunteer services and those who are marketing their skills under the use of a private corporation. I am specifically against the amount of difference that has been allowed to exist in circumstances such as those presented in Iraq and Afghanistan, where a member of the volunteer services performing the same duties as an independent contractor might be receiving substantially less. Should the volunteer services be considered the highest form of duty an American citizen can partake for the nation, this attitude should also be reflected in the compensation levels determined for that risk.

By raising the wage levels received by volunteer soldiers, the recruitment levels would begin a slow rise, followed through with a lesser percentage of those volunteers deciding to return to the private sector (either within armed forces or other areas). A blanket raise of wages would also benefit the volunteer forces as a whole via the increase in morale that has begun to slide during the course of continual risk exposure.

The only question therefore would be how to pay for those wage increases, which could be solved via minimizing the use of private contractors to those situations where extremely specialized skills are required. Aside from the current strains that have been placed upon the volunteer services, most of these situations would account for no more than 3-5% of the total activities which are conducted within Iraq (when speaking of combat situations).

In regards to redevelopment issues and private companies of those natures, many already employ their own private forces and take these costs into account when billing the American and/or Iraqi governments. Others would need to begin doing so, but such a situation would create a more competitive marketplace for such services, thus driving down the costs incurred by our own federal government. As such, both the above savings and these could be shifted towards better compensation of our volunteer services and/or sign-on bonus packages.

Despite what Nancy Pelosi says, the war is still on in Afghanistan, and we have over 16 thousand troops there as well. So those on the left that dispute Karl Rove's comments need to sign up and request being sent to Afghanistan.

Trevino wrote:

"They are the summer soldiers -- though few among them are soldiers -- who would rather their nation suffer defeat or humiliation, and the Iraqi people the crushing vise of tyranny, than see a successful conclusion to a thing with which they disagree."

I'm confused. It's not okay to critisize pro-war Americans for not fighting, but it is okay to critisize anti-war Americans for the same thing? Seems like of the two groups those in the anti-war movement's lack of service more genuinely reflects their ideological stance than the pro-war movement's.

Now, speaking honestly, I don't think someone's military service should ever come to bear on whether or not they have a right to critisize or support our country, military, etc.  We all pay for the military, we all vote, and we all think we are doing what is best for ourselves, for America, and for the world (opinions vary greatly on what constitutes "best" but that's democracy). I'm of the opinion that we should stay in Iraq until we can ensure the safety of it's citizens and the strength of it's government. However I also believe that the administration failed miserably in the post-war planning phase and their rose-tinted glasses are hurting the war effort immesurably.

Anyways, regardless of our personal opinions I think we can both agree that one's military service, or lack thereof, shouldn't exclude them from having an opinion and stating it, be it pro-war, anti-war, or somewhere in between. So I challenge the RedState regulars to put their money where their mouth is and condemn Trevino's equally "stupid" argument that the anti-war movement has no credibility until they have fought in a war.

But I went through the RotC program and came out worse for wear.  My grandfather was a merchant marine during WWII and my dad tried to enlist during Vietnam but was rejected for health reasons.  As it stands, I'm active with community service - I tutor high school students in english and math - when I'm not attending college.  I can't say I'd ever really want to enlist or even go for the officer's corps for that matter.  I'm a pacifist at heart and while dieing for my country sounds romantic, killing for my country does not.  I suppose that makes me less a chickenhawk and more a chicken.  Respect for life.  Lack of bloodlust.  Whatever.

That said, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet your husband wasn't enlisted at the bare minimum recruitment age.  I know a couple guys - friends and brothers of friends - who have been shipped off to Iraq or are en route.  Many of them don't support the war but they support the nation.  And they need the money to put them through college.  The military as a means to defend our nation and give our lower class citizens a chance at a leg up is excellent.  The idea that the US Army is a means of bludging another country for political reasons, not so much.

So while I congratulate you on making that chump change of a tax cut go the extra mile and on succeeding in military life where many have failed or died, I still don't support the war or the administration and it's policies and I stand behind my original statements.

I said "request on the enlistment form". Stop reading in things that aren't there, it isn't good for your sanity. I said request (of course you can request and be ignored and sent anywhere they want you, but that's a whole nother story).

(1) They need soldiers and Young Republicans are being told that their sacrifice of "time" is like the soldiers' sacrifice. That sort of rubs the wrong way at a time when recruitment levels aren't generally being met (again, I know June is a recent exception), you know?

I agree. There seems to be publicity push by the Administration to bolster support for the Iraq plan. I think a large part of that campaign should be encouraging an asking people to enlist.

(2) This is probably the most important one: 60 million Americans wouldn't be in the Armed Forces. The Armed Forces would be the same size -- or rather as big as it would be if recruiting goals were met -- but if goals were exceeded the Armed Forces would have the cream of the crop to pick from, and would be a stronger, smarter, more able force. No one can deny that'd be a good thing.

I'm certain the Armed Forces would be more than happy to turn away recruits. As long as recruitment goals aren't met, the "60 million man army" is not a valid counterargument.

Those that use the reference are not usually taken that seriously anyways, even by lean, mean dean machine, liberals.

One who has served in a war certainly has a far better understanding on what the day to day life of combat is truly about. And for most that haven't, I think it would be a rather big surprise to find what they really think and what really goes on. "Saving Private Ryan" and it's depiction of the interaction of combatants can give you a glimpse, but nothing more, no feelings of the moment can really transgress the viewing screen to the non experienced.

But, the personal experiences and knowledge of the combat conditions of war does not make a picture of war. Mother's watching the telegram come to her home about her son and grieving with her sadness. People working in factories making arms. Innovators rethinking design, tactics and safety. Think tanks calculating the social impacts and odds of policies. Young men in wheelchairs motivated from the spirit of patriotism signs up as a church volunteer to provide special food, gifts, and offers of thanks to those troops who have no family and feel alone on the front lines. And then, that same soldier that can feel so alone, is taken in by his fellow soldier and made family in a way that even families can be envious of.

This is the cycle that runs throughout the entire picture of war, at least a glimpse of it. This is the picture when seen in it's entirety.

People generally understand what war is, and we instinctively know that we do not know how it feels without being there in the combat since. This is why we feel so compelled to thank our soldiers. In every other way, the supporter, the mother, the father, the sister, brother or friend is there with that soldier.

So, some people resort to using the term Pejman, big deal. They have an emotional breakdown in the course of argument, let them breakdown and offer them silence. It's not a big deal, if you don't make it one.

Wikipedia's counterarguments:

(1) The Founding Fathers explicitly designed the government of the United States of America so that the military would be subordinate to the will of the people through their elected representatives and the President of the United States of America who are answerable to the ordinary citizenry.

This one only applies to those complaining that congressmen who didn't serve don't have the ability to direct the military. In our case we are about citizens who are in favor putting an undermanned military in harms way.

(2) If only veterans can advocate war, then only veterans have the experience and moral standing to oppose war. This is ironically a militaristic argument made in the name of opposing militarism.

Again, the chickenhawk argument isn't about who has the right to advocate war, but whether you are morally responsible for those you put in harm's way.

(3) That civilians who are explicitly targeted in war should have the right to voice their views on the conduct of war regardless of whether or not they have served.

Another "advocacy" argument.

(4) That a majority of the voting public is ineligible or unlikely to serve in combat, as it includes women, the elderly, men over age 50, the disabled, and homosexuals. Using service as a litmus test for voicing a viewpoint would invalidate the views of most of the nation.[5]

I've never heard the chickenhawk argument aimed at the ineligible.

(5) That Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt proved capable leaders of the military in times of national crisis, despite their lack of personal military service.

Same as (1).

(6) That extending the Chickenhawk argument into other American political debates would mean that only women should comment on abortion, only crime victims on criminal justice, and so forth.

Not relevant.

(7) The Chickenhawk argument does not, by its nature, respond to the substance of the hawks' arguments.

This is true, though as stated elsewhere in this thread, it can be an emotional tool.

A while back the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial calling for increasing income taxes on the poor. Their reasoning was that since poor people pay very little taxes, they are always willing to vote for spending increases, and they know the resultant increase in taxes will affect them very little. If they were hurt more by rising taxes, then they would be far more likely to take the more sensible view that increasing spending is a bad idea.

The "chickenhawk" label does not mean to imply that everyone in favor of a war must run as fast as they can to the nearest recruiting station. It simply points out that there are many people who have no intention of volunteering for the military, and have done whatever was necessary to duck conscription. Some even believe that the people in their immediate family should do the same. These people assiduously avoid bearing any kind of negative consequence that may result from miltary action. So, as the low-income earners clamor for increased government spending, they cheerlead for war.

While the poor people can be easily shown the error of their ways by increasing their tax burden, forcing the burden of war onto chickenhawks is morally ambiguous. The only hope is to possibly invoke feelings of shame, hence the label of "chickenhawk."

that Republicans control the Senate.  Doesn't look that way to me.  Looks to me like all it takes is 41 Democrats to control the Senate, but Republicans can't do it with 55.

Too bad we don't have the same situation with the pork barrel.

Especially when you have to proofread with this size 1 print font.

but the WSJ article is a better discussion, anyway.  I don't know when it was written, but the proof of accuracy can be found in Detroit, or any town where over half the voting population takes more from the local government than it pays in.

Yet your rationalization succeeds only in part, because the "chickenhawk" slur is indisputably thrown around rather more broadly, and aimed rather less carefully, than you make out. It is routinely used to slander pretty much anybody who defends the Iraq mission, and who is not presently serving -- witness the Kossacks' tiresome "101st Fighting Keyboarders" nonsense.

And then we have the difficulty of how one defines a "negative consequence" in this context. Many on the left have argued that an unwillingness to roll back tax cuts and/or actually raise tax rates is moral cowardice tantamount to chickenhawkdom, for instance.

Finally, I would note that many of the people currently deploying the chickenhawk argument would storm the Barricades Of Outrage(tm) over proposals to raise taxes on the poor that they might bear some of the adverse consequences attending increased government spending. So your analogizing the WSJ's idea, while perhaps apt, also cuts both ways, here.

Because the basic premise is not that every able bodied young person should be in the armed forces. It is that those who make decisions of waging a war should have some prior experience of the first hand horrors of war and if you don't have that experience, you should have the humility to defer and confer with those who do have it - such as Colin Powell.

that those who make decisions of waging a war should have some prior experience of the first hand horrors of war and if you don't have that experience, you should have the humility to defer and confer with those who do have it

A well-titled comment. That is indeed a stupid argument. Were we to pay attention to such nonsense, no one who had not starved to death, or at least gotten close, would have had the right to an opinion on the Schiavo matter. No one who has not personally experienced the angst felt by gays and lesbians who are unable to marry their beloved has the right to an opinion on gay marriage.

This is a slippery slope with an above-average grade to it, and should be avoided lest everyone have to shut up about everything.

the "chickenhawk" fetish on the left is essentially the new-McCarthyism (apologies for offending Ann Coulter fans here). Just as according to popular legend in the 1950s you could shut someone up by calling them a communist today the left contrives to stifle debate by calling people "chickenhawks." It's hard to imagine a more odious defense of an odious term than some posts here have put forth.

As some others have said on this thread the logical extension of this stupidity is that personal experience will be necessary to have an opinion on anything. This type of nonsense does no one on either side of the argument any good and I would contend it reflects much more on the lack of character of the person making the accusation rather than the accused in the same way dismissing your opponent with a racial epithet speaks more to the breeding of person making the accusation than the offended party.

Having said that, we also need to look to ourselves. Because so few Americans have seen fit to wear their country's uniform some on our side, veterans and non-veterans, see fit to challenge critiques of our military policy by dismissing the critics as non-veterans as if military service is the sine qua non for understanding concepts and principles.

But I'm tired of lefties who always want to change the subject. This post is pointing out the fallacy of the "chicken-hawk" slur. No matter the subject, lefties want to change it. Is that because, having so obviously lost the main argument you hope you may win another, unrelated, argument? I notice this habit of changing the subject all the time in lefty posts.

In your response you want to change the subject to:

"The folks who control the presidency, the House and the Senate...have rigged every rule, changed every custom and run the place completely the way they want..."

This is not the subject under discussion and does nothing to help in such a discussion. Neither is your argument valid since your lefties in Congress continue to abuse the fillibuster regularly.

You want to change the subject to:

The President and Congress are "blaming the minority for what's going wrong, and specifically for not coming up with alternative budgets, policy proposals, etc."

This is not the subject under discussion either.  But to humor you since you want to change the discussion, is the only solution your side can come up with for any problem "No"? Don't you lefties owe the American people SOME alternatives since you oppose whatever the Republicans propose?

Next you want to change the subject to bashing this site:

"You know what, posts like this are why I despair of any kind of real political dialogue..."

And your post adds to the real political dialogue how? You mention that you used to "come here and read interesting stuff", even "thought-provoking, interesting stuff." The interesting, thought-provoking stuff is still here. It is what keeps you coming back.

You say this site is "turning into the right-wing equivalent of Democratic Underground." If that is the case, how is possible that you are still posting. Other views are welcomed on this site. (I notice that 3 people have given you a troll rating. [Not me]. But 3 is short of the million you predicted). How quickly would I get banned for this post on DU? Your comparison is ridiculous, and you know it.

I hope you keep coming back to this site and posting because everyone needs to hear more than one viewpoint. My main gripe with you and so many on the left is that you change the subject of discussion too frequently.

Stick to the topic. Argue about the points under discussion. Don't change a discussion on the "chicken-hawk" slur into a rant about the President, the House and Senate and this site. Maybe then you will enjoy this site again.

Yes, but when you listen to Rush he just lambasts liberals  with every name imaginable. I listen to him occasionally just for the entertainment and he makes some good points, but he's one of the types that would've been calling libs "Card-carrying Communists" back in the 50s (just pointing out the other end).

The extremes of both parties are the ones I take the least seriously, but then are also the ones that get the most publicity. It's terrible. And I abhore Clinton (Hillary).

To that extent, I hate all the little catch-phrases that are being thought up. I know it happens all the time, but I don't think I've ever noticed it until now. Conservatives blame everything on "the liberal media", when obviously the news stories are going to make everything sound more dramatic and worse than it is; they need ratings.

I can't think of the Democratic ones off the top of my head except Quagmire in reference to Iraq. Please enlighten me with others, I know there are lots but my coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

By that same token, no one can criticize the President unless they have been one. So only Carter, Ford (he is still alive, right?) Bush 41 and Clinton are allowed to.

of people who say that the folks in power should fix things, when every attempt to fix things has been thwarted by the minority.  My only hope is that the vox populi will be heard in 06 and that it will send a resounding message to these obstructionists that their tactics are no longer acceptable behavior in the political landscape of our country.

To expand on your point, here is a comment made by Trevino earlier this week to Polyphemus in response to Trevino's blog about why we need the draft:

"Gotta be honest here, by the bye -- I'm smelling a non-soldier, non-veteran in you.  I could be dead wrong, of course, but I find the airy dismissal of these particular points to be unlikely to be coming from someone who knows what he's talking about."

I don't agree with anything the anti-war movement has to say, nor do I think we need a draft.  But I do think that people should have the right to express their views without being smeared like this.

was used in the specific context of poly's dismissal of Trevino's point about an ambush.  Trevino was not saying that poly had no right to comment on the draft.

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 need for war.

I am not speaking to the substance of this post, e.g., the ongoing discussion about absence of sacrifices being made by those who have been most supportive of the war.  I agree that the discussion is disingenuous, and often made by persons who also enjoy the protections provided by our men and women in uniform (e.g., free speech).  These are the same people who refuse to defend the honor of  our nation.

I must, however, take exception to the comparison being made between voluntarily serving in the military and being considered a lesser form of man/woman.  I have copied below an excerpt from a letter written by Ms. Virginia Boyd (a slave) to Mr. RC Ballard (her owner) in 1853.  It speaks to the experience of slavery.  Please help me understand how those two situations can be analogized.  

Please help me to undersand what serving in a voluntary military has to do with slavery, particularly as it was practiced in the United States

you wrote for them to sell me in thrity days, do you think after all that has transpired between me & the old man, (I don't call names) that its treating me well to send me off among strangers in my situation to be sold without even my having an opportunity of choosing for my self; its hard indeed and what is still harder for the father of my children to sell his own offspring Yes his own flesh & blood. My God is it possible that any free born American would brand his character with such a stigma as that, but I hope before this he will relent & see his error for I still beleave that he is possest of more honer than that. I no too that you have influence and can assist me in some measure from out of this dilemma and if you will God will be sure to reward you, you have a family of children & no how to sympathize with others in distress....

Is it possible that such a change could ever come over the spirit of any living man as to sell his child that is his image.

That's a reflection of what the slavery experience was like.  As I understand it, volunteering to serve in the military is a totally different experience.

For what it's worth, I think the discussion is a good one to have.  It is important to stand up when your honor is being challenged.  However, I think that this kind of comparison betrays an insensitivity that must be highlighted.

I agree. Personally, I'm not sure if I even support this anymore. If there was a draft though, I think I would go the office and happily (well, not really) sign up and fight. I'd fight because I had to, not because I support the Administration policy.

Plus, being in a situation like that, regardless of your support or lack thereof, changes your perspective on things. I think the soldiers that are over there can more credibly say they support or condemn the war, if just for the carnage that they witness.

But hey, some people abhor whore Bush and hate Iraq but would go over there for the sick pleasure of just killing some terrorists and insurgents. Anyone wanna be a mercenary?

if you shelved your outrage. The analogy is not what you make it, the analogy is clearly in response to those who claim you have to have experience in something in order to understand it.

That is an argument that is made several times, with differing degrees of coherence, on this thread.

So while I am sure you are offended, etc, etc, but your sensitivity to insensitivity is overly sensitive.

Having said that, we also need to look to ourselves. Because so few Americans have seen fit to wear their country's uniform some on our side, veterans and non-veterans, see fit to challenge critiques of our military policy by dismissing the critics as non-veterans as if military service is the sine qua non for understanding concepts and principles.

As you say, very few Americans have chosen to join the military.  So few that the military has been unable to meet even drasticaly reduced recruitment goals.

From my POV this looks like most Americans have decided the war simply isn't worth their lives.  Saying "I support the war" is one thing, but saying "I'm going to put my life on the line for the war" is another thing altogether.  Most Americans are aware of how strapped the military is for personnel today, heck a few days ago here on Redstate someone seriously proposed bringing back the draft [1].  Given all this Americans are still choosing not to join the army.  To me this seems to indicate that most Americans really don't support the war.  Again, if the military wasn't short on manpower that line of reasoning wouldn't work, but they are so it does.  Every day millions of Americans wake up, hear on the news about the military manpower shortage and choose not to risk their lives ending that shortage.  To me this seems to say "we don't think the war is worthwhile".

I don't think its entirely unreasonable to ask those who say that the war in Iraq is good, necessary, worthwhile, etc why they haven't joined.  Especially those who question the patriotism of those who oppose the war, I mean if support for the war is a prerequisite for patriotism, why haven't you shown the ultimate form of support for the war?

Of course the word "chickenhawk" is nothing more than a canard, but the question the word poses does seem legitimate.  If the war is such a good idea, and the military is so strapped for troops, why haven't you joined up?  If the military wasn't short of manpower the question would just be nasty, but the military is short of manpower.

[1] And from the standpoint of someone who wants Republicans to loose elections just let me say: PLEASE bring back the draft.  Pretty Please with Sugar on top!  I can't think of a better way to slaughter ya'll in the polls.

Where did I say that Trevino said poly had no right to comment on the draft. My point was about smearing other people.  Read exactly my response and try not to misquote me the next time.

Here is where the chickenhawk argument gets most absurd.  First, where were such arguments regarding Clinton's various bombings?

Second, if you truly believe that only those who are willing to serve / have served can comment, then does that not mean that those opposed to the war and/or use of military force should also not comment unless they have served?

Moreover, the chickenhawk argument implies that US Constitution is wrong to put the military under the control of civilians.  AFter all, shouldn't only serving people be allowed to express opinions regarding military force?

And, who gets final say - the person who has seen the most combat?  The person who has served in the military the longest?  The highest ranking person?

I was enlisted in the Navy before college, and served as a JAG Officer in the Army after law school.  Does this mean, b/c I have served in two different branches, that when I comment on the Iraq war (and I completely support it), anyone who has not served, or only served in one branch, has to agree with me?  If you are going to go by the chickenhawk argument, it seems to me that you have to listen to me and agree with me unless you have more service time than me.

I am pleased by liberals new-found respect for some military servicemen (in my experience, most liberals disliked and distrusted the military before they found the chickenhawk argument), but somehow don't believe such respect will last beyond its usefulness in attacking this particular president or people who support the war.  Indeed, only those servicepeople who say negative things about the Iraq war are ever given true respect.  Those who fully support the effort tend to be completely ignored.

Flowing from the chickenhawk argument was one of the arguments from the past election that Kerry should be president b/c he served 4 months in Vietnam, while President Bush did not.  By that argument, it seemed to me, we should simply have found the person who served the longest amount of time in Vietnam and made him president.

The chickenhawk argument reduces the argument b/c it means you are not arguing about policy, strategy, long-term goals, national interest, or any other logical position.  That is why the chickenhawk argument is bad for political discourse and ultimately, stupid.  Note, I did not call the people making the argument stupid, but the argument itself stupid.

I think that this kind of comparison betrays an insensitivity that must be highlighted.

Indeed it does. And now I must confess that I too was insensitive when I used starving to death as an example, for I callously made light of the intense suffering of children in Zimbabwe.

If we cannot get people to be quiet about experiences they have not had themselves, perhaps we can shut them up by labeling their arguments against such a restriction "insensitive."

This would not be stifling expression, it would just be the politically correct thing to do. After all, what good is political correctness if it does not make everybody shut up?

you misunderstand my comment.

Outside the experience of World War II very few Americans have either chosen, or been chosen, to join the military. The idea that there was some huge, all encompassing draft during Vietnam is just bogus. Since the advent of the volunteer military in 1973 the numbers have dropped. That is what I was referring to. Not the current situation.

I also disagree with the idea of a "manpower shortage" in the military. More on that in the future but much of the shortage is self-inflicted.

And I find the question you pose in the last paragraph to be nasty regardless of the situation. If the "you" is directed to me, the reason is that as a retired officer I'm not eligible to return to duty unless recalled.

You are right about the political effect of a draft but I oppose it as an un-American institution (as a Republican) and an unnecessary and very bad idea (as an Army officer).

You might remember a dust-up from a couple of weeks ago when Senator Durbin dared to compare the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to the treatment of jewish concentration camp survivors.  Republicans were rightly outraged that a Democratic Senator could dare to impugn the integrity of the United States by comparing the treatment we are affording to people who wish to do us harm with the odious genocide practiced by the Nazis.

Your inability to see the analogy as similarly odios and distasteful is equally offensive.  Your alliteration is not even cute in this context.

Let me highlight the details of her letter for you.

1.  A woman was considered property.
   
   
2.  She was raped by a man who owned her.
   
   
3.  She was a mother of his children.
   
   
4.  He sold her to someone else.
   
   
5.  He sold his children to someone else.

And you are not offended by the comparison?

you have no more right to comment on the war then someone you accuse of being a chickenhawk.  So, you should just let people who have served discuss this.

but the chickenhawk argument is often aimed at the ineligible or those who have served already.  This is the internet and most people are anonymous, and even those who go by their real names are virtually anonymous.  What I mean is, people often don't know much at all about those who they accuse of being chickenhawks.  Many of those labeled so are in actuality being labeled in error.  I myself have been labeled a "chickenhawk" although I am ineligible to serve.  Trevino was labeled "chickenhawk" although he has served.  More and more examples could be found I am sure.  What it boils down to on the internet is that people lash with the label at people they don't know much about at all.

It is a dumb emotional argument.  Sure, it works on some level, but using an argument from emotion is a logical fallacy, and undermines whatever rational logical argument you might make for your case.

proven why this thread is necessary.

(1) "I don't think its entirely unreasonable to ask those who say that the war in Iraq is good, necessary, worthwhile, etc why they haven't joined.  Especially those who question the patriotism of those who oppose the war, I mean if support for the war is a prerequisite for patriotism, why haven't you shown the ultimate form of support for the war?"

Oh sure, you can ASK.  Beyond that, the question becomes unreasonable.  And do you really think there is a large contingent of people out there who directly associate non-support for the war with blatant unpatriotism?  (sure, you do).  And why shouldn't war supporters all show that ultimate form of patriotism?  See Pejman's orginial argument about supporting a 60 million-man Army.

(2) "Of course the word "chickenhawk" is nothing more than a canard, but the question the word poses does seem legitimate.  If the war is such a good idea, and the military is so strapped for troops, why haven't you joined up?  If the military wasn't short of manpower the question would just be nasty, but the military is short of manpower."

The "legitimate question" would not exist were it not for the ill-intended canard.  That's why it's a non-starter.  As many posters have noted, the word "chickenhawk" effectively ends any responsible debate, detracting from every person's right to speak up for or against the war.  And there's a silver lining to the military's (specifically the Army's) being "strapped for troops."  It's because powers that be have made the wise decision to reverse the slashing and decimation of the ranks that we reflexively undertook after the Cold War.  That's where recruiting shortfalls come from, and even in peacetime, it would be hard to meet those goals without significant incentives.

(3) "And from the standpoint of someone who wants Republicans to loose elections just let me say: PLEASE bring back the draft.  Pretty Please with Sugar on top!  I can't think of a better way to slaughter ya'll in the polls."

First of all, one "loses" elections, not "loose."  This is how you kill your arguments and reveal yourself to be a moral, logical, and political cretin.  And calling for others to put themselves in the face of enemy fire so your people can win elections (in lieu of, say, having ideas of your own), well, that IS unpatriotic.  After this point, you can forget about the first two.

'Nuff said.

Yeah, I saw it. It's obvious that you care more about people who have been dead for 150 years than you do about the children who are starving in Zimbabwe right now. Shameful!

I didn't take it to mean "you have no right to comment" only that "I don't have to acknowledge your comments because...."  I wouldn't go so far as to say it was an appeal to authority but it's pretty darn close.  The chickenhawk meme is similarly weak logically and it should be attacked as such.  This whole million man army angle is not persuasive.

was that Trevino wasn't smearing other people.  The subthread you were referring to was a discussion about the actual tactics of the insurgents.  Trevino noted the sophistication of the ambush based on their military effectiveness, poly dismissed his view despite not really even fully understanding the terms he used.  If you told me we used 8" howitzers, not self-propelled 155s as our primary cannon artillery, I would be well within my rights to tell you 1) it was clear you didn't serve in the military and 2) if you misunderstand that point, you probably aren't qualified to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when it comes to the use of American artillery in war.  That wouldn't be a smear.  Neither was what Trevino said.  We can't take military experience off the table entirely as a grounds for expertise and knowledge, ya know.

What kind of dessert are the poor being sucked into...  quagmire pudding or jihadi flambe?

down the road.

There is no similarity between the military and slavery and no one said there was.

There is no resemblance between a concentration camp, a gulag, or Pol Pot's Cambodia and Guantanamo but a senator did say there was.

And while the letter could be of interest if we wer discussing slavery, which we aren't, it has no bearing, even tangentially, here.

Personally I'm offended by your faux sensitivity here which I think is a little contrived.

So I didn't understand the terms?  Which would that have been?  SOP?  Staging areas?  QRF?  

Maybe you understood more than you let on.  I don't believe your exchange with Trevino indicated that.  The bottom line is that reference to military knowledge and prior service is not always out of place.  Trevino can carry his own water from here, should he want.

I agree that there is no such similarity.  I'm glad to hear you acknowledge it and to recognize that it should in no way be related to a discussion of chickenhawk charges and the Iraq war.

My points having been made, I shall now desist from further comments on this issue.

On a final note, I also acknowledge that we are equally offended by the other.  That's OK with me.

Should everyone who expresses support for the manned space program have to think about signing themself up to be an astronaut?  After all, being an astronaut has been a pretty risky proposition in the past few years...

but acknowledging a silly point doesn't mean that the point isn't silly.

And actually I didn't agree with that at all, to the contrary I said it was a valid analogy that you chose to get your knickers in a wad over by deliberately misconstruing the analogy.

either way.  The article was not very detailed and was linked.  Anyone who wanted could judge for themselves what each of us said.  I'm not trying to rehash that thread here but I'm sure if there's any water left to be carried it will be.

and even though I was a 40 year old mother at the time, I would have gone over there to hunt for bin Laden.  I used to support the Iraq war when I thought it was about WMDs and would even have fought it to keep my children and country safe from those weapons.  But now, I don't support the war, and no one is getting me or my children to fight it.

It does seem pretty clear to me that if you truly support a war, you should be at least willing to go fight it, and not make excuses like, "Well, I can do more over here," or "I have to finish college."  

Can you tell us why that tax cut was just "chump change"?  Can you tell us why that tax cut was not bigger? Lefty Lawyer has the answer for us:  it is "The folks who control the presidency, the House and the Senate, who have rigged every rule, changed every custom and run the place completely the way they want, blaming the minority for what's going wrong, and specifically for not coming up with alternative budgets, policy proposals..."

It is certainly not the fault of the folks who screamed that the tax cuts would destroy the country or the folks who were only too happy to balance the budget at the expense of military readiness.

They scream and whine until the tax cuts are whittled down to nothing, then they call them "chump change".  They gleefully hack away at the bloated, Cold War military and then announce that recuitment shortfalls are the fault of chickenhawk conservatives. It must be nice to have your "desert" and eat it, too.

The analogy, highlighted

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?)

There is no similarity between the military and slavery

There are an awful lot of Americans who are well past the age they can serve in the AFUSA but who support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  My father, for example, is 61 years old -- it's unlikely that he'll be accepted into any branch of the service any time soon.  Is he a chickenhawk?  Before you answer, I'll tell you that he deliberately sought to give up his college deferment during the Vietnam War so that he could enlist, but was turned down because of an enormous burn scar on his leg that he suffered as a child.  The doctors told him that if they sent him to Vietnam they'd most likely have to amputate his leg if he suffered an infection of the scar.

As for myself, I'm soon going to be past the age limit (35) at which point I become ineligible for service in either the Army or the Reserves.  If they extended the age cutoff by a year or two, perhaps even to 40 years old, I would be eager to join the Reserves, especially.  Am I a chickenhawk, too?

I think you're not getting the fact that I think your outrage is contrived for the simple reason of trying to shut down the argument by dragging some specious reference to the evils of slavery into the discussion.

Either participate in the discussion or stop the distraction and move on. You've been treated rather gingerly to this point on the off chance you were serious. That possibility slips further into improbability with each passing post.

you've posted virtually the same post once before. Knock it off.

I thought the age limit to join the reserves was 39? Not saying you have to sign up, just that people joining should really want to be there.

But only one.

But I'll double-check.  Because if it is 39, or could be extended to be 39, I'd sign up.

For the reserves and Guard.  Relatively new.  I know this for a fact, if for no other reason than my 39 year old fellow law clerk is on his way to enlisting.  The age limit is lower for active duty (35?  Not sure) and for Guard/Reserve OCS programs.

Go nurse your grudge and cosset your victimhood until your inner search engine detects the use of the word "slavery" in this or any other thread.  Then come back and give us all another lecture which bears little relation to the topic at hand.

And being under the age limit, I understood 35 was the boundary for active duty. I could be wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

34 for Active Duty (under 35 is the phrasing)

It's good to know I still have time.  I heard the 35 y/o cutoff during a conversation last October with a person who obviously didn't know what they were talking about.  I was disappointed, because I couldn't do it for personal reasons until probably the end of this year, but now I know I still have the chance.  I've always felt that I had a lot to offer the Reserves, and I really appreciate the info.

the National Guard as an option, too, so when you inevitably achieve high political office you can be told how you service doesn't count.

for the fact that we have a state mission component as well, which allows us to do even more good works.  Not to mention we have more combat arms.... :-).

I have no political aspirations beyond perhaps serving as a member of a town council or a Board of Health.  For me, the most important politics are local, and I would have a hard time running as a Republican because of my former Life as a Teenage Moonbat.  But my desire to serve in the Reserves is genuine, and I think I could be of some real use there.

the argument, taken on logical grounds, is stupid.  In terms of emotional resonance, you'd better watch out if you happen to be a politician, pundit or blogger who says nothing but the most grandiose, glorious things about the war and have never served and never would.  I'm just saying, it is not only liberal blogosphere types or whatever Pejman has in mind here making this argument.  People in general do  not like those who talk a big game about war and then refuse fight themselves.  It is not the American way, or wasn't at least until recently.

The thing about Clinton is extremely minor, and one has to believe it was a major reason Clinton tried everything to avoid having to put ground troops into the Balkans.  It really was one of his major weaknesses as a candidate, politician, and commander-in-chief, and to hear those in his white house tell of it, it seriously hampered his relationship with his military commanders who did not really respect him and were very reluctant to go to war under his command.

You are right though that many Americans also distrust those who boast about their military service as the only reason they are qualified to lead in wartime, which is why the whole Kerry thing was so dumb to begin with.  

I admit that a 60 million person military would be, at best, unwieldly.

So instead of saying  "To all Bush supporters:  Enlist now!"  I'll say: "To all Bush supporters, offer to enlist now!"

As was pointed out, many of the 60 million are too old or physically feeble to enlist.  So, I'll cut them some slack.

As to the others, I make the following points:

1) The most gifted among us should set a good example!  Remember when the President made his recruiting pitch during his last address?  Wouldn't have his pitch been even more effective had he been able to say:  "I urge you to join my two daughters in joining the military!"  Then, few would have doubted his sincerity.

But, as things are we are left with jokes such as:

"What is the difference between Vietnam and Iraq?"

Ans.: "Bush and Cheney found an effective way out of Vietnam."

2. If all of the Bush voting public tried to enlist, the military could then be selective in who it picked!  The days of the Army having to take drop-outs with drug problems would long be over.
   
3. Plus, given that the military would have so many "right thinking patriots with correct attitudes" to choose from, the military could turn down people like me! (USN 1981-1985).  Think of how scary it was to have people like me out there protecting all of you, especially since my instincts would be to confront those who would attack our country with offers of therapy.  Imagine what the captain of my submarine went through when he quizzed me as to what I should do if we were fired on by a Soviet submarine and I replied:  "I'd invite the Soviet sailors to join me in a circle and have a good cry." :-)

Round these parts, we don't take too kindly to senselessly repeated chickenhawk garbage and that old silliness about the Bush daughters being forced to enlist. Gets a mite old, as the folks back at the saloon tend to say.

So here's yer only warning: Cut the silliness or git run out of dodge on the rail.

Or, to quote a more famous sheriff from what some of us consider the finest talkie about the West ever: We decide what's right in this jurisdiction. Now, move.

"... regardless of our personal opinions I think we can both agree that one's military service, or lack thereof, shouldn't exclude them from having an opinion and stating it, be it pro-war, anti-war, or somewhere in between."

If Trevino's comment that I quoted earlier was an isolated instance, fine.  But if you check his comments from his other blogs, he has a habit of construing one's remarks as indicating to him that they have never served.

To quote Gengisdon, "The bottom line is that reference to military knowledge and prior service is not always out of place."  

True, but it seems to be the order of the day with some at this site.

fact that there would be a serious labor shortage which would drive up incomes and prices increasing tax revenues..

The strawman of a 60M person military is quite silly..

The reason that the Army hit its June numbers is because it lowered its goals... did it lower its goals because it needs fewer enlistees now?  I don't like fudging the numbers to look good - causes us to make bad decisions and leave things that should be fixed unaddressed.

3. is a very important point.

Also we should have a public service for Homeland Security.. think about how many more shipping containers we could inspect if we had better resources there...

but I'll give you a chance to provide a .mil or .gov link that substantiates that claim.

most effective advocates for the creation of militias and, not coincidentally, one of the harshest critics of the Quakers/pacifists.  Yet he turned down a commission from the governor of Philadelphia.  Granted he would later serve(as a colonel IIRC) as would his son but I guess even he at one time was a chickenhawk.  

...where I saw this, but I can't. That being said, about two weeks ago I read that the shortfalls in Army recruiting were for enlistments in non-combat roles, not in the combat arms. It appeared from the article that they were not having problems filling the numbers for the combat arms.

Thinking about it I can make a case for this being so. Non-combat jobs in fields such as Quartermaster, Transport, Signal Corp, etc. are competing for well-paid jobs in an ever improving private sector. Positions for people interested in the combat arms are not competing; there is simply not a large private sector opportunity for infantrymen, artillerymen or tankers :-)

----------------

mention of a June goal of 5,650 to the DoD's mention of May's, 6,700.  I don't know what to make of it since from what I've seen the monthly goals fluctuate quite a bit.  But if the YN is accurate I don't see why the goal would drop during "summer months after high school graduates begin to decide on careers."  Any ideas?

and there is a demographic reason for the shortage as well.

labor shortage is putting it mildly.

the economy would go into meltdown if 60 million people suddenly left.  

Now that was good.

you will find this issue debated endlessly.  It was Erasmus who said "they that are the most enthusastic for war are those who have never tasted war".   Why do you think national armies and drafts evolved in the first place?  And why do you think that all the members of the royal family of most countries served in the military at one point or another?  Peter the Great, Napoleon, Frederick Wilhelm the Great Elector, they all served, fought in the thick of combat with their troops or forced their children to serve, with the very clear objective of both making sure they and their progeny would be better able to make military judgements as commanders-in-chief as well as to keep the morale of the population and the troops high, which is likely to happen if they see their leaders taking the same personal risks they are.

Whenever you have this great a disconnect between those serving and those hyping and planning the war, there is going to be trouble.  It ain't just liberals, trust me.

reading of history to say the least.

of leaders at the head of armies.  It was specifically mentioned as a reason for having our military subordinated to civilian leadership.  Military mixed with politics leads to despotism.  That was even used as an attack against Franklin when his men, without prompting from Franklin, escorted him around Philadelphia.  I don't recall ever coming across attacks following the chickenhawk script against him however.

Socrates said something similar.  Xenophon as well.  Vegetius.  And yet Cicero said old men are more judicious than the young who are slaves to passion.  So what?  I don't honestly know what you're arguing for here.  Do you want only generals to concurrently hold the office of POTUS.  Or is it privates?

further.  I don't follow individuals closely enough on other blogs to notice such things.  I didn't even know Trevino was Tacitus until a week or two ago.

Reductio ad absurdum is a relatively common debating tacticm, and I would argue that the "sixty-million-man army" idea is intended to be silly.

Furthermore, as regards the original post, I doubt many liberals would be using this line of argument if the current enlistment levels were clearly able to support our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Given the current situation (stop-loss orders, multiple tours of duty, missed [or, for June, "adjusted"] recruiting goals, heavy use of contractors, etc.), though, many believe that there is some evidence that increased enlistment would be helpful.  

All the "the Greats" served directly in combat.  Napoleon's ability to get in the thick of the battle with his troops was one of the keys to his leadership.  His charismatic leadership in combat was worth an extra 50,000 men remarked a number of his opponents.  That carried over into the support and loyalty of hundreds of thousands of frenchmen for the campaign all the way to Moscow and back; even for those who did make it back, who lived through waterloo and the hundred days they never gave up their loyalty to the man.   Why do you think his nephew was able to gain overwhelming popular support in the 1850s?  Louis Napoleon also fought with his men (which is whay he got captured, like his uncle, at Sedan).    I'm not saying Bush should go lead an operation along the Euphrates.   But it has been an accepted part of the wisdom of leadership for a long time in many cultures that those ordering troops into battle should have been in battle themselves, dating back to Julius Ceasar and before.

I think of this whenever I hear Eminem's "Mosh" blaring from some teenager's car -- which as you know has the line "Send him to fight/ strap him with an AK/let him impress Daddy that way"  referring to the President of course.  I'd think long and hard about who Eminem's audience is and whether it's really just liberal blogodorks who rally to the Chickenhawk message.  There is a deeper historical trend here.

Although I reserve the right to deny it if circumstances require.

We have no institutional monarchy. We are not a gens in the sense that the word is meant. We do not elevate our generals immediately to the Presidency. Our entire operational concept for war eschews a "l'Etat, c'est moi" approach to leadership. The common component you neglected from all of those examples is the blood loyalty each man inspired and demanded of his troops and people. I prefer having civil servants who retire after 4-8 years, thanks.

All we'd have to do to undertake this approach is overturn two centuries of constitutional order, and then overturn three centuries -- four? -- of the Western Way of War, Napoleon's historical egomania notwithstanding.

not really an argument.  There is a reason why most leaders throughout time have had military experience, because people in general tend to trust them more with decisions about war and peace.  You can say that we have civilian control, but you cannot deny that the trend of needing a military background to hold the top office has been very strong in our country's history.  Why else were George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Zachary Taylor, William Henry Harrison, US Grant, James Garfield, Rutherford B. Hayes, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy elected--can you really say that their military exploits had nothing whatsoever to do with their popularity?

I'm just saying it' s a longstanding tradition for a reason--as conservatives I'd think you might possibly appreciate the point of view I have.

you must really be a progressive at heart to think that our modern societ has come so far that people simply don't care whether a commander-in-chief has any first hand knowledge of what he is commanding.  

Anyway, look, I'm not advocating any approach or anything.  I'm just saying that one reason so many of the most popular leaders of history proved themselves in battle is because people are much more willing to trust them with their lives.  You may not be.  "People" in general are.  We may not immediately elevate our generals to president, but getting stars has been a fairly good path to getting a seat in the oval office.  See the post below.  Why exactly do you think General Washington is the father of our nation, and the scene of him crossing the Delaware in the boat is one of the founding images, if I can say that, of this country?

People are less willing to go to the mat for a guy who hasn't been there himself, pure and simple.  They've got less patience.

your point is that the chickenhawn attack is stupid/illogical/etc. but effective so...valid?  I'm not sure.

Successful military experience.  I'd never say it has nothing to do with popularity.  But if people had this overwhelming desire to have experienced war veterans leading them in times of war I think we'd be posting about President Kerry now rather than not.  Or President Dole in 1999.

it is to be expected.  It is common.  It is a natural reaction when there are too many in the pro-war camp with too little collective military experience.  My point is if you want to do away with this point of view, calling it "stupid" and making major stretches of abstract logic like P-Diddy did with his "59 million" statement will only make the trend worse.  The way to fight the chickenhawk meme is to have more pro-war folks drop their precious lives and join up.  I can think of about one example of this, Pat Tillman, and that example went a long, long way towards helping ordinary folks believe in the justness of the mission.  Image what several more examples like that, especially a couple Krempaskys, Pejmans, Rameshes and maybe Anne Coulter would do?  It would be alot more effective than lashing out at what is a historical tradition.

 As far as I can tell, the conservatives on this site who believe in the war and want it to continue have a problem.  For this mission to work we will have to be there a very long time.  The Iraqis are not ready to run this show themselves.  But the support for staying there is dwindling fast.  That support has got to come back up, if the mission is to succeed.  I conjecture that quite a bit of the sinking support is do to the chickenhawk meme, because it is a common trait in human history to get tired of wars faster when those in command have no personal sacrifice of their own to speak of.  To get the support back up and thus to make the mission a success it is imperative that some of the most strident and public pro-war conservatives get their butts over there and start doing some sacrificing.  Otherwise, this mission will in fact end in failure.  You cannot sustain something of this scope with support falling below 40 or even 30%.

Dole wasn't running in a time of war.  Neither was Bush '92.  Nonetheless the Clinton-draft-dodger theme hurt him quite a bit, perhaps more than any of the scandal stuff, and a lesser politican would not have wriggled out of it I think.

As far as Kerry, the only thing worse than a chickenhawk is a traitor.  (Note: I use both these terms once removed, I don't really believe in using either, but lots of people do.)  If Kerry hadn't said all that stuff after he came back from the war, I think we might very well be talking about President Kerry.

they lowered goals in May from 8050 to 6700 and then missed that number..  from the Washington Post.

On Friday, it said that in May it reached only 75 percent of a goal it had already reduced from 8,050 to 6,700. The National Guard and Reserve, which provide more than 40 percent of the Army forces in Iraq, are experiencing even more trouble; so far, the National Guard has reached only 76 percent of its recruiting goals for this year.

It would make sense that if they deemed okay to lower goals in May that they wouldn't reraise those goals for June...

Very elegantly said.

Though what would be silly about the Bush twins joining the military?  Along with Chelsea?

as wanting to make up for prior shortfalls with a big push this summer.  From the WaPO:  The Army will make a "monumental effort" to bring in the average 10,000 recruits a month required this summer, said Maj. Gen. Michael D. Rochelle, head of the Army's recruiting command.

I don't know whether to count June as part of the summer or not, but if there is a problem, sticking our head in the sand isn't going to make it go away.

A combat arms unit cannot function without support, and not all of it can be outsourced to private contractors.  Moreover, recruiters have a very large role to play in the selection of MOS, which makes me wary of drawing any conclusion at all about fluctuations in MOS decisions.  Also, once you're in-theater, I would think some of the distinction between combat arms and support would fade - it's not like ALOC gets to hang out in the green zone while the rest of the unit goes on a mission.  Folks enlisting in the active army these days shouldn't be under any illusion they will not spend some time in the sand, and thus perhaps they are choosing to be better trained for such an occasion than otherwise.

You are confusing the chicken and the egg.  You said

"There is a reason why most leaders throughout time have had military experience, because people in general tend to trust them more with decisions about war and peace."

What you are confusing is the fact that most of those "leaders throught time" with military experience became leaders because they seized control with their military, and then forced people to follow them.  It is not a question of the people of merry old england supporting and voting for their King b/c he served in the military - he was king because he had the military.  Napolean seized power because he controlled the military.  So, your argument or point, or whatever, makes no sense because what you are saying is that people follow military leaders and point to the fact that throughout history, military leaders have seized power and forced people to follow them.  This is hardly proof that the chickenhawk argument is today's democratic America is a valid point.

Indeed, it seems to be an argument for the exact opposite.

Even in the absence of free and fair voting returns from the great referendum of 1802 we have ample evidence that Napoleon was incredibly popular throughout France.  His popularity was real, not simply because he controlled the military.  There were alot of artillery commanders working for he Directory in the late 1790s.  Napoleon rose to the Consulate because of his popularity and charisma, and this was due to his military experience pure and simple.   The same can be said of his nephew, or Frederick the Great, Peter, Kemal Ataturk, Mao Zedong, and I could go on but whatever.  All of them near universally beloved because of their military accomplishments, all of them inspired their subjects to incredible sacrifice.  They could not have done this if they were perceived as chickenhawks.  

Even with Stalin, who didn't have combat experience (other than the civil war), every Russian soldier knew that he had two sons in the infantry and that they both died (one one died and the other was captured I forget now).  That helped alot, you better believe it did, and the USSR faced far worse and far more depressing circumstances than we are in in Iraq and they showed a heck of alot more resolve than we seem to be.   Maybe if one of the Bushes took one for the team like Joe Jr did on the Eastern Front we'd show the same kind of resolve.

Look, I think there is a nugget of truth buried in the overall idiocy of the chickenhawk theme, alright?  There is a disconnect between support for the war and a failure to support the war effort.  But the suggestion that our political leadership not only needs to have family members in the military, but that one of them needs to "take it for the team" is eye-crossingly idiotic.  Seriously man, you would be happier if a Busch scion came back in a body bag?  You would change your thoughts and become a full-throated supporter?  

No, this is a very bad argument that my side of the aisle is advancing, and I'm not very happy about it.

I could care less, Gengis (speaking of great military leaders BTW).  I really could.  I'm only saying that i would bet alot more people would be supportive of the war if one of the Bush twins enlisted.  I am not advancing this argument myself at all, okay?  You have to admit that it would change people's perceptions alot more than a speech.  Americans like deeds more than words.  At least that is the America I know.  We like it when people walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.  

Now, there are some liberals who would advance the argument that jenna should join the Marines just for the meanness of it.  I'm not doing that.  I want the mission in Iraq to succeed, but it cannot succeed if Americans think the president is out of touch.  Don't you think if Jenna did join the marines that perception would be reversed, and that this would go a long ways towards rescuing the mission in Iraq?

as well.  I already said, somewhere in this thread, the approach by the OP was not persuasive.  But just because something is popular it does not follow that it should be accepted.  Your Eminem listener isn't worth persuading if he can't think beyond lyrics.  I can sit here and dismiss the chickenhawk attack on purely logical grounds and think nothing more of it.  Simply because my neighbor cannot doesn't mean I have to dwell on the issue.  You have essentially said you disagree with the use of the attack but since it is being used the supporters should address it.  Worse, to endorse it by doing what they ask.

I don't think Pat Tillman is the quintessence of sacrifice.  The fact that you can only think of one example is, I'd bet, the problem.  There was a lawyer here who said he went on active duty and I don't see how simply because his financial loss was smaller that his decision to serve is any less praiseworthy.  Even the former burger flipper fresh out of high school sacrifices a life with his friends, in his hometown, etc.  So I'd be willing to bet that almost any person serving now would for make a compelling example of civic duty.  Would you champion their stories to boost enlistment?  Would Markos?  Or do only Republican examples of civic duty merit your attention?

Of course you think there's a problem.  Pardon the broad brush here(because it may not apply to you) but....I think it's rather hypocritical for the same bunch that has:

hoisted Michael Moore into a spotlight,

shouted down and banned recruiters,

parroted the "Bush lied" crap for 3 years,

stood up media crusades as war propaganda,

ignored medal ceremonies,

rode on the backs of the military for a decade of spending cuts,

argued semantical defenses of spurious allegations,

called Iraq immoral, illegal, imperialistic, etc.,

chortled when European leaders called for war crimes trials,

politicized Shinseki and a draft in the same breath,

etc.

to now claim they care about the Iraq mission.  All they care about is politics.  If they can sway the opinions of others with attention spans shorter than their arms then bully for them.  They can suffer along with me(and you) the results of a failed Iraq.  I'd never ask someone to bail out the dissenters(or even the country) just to expiate some hollow sense of shame.  It might be priority #1 for others but not here.

That was intended to look like something I remember Berke Breathitt's Bill the Cat would say.  I never realized it closely resembled a DC supervillain....

So, when a military leader seizes power, and gives the masses victories, thus creating popularity, it equals validity?  You are arguing for imperialism?  You want someone from the leadership of the US Military to seize power, establish a serious and bloddy tyranny (like Napolean did), and go on a spree of conquering neighbors to fill the coffers and generate popularity?  Such an argument is ridiculous.  A military leader is popular because he seizes power and gives the nation military victories?  That is your evidence of a long-history of support for the chickenhawk meme?

C'mon.  You can't really believe that.  And Stalin?  I think the fact that any Russian soldier caught leaving the battlefield was immediately shot in the back had a lot more to do with his troops staying and fighting then the fact that Joe, Jr. took one for the team.  You can't honestly be claiming that Stalin - the genociadal mass murderer - was popular b/c his son was in the military?  I seriously doubt there is any proof for such a statement.

And, moreover, do you really think that a single liberal would support the Iraq war if the President had served in Vietnam?  Or if his daughters were in the Amry?  Or if Cheney had been in Vietnam?  No.  They would no longer have the idiotic chicken-hawk argument to make (which means, their very limited current appreciation for military servicemen would be non-existent) - but they would simply move on to some other type of argument.

I also don't think much of America is persuaded by the Chickenhawk argument.  Indeed, my guess is that most people think its juvenile.  Would respect for W be higher if he had served in Combat?  Probably.  Would it change a single anti-war advocate?  No.  So, what exactly is your point?

from 150,000 to 135,000-140,000 in the last few months so I don't know what to make of the falling goals.  I've asked for input from the military people here before and gotten tepid responses so I doubt much will come of this.  It's a far more complex issue that I thought but there's just no interest to explain it to us lay people.

you can still disagree with me and that is fine but Abbe Sieyes tapped Napoleon to join the Consulate with the intention of making him a puppet because he was aware that Napoleon was a hero and that as the real ruler of post-Directory France Sieyes did not have the popularity to carry on, since he'd never put HIS life on the line for France once, unlike Napoleon.  Sieyes could have had Napoleon assasinated, which would have been the smarter thing to do.  But don't argue with me for a second that Napoleon became popular AFTER he seized control.  

Plus, about Stalin, it's hard to fathom I know but he really was a hero.  The cult of personality was real, people really bought into it, even his own victims, who on numerous occasions were heard shouted "LOng Live Comrade Stalin" on their way to being executed....on his orders, and a major reason for this devotion was the image he carefully cultivated as sharing all the sacrifices and privations of the common people, including sticking both his sons in ordinary frontline infantry units.

I don't want either Napoleon nor Stalin, or Ataturk or de Gaulle or whatever.  I myself don't care if my president hasn't even shot a water gun in his or her life.  You don't think most of America buys into the chickenhawk "argument" (it's not an argument, more an emotion; see my OP) I say they and if they don't they will if this keeps up into the next decade.   But fine; keep calling all who do fall into this category "idiotic" and "stupid" and see if the support for the war in this country starts rocketing up as a result.

And so does the White House otherwise they wouldn't have arranged that fairly weak pep talk the other night.  

Just in case you are interested, I don't fall into any of the categories you mentioned.  And my whole argument is that if the chickenhawk reaction carries water only within that Michael Moore type of crowd, then why not just ignore it, because it is so marginalized it means nothing?   But if...just if, it carries water in Missouri and Iowa, you should pay more attention to it, whether you think it valid or not.  People's reactions are their reactions, man, you shouldn't dismiss them.  That's what liberals have been doing for many years now, and look what has happened to them...

pick up my offspring from camp.  Very interesting discussion to be resumed after dinner and lights out time

AFAIK, the Marine Corps has not changed their goal of 38,195.  I know that the Army has not changed its goal of 80,000.  Air Force cut their goal twice (35,600 to 24,465 to 18,900).I don't know if Navy changed its goal, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did as their retention numbers continue to be hotter than their goal.

he seemed to be a real hero of the conservative pro war crowd for a long time, as I recall.  And for good reason.  It's not that his sacrifice is any greater than the burger flipper, its that he set a precedent which has been forgotten in this country since the days of Elvis serving in the Army and half the graduating class of Harvard and Yale shipping off to war despite their blue blooded backgrounds, which is a certain sense of shared sacrifice, an esprit de corps.   We're too individualistic.  We outsource everything too much.  We should all sacrifice some.

Wilson, FDR.

Look, your point makes common sense, but the data don't bear it out.

I'm not trying to rationalize the situation. I am very well aware that combat units depend in large numbers of support personnel.

We all know that recruiters have been known to "shade" the truth a bit :-) But if you get 10 guys coming and only 2 of them express an interest in Signal Corp or something there is not a lot that the recruiter has to do with causing that; they may be able to influence it, but if the guy is interested in artillery but not QM, what's the recruiter to do?

I'm simply pointing out that a) it appeared that the shortfall was not in the combat arms; and b) there appeared to be a logical explanation for this. The "argument" that has been floated on the left is that the recruiting shortfall is due to disenchantment with the war. That simply does not appear to be borne out by the "facts."

the Maj. General said that number was for the Army...  which would make sense if they were to catch up given that they have fallen behind their annual goals since February.

Look, I'm not calling the people stupid, but the argument.  And it is.  

You may be a historian, but that does not mean your argument regarding history is correct.  It makes no sense.  Of course Napolean was popular.  He won battles - back in the day such people were regularly popular.  There were no movies, no TV, radio, and most people couldn't read.  The only heros people had were generals, etc., who won battles.  Fine.  But, that still does nothing to support your point that the chickenhawk meme is a valid point - even on an emotional level.  

So, back in the day when the people who controlled the military (which were almost always military leaders) generally controlled the countries, such people were sometimes popular?  What does that prove?  I'm pretty sure I could find just as many unpopular leaders from history who had military experience and led their nations in unpopular wars.  What difference does that make?  There was also a much different attitude toward war, toward conquering other countries, and toward military duty, honory, etc. then exists today.  Again, how exactly does any of that have anything to do with the validity of the chickenhawk meme.

Also, I'm not sure what evidence you think you have that wars were popular with the general population just because the leaders (Kings, emperors) had military experience.  First, back then I'm not sure most people felt comfortable voicing their opposition to a war.  Unlike today, in America, such things could have gotten people into trouble.  Moreover, I don't believe there were opinion polls back then.  

Again, if one of the President's daughters joining the Army would change the mind of a single anti-war person, I would be unbelievably surprised.  Would there maybe be some good media for the President for a short while - yes.  Maybe even a few point uptick in the opinion polls for a short while.  But a real change in attitude about the war?  That's nonesense.  As is arguing that a single anti-war person would change his/her opinion if the President had served in combat instead of serving in the National Guard.  Let's not forget, the chickenhawk meme being used is that service alone is not enough (as the President did, in fact, serve), it had to be combat service.  If he had served in combat, these same people would likely move the argument to a certain type of combat, or a certain amount of combat experience that the President still did not have.

So, the argument is b.s.  The people making the argument know it is b.s.  Most Americans know the argument is b.s.  Using the chickenhawk argument is simply name-calling.  It is used when the person using it cannot make a valid argument, or knows he/she has lost the argument.  If there were real, valid, good arguments to be made, the chickenhawk argument would not be used.

Moreover, the chickenhawk argument is a direct insult to someone like me, who did serve.  I support the war and the President.  So, am I a chickenhawk?  No?  Well then, what is the point of the chickenhawk argument.  What value does it have?

As to the Stalin argument, I have a hard time believing that most of the country really liked, or even loved him.  Who exactly, the millions he starved?  It's pretty hard to have credible information of someone's popularity or unpopularity in a totalatarian regime that has no qualms about killing someone for no reason.  Again, I doubt very much that the average soldier in the red army during WWII gave a rats ass about Uncle Joe's sons being in the military.

With a goal of 80,000 and about 41,000 signed up through May 31, the Army would need to average about 10,000 recruits per month to hit 80,000 by the end of the fiscal year.

The numbers I was referring to when I said 'sounds like DOD numbers' were the numbers given by polyphemus.  If those are DOD-wide active duty numbers, then the reason they have slid down is clear.

However, if those are supposed to be Army-wide numbers (Active+Reserve+National Guard), then I would have to do more research.  

So, polyphemus, if you can clarify (and give supporting documentation for those numbers), it would help everyone's understanding.

As far as I can tell, the conservatives on this site who believe in the war and want it to continue have a problem.

Was I to read that as a reference to recruitment?   I read that as "conservatives on this site", not the military, have the problem.  I beg for leniency since I lost my decoder ring.  And I didn't watch the speech so I'm guessing it was addressed to the College Republicans?

But if...just if, it carries water in Missouri and Iowa, you should pay more attention to it, whether you think it valid or not.  People's reactions are their reactions, man, you shouldn't dismiss them.  That's what liberals have been doing for many years now, and look what has happened to them...

Well, I'm not a Republican or even a true conservative.  But I've always had an abiding faith in the ignorance of people.  It's the one faith that's stood the test of time.  

between the chickenhawk meme and all other examples of support (police, firefighters etc...) is this:

Those who support a war, but are unwilling to enlist even though there is a need and they are able are asking others to give their lives

By declining to be a cop while supporting cops, I recognize that some cops may die.  But the likelihood of a police officer dying / getting badly hurt on the streets of america in the line of duty is far, far less than a soldier dying / being maimed in Iraq.  Or that the soldier has to pull the trigger to blow someone's brains out.

The focus is on those who are eligible and able to serve in the US Armed Forces and support the War.  When they explicitly call for more blood to be spilled, it is fair to ask why the blood being spilled should not be their own.

to everyone regardless of political leanings.  As should Chuck Zeigenfuss.  And anyone else in uniform.

Good luck cheering the precedent of Tillman.  Bring his name up and within 5 posts talk about his sacrifice will fall by the wayside.  And I'll give you two guesses for who couldn't give a damn about it.

You've been warned, at least once, by me, on an unrelated thread. You've insisted on pushing the limit.

This idiotic chickenhawk bulltookie is over with. Now. Period. Goodbye.

I didn't look for the yearly goal.  I was simply guessing that the falling monthly goals might reflect the draw down in Iraq of 10,000-15,000.

see #137.  I should have held off a bit.

I'm not dignifying this sort of tendentious argument with a response. The warning has been given. Proceed as you see fit.

or just "editorial management"?

Run out of dodge, indeed!

in both '92 and '96 IIRC.  But I'll go back farther if you want.

McGovern

Goldwater

And the veteran status of Bob Kerrey sure helped dissuade the savaging he received from those wascally Republicans.

Is that a threat to censor

It may be. Quick... there's a telephone booth... go change into your Spandex weenie-wear and put the cape on in case your services are needed.

if I'd troll rate someone for whining and sniveling.

Anyone who fears the idea of The Editor Formerly Known As Doverspa banning them surely merits contempt, but not troll rating.

of first-term soldiers are running at nearly 110%. Every first term reenlistment takes a little more than one (or one-and-a-fraction) recruit off the mission.

elegantly simple.  See?  We civis are pretty darn ignorant.  We need people like you to connect the dots.  Thanks again(I think you were the only to respond last time), Streiff.

seriously stop being so hostile.  No one is trying to insult you, and I am not arguing the validity, but rather the factual existence of the chickenhawk argument.  It has been made endlessly over time.  Because it is one of those fundamental issues to society that resurfaces time and time again.  Societies in which everyone serves, including the rich and powerful and famous, including the leaders, generally hold together better under the stresses of prolonged conflict.

I can certainly accept your disagreement with my historical contentions, but to say that it makes no sense is a little harsh.  Did you read what I wrote about Napoleon, at least?  France was led by civilians from 1789 until 1802, none of whom could inspire the kind of loyalty necessary to muster an army capable of defending France against her enemies...until Napoleon.  That is in fact why he rose to power, because Abbe Sieyes and the rest of the Girondins realized the only one who could command people's lyalty was a military hero like Napoleon.    And you are certainly welcome to your opinion about whether Stalin's sons serving helped Russians or not.  As to the millions he starved, that would be Ukrainians, yes, they joined the SS and became Capos in trblinka and Auschwitz.  But the Russians...you have to admit, put in just about the same situation 24 years earlier they chose not to follow the Czar and war effort totally collapsed, mainly because of a widespread belief that Nicholas was out of touch with the common soldier, having never been anywhere close to combat himself.  

I really don't think anyone expects some super leftwing socialist hippie antiwar protestor to suddenly become gungho about the war if young republicans started flocking to basic.  I do however think that such a thing would help shore up support for the war among independents--where it is currently at about 15%--and moderates who are starting to seriously doubt whether the president and vocal prowar supporters have any clue what is really going on over there.

If you disagree that it would have any effect on these people, the kind of people who want to believe but don't see much to believe in, then I suggest you suggest another way to bolster support beyond vague rhetoric about "staying the course"...because if you really want the US to win, the popular support has to improve.

since the Enlightenment the soldier-king has been a rarity and in actuality a rarity since the Gustavus Adolphus was shot out of his saddle at Luetzen.

Frederick (the Great Elector or his son The Great) didn't face fellow monarchs on the field of battle.

When Napoleon III was captured at Sedan it wasn't by the King and Kaiser.

Sure Napoleon led his troops. George III didn't.

And as I don't rely on thug wannabes for my political views I haven't contemplated little Marshall's thoughts on the subject.

Kosovo, er actually Bosnia, was not nearly the same type of issue.  Indeed, like I said, Clinton's big weakness of being a draft dodger (not really, but that was the popular perception) probably prevented him from inserting ground troops, it certainly made him gunshy about staying in Somalia and going into Afghanistan.  If he had been some big time war hero I bet he and his administration would have come alot closer to significantly more ground combat in Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, and even Afghanistan and Sudan.

McGovern rarely if ever mentioned his veteran status, no one could figure why. But even if he had, running a campaign based on bringing the troops home kind of negates the military experience, you know?   Goldwater, I dunno.  Maybe someone could enlighten me what happened there.

is considered the father of his country because he was the first president. I know that's a pretty radical notion considering we're even having this discussion.

Stars as a path to the presidency? Laughable. 12 of 43, if you include state militia wide-rides. If we are talking men running for office based on combat experience you have Washington, Jackson, Grant, and Eisenhower.

You know, you are beginning to look increasingly unserious.

on the detail.  (Except Louis Napoleon couldn't have been captured by the Kaiser since he didn't yet hold that title--but he was captured all the same)

Until very recently almost all members of society, especially those most pro-war and certainly those of the aristocratic class were expected to go to war.  It was a matter of honor.  In the civil war every son of privilege served on both sides.  Same in WWI, and this was true of the graduating class of Harvard every bit as it was of the graduating class of Oxford, the Sorbonne, the Universität Heidelberg and the Charles University in Prague:  they all went, and many didn't come back, and if you go to each of them you'll see plaques to this effect and most of those names are prominent, even aristocratic names.   There was an expectation in those days that if the upper class did not volunteer then neither would the ordinary foot soldiers.

This is the real point, more than did Louis Napoleon get captured by the Kaiser or just a member of the Prussian field command.

the inestimable Zachary Taylor.

I didn't miss your point because you made none of these points.

Until very recently almost all members of society, especially those most pro-war and certainly those of the aristocratic class were expected to go to war.

Not true. You are conflating World War II with American history. If you are proposing that this statement applies to Continental or British nobility outside World War I or II it is laughable.

And you know why I used Wilhelm's post-1871 title? Because if I'd called him the King of Prussia you would have insisted that he was the Kaiser.

I don't get the hostility and defensiveness.  Obviously I've pushed some buttons I didn't mean to with the very simple notion that until very recently it was a traditionally accepted notion that both the high and mighty and everyone else served to protect the country.   Obviously my thought that if we had those days back we wouldn't have the difficulty in staying solid on the support for the war like we do now has really offended you Streiff and others.  

If you like, I'll retract it all.  The fact that not a single member of the administration has ever served in combat, that practically none of the members of congress have children in combat, that virtually none of the most prominent pro-war pundits/bloggers has gone to war--fine, have it your way, let's just say that none of this matters one iota, and changing this trend would not increase support for the war one iota either.

I happen to believe we should all share in defending this country. I happen to think that if we all did in some way or another, including our leaders, we would be more united as a country and a people.   I guess I really messed up.  Sorry.

PS:

You left out:

Zachary Taylor(Mexico), William Henry Harrison and John Tyler (Indian wars:  Ol' Tippecanoe and Tyler too--that was their entire campaign pretty much), Franklin Pierce (Mexico-I think not sure) and then every single Republican until Cleveland after Johnson had some level of Civil War military experience.  It would have been unthinkable for the GOP to nominate someone who was not a Civil War veteran.  Garfield, Hayes, Harrison, etc.

And then, what exactly propelled Teddy Roosevelt into the status of national hero so he could make a maverick run to the white house?  Oh yes, the charge up san juan hill, teddy and the rough riders...without that he wouldn't have won an election for mayor.

Finally, John Kennedy had a number of other attributes, including some good ideas, an eloquent speaking style, good looks, and a pulitzer.  But what made him stand out was his heroic tale on his PT boat.  

I wonder if, by saying that you can only think of four presidents who used combat experience as a major qualification for president, you are the one who is beginning to look "unserious" ?

Friend, you are applying logic, a faculty unknown to the Liberal-Secularists on the other side.  It reminds me of a situation once commented upon by one of our Founders.

"It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." -- Thomas Jefferson

Brother Angel

"Not true. You are conflating World War II with American history. If you are proposing that this statement applies to Continental or British nobility outside World War I or II it is laughable."

Who made up the officer corps of the Union and Confederate army?  Poor farm boys from Minnesota and Louisiana?  If you can find more than 25 examples of sons of prominent Washington, New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Richmond, Atlanta or Mobile families who stayed at home to pick cotton or whatever then I will call you my master.

As far as continental history, okay, I don't see that it is in fact laughable.  The Junkers were expected, since the inception of the Canton system under the great elector, to be expert military leaders and to serve in times of war...and they were and they did.  Why do you think the Prussian/German military developed the rep it did?  Because it had the most fair system of military service in all of continental Europe.

And "outside of WWI and WWII" give me a break.  In terms of military history there isn't too much outside of those two wars...and the "greatest generation" was so great and able to win that war because everyone put their honor and their duty to country before their personal career pursuits.  Noone of teh greatest generation had "other priorities" ... that is why they remain the model that we ought to follow.

"And you know why I used Wilhelm's post-1871 title? Because if I'd called him the King of Prussia you would have insisted that he was the Kaiser."

I would have done no such thing but considering you know me better than I know myself I suppose I'm wrong.  Once again, sorry.

"And as I don't rely on thug wannabes for my political views I haven't contemplated little Marshall's thoughts on the subject"

Man, come on, don't you get it?!  The point isn't that Eminem has anything worthwhile to say--it's that there's an entire generation of kids, many of them from the same social classes that recruiters target, who would view Eminem as having a more authentic voice than you, or I, or the President, or their parents, or Paul Wolfowitz or Pejman.

Go ahead and breezily dismiss it.  I'm not.  I worry about it.  Sorry, maybe I'm just paranoid.

extreme liberal moonbats who smoke their dreads if they get too high to tell the difference between their dreads and their spliff.

I just think you're really wrong and off base and whenever you get called on it you change your argument. You said stars were a route to the presidency. False. Now you are trying to make an argument on my behalf that I didn't make. I said only four of the generals who became president did so on their battlefield exploits. With the noted additions I still hold to that.

A further example of your bending the argument when your original argument was shown to be fallacious:

Tyler: not a general.

Teddy Roosevelt: not a general

John Kennedy: not an admiral

ergo stars were not their route to power.

I'll admit I left out Harrison just like I corrected my omission of Taylor.

The others I omitted were because their campaign had nothing to do with their battlefield leadership. Your statement about Civil War experience being a prerequisite is correct, but it has nothing at all to do with your original statement.

Neocon eggheads who are so wrapped up in their perfect brilliant theories that they haven't left their offices in the Pentagon in months and their skin is the color of the walls and to them the experiences of the soldiers, their injuries, their suffering, their sacrifice, their deaths, are totally inconsequential as they are all just stratego pieces to be moved around endlessly with zero empathy for what they believe in.

which one was it?  I can never tell.  But I know who it is for whom Pat Tillman's life and death had a tremendous impact:  

1. Me
   
   
2. My wife
   
   
3. Just about everyone I know
   
   
4. Most everyone else not included in Guesses number one through two.

once again, good on the details.  But the larger picture:  come on, you really think it is so wrong to say that military experience has played an important role in many presidential campaigns?   I mean, look, Roosevelt wasn't a general, and really he wasn't even part of a real Army unit if I understand it correctly, but the rough riders were like the A-team of the late 1890's if I read it right and so as their leader he was basically a general, of the same stature as Grant, Jackson, Washington and the rest.   He was also a son of great privilege, and though he didn't lead the charge up San Juan hill he was in the "sh*t" as they say.

exposed time and again.

The West Point officer corps, combined total of all pre-Civil War classes, for instance only had about 20% who were classified as "affluent". The overwhelming majority were middle class.

I don't want you get your hands hurt in the cotton fields, but I would guarantee you that you could find 25 politically prominent families in New York  alone who sent no one to the Civil War. That is how the system of paying for substitutes came about.

Junkers, like virtually all European nobility, tended to send second or third sons to the Army. Not all of them served and to state that service was anything close to widespread after the Seven Years War is to laugh in the face of mathematics.

Your description of the German Army as a fair system of military service is rather bizarre. Efficient certainly, but I guess fair depends on whether you consider being conscripted for life in  Frederick the Great's army is fair. The Prussian and later German army were famed for a lot of things, fairness was not one of them.

The Germans instituted a modern reserve system at about the same time as their European rivals. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any innovation in German Army manpower management that could even be charitably classified as "fair."

Outside World Wars I and II, upper class Europeans did not serve in the military in substantial numbers. While they dominated the officer caste, that caste was very small. If you don't believe me, just check the size of the officer corps of the British Army, or the Regular German Army, before World War I.

about "larger picture" here. We're talking about "stars as a route to the Presidency."

Roosevelt was the lieutenant colonel of the 1st Volunteer Cavalry. That is not "basically a general"

And again, you are making an argument on my behalf that I didn't make, to wit: you really think it is so wrong to say that military experience has played an important role in many presidential campaigns

I'm not going to argue "larger picture" with someone who plays fast and loose with the facts. It's counterproductive.

Look, outside your Barbara and Jenna comments which I don't think any person of breeding should make you 've made some good points amongst a lot of ill-conceived ones. But your inability to stay on topic is too frustrating for me to deal with tonight.

since this is the internet afterall but the liberal moonbat part is accurate.  You know...the proponents of the chickenhawk meme.  The ones who care so deeply about soldiers and Iraq.

or come across anyone matching that description so I can't say if your second guess is wrong or not.  

for this country.  We need to win in Iraq.  We need popular support in order to win.  We need more leaders like Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy, James Garfield etc. to help reconnect this country, make it more united, reinspire confidence in our leadership.  You are fixated on whether Roosevelt was a general or a first lieutenant.  He was a war hero of considerable stature who the nation trusted because he put his life on the life for the nation.  To say this is playing fast and loose with the facts, how? It is a fact in of itself.   Plus one should add that many other generals came close to the presidency, and they were indeed combat tested, like McClellan and MacArthur.

Rome burns and we're fiddling.

dredging up those emotions for the non-professional-athlete soldiers you'll be well on your way to leaving the chickenhawk meme where it belongs.  Best of luck.

come hang out in Madison Wisconsin for a day or two, you'll see what I mean.

come to Georgetown and hang out in a bar frequented by DoD and AEI policy wonks.

thanks for the really excellent advice and most of all for wishing me luck in "dredging up" emotion.  That's really nice of you.  How my honor and respect for those who serve should somehow cancel out other people's growing annoyance with those who talk but don't act is beyond me.  Since I've repeated it many many times, I feel no hesitation to do it summore!:

1.  I do not advance the chickenhawk slur
   
   
2.  I believe that it is more commonly accepted than just by liberal zanies, because there is a real lack of actual combat experience among the war's planners and most vociferous supporters
   
   
3.  I do believe that this country would be more united and more behind the president and the war effort if there was more of a sense of collective sacrifice, that we all shared in the burden of protecting this country, as it was in times past.

For these three things I've been treated in a less than hospitable manner and even given ones!   But thanks anyway for listening, wall.

"I think you'd be hard pressed to find any innovation in German Army manpower management that could even be charitably classified as "fair.""

Military service is completely admirable, but it's not a prerequisite for elective office--in time of war or peace.

but I gotta say that in many ways perception is more important than math.  Frederick the Great's conscription may have stunk for some but he was generally perceived as a great man and a great hero and his soldiers believed in him, especially because he specifically eschewed the "l'etat c'est moi" notion and described himself as the "first servant of the state" and required all his officers to do and act the same.  This made him able to rally and lead troops in a particularly effective way--the notion that he was another servant too, a notion that created the perception that he was very much connected with his men.

That West Point had 20% classified as affluent doesn't surprise me:  I never conjectured that all the officer corps was aristocratic, but that aristocrats made up a large portion of the corps and that most aristocrats served.  

Excellent point about the draft buy out system.  You realize this had a great deal to do with the disillusionment Lincoln faced, the draft riots, and the copperhead movement?   Yet, quite honestly, compare the wealthiest and most famous and powerful families in New York in teh Civil War and today.  In which era do you think more rich kids went to war, or at least wore a uniform?  

One reason service in Prussia was not widespread after the seven years war is that (Napoleonic wars exception) there was no serious warfare to speak of until 1870.  Yet in Prussia especially a Junker family who didn't do its part in maintaining the "Army with a state attached" was considered shamed, whether it was the second or third sons or not.  Everyone participated.

The reason the size of the officer corps was small is because there was no general mobilization until 1914.  But: many in Britain and France from the upper classes went into the colonial service, and fought where there was fighting to do, whether in South Africa or China or whereever.  And:  when 1914 came along, there was no hesitation among the upper classes to join up.  I happen to think this was a very good model to follow.

as the precedent for sacrificing as if it was somehow unique.  If you agree with me that most in service today exemplify the same lauditory traits then problem solved.  Go forth and write bio's.  You might land a job at the NYT.  Then again probably not.

1. I do not advance the chickenhawk slur

No, you dismiss it with one hand while claiming it's effective and requesting the same outcome with the other.  I see the distinction but the difference is eluding me.

2.  I believe that it is more commonly accepted than just by liberal zanies, because there is a real lack of actual combat experience among the war's planners and most vociferous supporters

Funny.  Some of the best commentary I've seen has been on milblogs.  Oh yeah...they weren't on your list of political targets unlike Pejman.  So your need for public examples of sacrifice are there as are the war supporters in Iraq.  Quite a day.

3.  I do believe that this country would be more united and more behind the president and the war effort if there was more of a sense of collective sacrifice, that we all shared in the burden of protecting this country, as it was in times past.

Collective sacrifice?  Are you suggesting those who oppose the policy in Iraq should ante up as well?  I think you could manage that with a simple addendum of "those concerned about enlistment, or failure in Iraq" right after Republican/conservative.  I will say this--the chickenhawk is a versatile creature indeed.

For these three things I've been treated in a less than hospitable manner and even given ones!   But thanks anyway for listening, wall.

Oh dear!  Inhospitality on the internet.  Next you'll be telling me there's porn as well.  Seriously I think the responses have been fairly timid given your "Chickenhawk is stupid but effective" reasoning.  I've rated one person so far and it wasn't you.  Ditto, door.

But the Russians...you have to admit, put in just about the same situation 24 years earlier they chose not to follow the Czar and war effort totally collapsed, mainly because of a widespread belief that Nicholas was out of touch with the common soldier, having never been anywhere close to combat himself.

Which is why the Bolsheviks took over during the Russo-Japanese war, and the Tannenberg Campaign and subsequent events never happened. Or not.

Look, a huge number of lower-class Russians went off to fight and die, for a very prolonged period, without any particular compunctions about whether or not Nicholas II had a clue, militarily speaking, or for that matter whether anyone in the chain of command had a clue (which seems to have been a rather rare event). The Czarist system had been a disaster waiting to happen for some time, and trying to link the collapse to the fact that the Romanovs weren't on the front lines is pretty ludicrous. (And overlooks some pretty obvious factors: the Czarist army, as best I can tell, seems to have been corrupt and generally apathetic. Stalin's military leadership was varyingly competent, but he certainly wasn't apathetic about having people who wouldn't fight get shot.) I think you are letting your idee fixee lead you by the nose.

that we as a country could once again believe overwhelmingly in this cause and this president.  That the most vocal supporters of the war also have been there.  That this would shame those who criticize the war but are too afraid to defend their country at all.

Not gonna happen.

as to your charming insights:

"No, you dismiss it with one hand while claiming it's effective and requesting the same outcome with the other.  I see the distinction but the difference is eluding me."  

Requesting the same outcome, as what?  I'm not requesting a thing.  I'm suggesting that a way to defuse the chickenhawk meme is to actually serve.  Guess I lost my decoder ring this time.  

The difference is that the chickenhawk meme shouldn't be there but is and will be in any society where there is a such a disconnect between those who command and cheer and those who shoot and die, and that this will doom any war effort.  Why is this hard to understand?  Why is this taken as hostile?  Should I say it in esperanto or Icelandic or Pig latin?  English doesn't seem to be working.

"Funny.  Some of the best commentary I've seen has been on milblogs.  Oh yeah...they weren't on your list of political targets unlike Pejman.  So your need for public examples of sacrifice are there as are the war supporters in Iraq.  Quite a day."

Quite a day indeed.  Some of the best commentary you've seen.  I see.  Okay.  And this was coming from the National Review?  The Weekly Standard?  The Washington Times?  The New York Post?  The White House?  Fox news?  AM Radio?  ANy other high-profile extremely in the spotlight place that has consistently backed the war effort?  Because if not, I doubt how effective it is in convincing normal Americans that those cheering the war aren't just doing so because it ain't them that's gots ta fight it.

Moving right along:

"Collective sacrifice?  Are you suggesting those who oppose the policy in Iraq should ante up as well?  I think you could manage that with a simple addendum of "those concerned about enlistment, or failure in Iraq" right after Republican/conservative.  I will say this--the chickenhawk is a versatile creature indeed."

It certainly would be nice if those opposed to the war had the guts to actually go and serve before criticizing the war and president, though this is certainly no requirement, but it would be nice.  And I bet it would shut alot of them up.   But those in charge, and those who advocate war the most publicly ought serve too at some point.

Home stretch!

"Oh dear!  Inhospitality on the internet.  Next you'll be telling me there's porn as well.  Seriously I think the responses have been fairly timid given your "Chickenhawk is stupid but effective" reasoning.  I've rated one person so far and it wasn't you.  Ditto, door. "

Door?  Huh?  didn't quite...oh well never mind.  If you'd think about you'd realize we're on the same side which is we want the US to win and to really "stand united" and I am simply proposing a means to get there.  Didn't know my suggestions would be so warmly received.

The Romanovs were widely perceived as being out of touch, not necessarily because they didn't serve on the front lines but because no one in the family had any clue about military experience and therefore any real clue about what combat was really like.  

As for the Russo-Japanese war and revolts against the Czar for his incompetance and being out of touch, you need to look up "1905, revolution of."  You'll notice that Bolsheviks didn't take over but they came darn close, and learned everything they wanted to know but were afraid to ask about how to make a revolution as a result.

It's not just the issue of service, okay, but the issue of being out of touch, so when the President or Vice President give overly optimistic statements like cheney's "last throes" comment and then compound that with the knowledge that these guys have never been in war, people get very unsupportive.

Requesting the same outcome, as what?  I'm not requesting a thing.  I'm suggesting that a way to defuse the chickenhawk meme is to actually serve.  Guess I lost my decoder ring this time.

You ask and answer.  You said the meme was stupid yet supporters should serve.  Distinction.  Difference?

The difference is that the chickenhawk meme shouldn't be there but is and will be in any society where there is a such a disconnect between those who command and cheer and those who shoot and die, and that this will doom any war effort.  Why is this hard to understand?  Why is this taken as hostile?  Should I say it in esperanto or Icelandic or Pig latin?  English doesn't seem to be working.

I know you can speak English but I'm not certain you can read it given the above.  You'd be better off making this argument in one of Trevino's draft threads since last I checked supporters there didn't resort to this topic.  But as it is are you suggesting if Pejman signed up tonight the price of tea in China would decrease?  You want to draw some historical parallels between Saxony and Billings go right ahead.  I'll continue to harp on something that people get inundated by 7 days a week, 365 a year--the media.

Quite a day indeed.  Some of the best commentary you've seen.  I see.  Okay.  And this was coming from the National Review?  The Weekly Standard?  The Washington Times?  The New York Post?  The White House?  Fox news?  AM Radio?  ANy other high-profile extremely in the spotlight place that has consistently backed the war effort?  Because if not, I doubt how effective it is in convincing normal Americans that those cheering the war aren't just doing so because it ain't them that's gots ta fight it.

Did you miss the word "milblogs?"  It's nice to have you focus on a portion of the media though.  I'd still put emotions for ordinary soldiers higher on the priority list than a media review but if you've got the time....

It certainly would be nice if those opposed to the war had the guts to actually go and serve before criticizing the war and president, though this is certainly no requirement, but it would be nice.  And I bet it would shut alot of them up.   But those in charge, and those who advocate war the most publicly ought serve too at some point.

"Some point" = first, right?  But I do finally agree with you on something-not-history--people should serve if they decide to.  

Door?  Huh?  didn't quite...oh well never mind.  If you'd think about you'd realize we're on the same side which is we want the US to win and to really "stand united" and I am simply proposing a means to get there.  Didn't know my suggestions would be so warmly received.

Then the "chickenhawk is stupid but effective" line should probably have been left in your bag of rhetoric.  Unless a discourse on the pre-Gates Commission history of the world was a life long dream then who am I to stand in the way.

I have to turn in.  I wish you wouldn't be so defensive but whatever some people are just like that.  Maybe tomorrow you'll feel better and see that what I'm suggesting would be positive for this country.   Or maybe not.  Either way, don't let the bed bugs bite.   It's been real.

And it's "editorial oversight."

I was pointing out that your argument made no sense, it still does not.  You are attempting to use historical precedent to establish the validity of the chickenhawk meme - while attempting to say you are not.

If you review your argument, it seems to be that at some times in history, some generals or kings who were in power were popular when they won campaigns.  I really don't see where this proves or establishes a long precedent of the chickenhawk argument being a valid or good argument.  Moreover, as I stated, there have been plenty of unpopular military leaders and/or kings that had previously served in the military throughout history.  Does this the disprove your argument?

Moreover, as I stated, historically there was a very different attitude about nationalism, wars of conquest, and military service - duty to country.  As well as much less freedom to voice one's disagreement with a war.  So, I really don't think you can make the historical argument with any good faith.

My point with Napolean, again, is that he was popular because he won battles.  He then seized power and continued to fight and win battles, and may have remained popular.  What does that prove in the current situation regarding the chickenhawk argument?  How does that translate into the President's daughters should join up?  You seem to be arguing that America would be better off if we had some kind of emporer/general rather than civilian control of the military.

I am hostile because the chickenhawk argument is so absurd, and because it insults MY service and support of the war.  You seem to think nothing of that, thinking that servicepeople who support the war don't count.  It only counts whether the President or President's daughters serve.  That is insulting, and foolish.  Do you want a constitutional amendment that only people with a certain amount of military experience can be President?  If so, argue for that.

If you really believe that if one of the President's daughters joined up tomorrow real support for the war would change, then you have a very low opinion of the intelligence of everyone else in America.

As to the Czar, if you believe that his real problem was that he did not serve in the military, then I don't know what else to say.  As to Stalin, if you really believe that russian soldiers were fighting and dying at that time b/c Stalin's sons were in the military, again, you are entitled to your own peculiar read of history.

Statistically, the states which support GW most vigorously are the same states which offer up their sons and daughters for military service in a grotesquely disproportionate ratio. Sadly, the sacrifices of red state service members benefit the whole nation. Even their spoiled, cowardly, city dwelling cousins, who look upon them with utter contempt, will drink their $5.00 lattes tonight and never once have to seriously consider whether the car that just pulled up in front of the cafe is loaded with deadly explosives. When this war is over, I hope I never live to see again, so many people, so undeserving of the sacrifices their fellow countrymen have made for them.

Yeah, lets extend the reach of the federal government ever deeper into our private lives. That's the solution.

Do a little research on conscription services and you will see what a miserable track record this practice has produced both here in the US and around the world. The very reason we have an enlistment problem now is because a large portion of people in this country have traditionally viewed the military as a social welfare program. In their view, you get lots of benefits and very little risk. These same people, when faced with the prospect of actually having to put out for their upkeep are simply opting for another, less risky, path. Contrast the type of person described above with the people who continue to enlist despite the war. These people obviously do not and have not ever viewed military service as just a monthly check and a package of benefits. They are not members of an underpriveliged minority group, they do not come from the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, and they are, by and large, single males who remain single and childless while in active service. (If you doubt my assertions about this group just check DoD statistics.) So what is their reasoning for enlistment? You cannot logically conclude anything other than a love of country and a sense of duty. Something that is instilled in them via family and community.

And what of the first group? Why do they not feel a sense of duty stronger than their fear of death or injury? The answer is the same as for the latter set. Their family and community. Family and community have not instilled in them a sense of duty and a strong love of country. Quite the opposite in fact. I would argue this particular set has been indoctrinated with a vitriolic anti-americanism at a much higher level than that  of their serving counterparts and probably at a higher level than any generation of young people before them. That indoctrination has led them to only tolerate military service when risk is low and the right political party is in power. They have been transformed into moral cowards. We cannot count on this group now, nor will we be able to count on this group in the future. They do not feel an obligation to the nation in which they reside. Which means they are not Americans in the most importance sense.

Recent DoD stats tell a very revealing tale about the people of this country. I urge you all to study them closely.

I'm new here, and after reading the topic I was somewhat enraged by what I believe to be a childish distortion of the 'chickenhawk' meme. However, I read some of the posts up at the the top of the page. This place is surprisingly frank and well-spoken, as well as diverse.

However, as I reached the bottom of the page, the commentary took a less intellegent term, ending with the ugly post you see above this one.

Firstly, I appreciate and deeply respect the members of our armed forces, regardless of their ideology.

Secondly, I cannon understand why $5 lattes or lattes in general have become linked with liberalism.

It's the elitism thing right? Well, let me say that it's time that meme STOPS. Liberals as well as conservatives make up this country, at all economic levels. This whole 'democrats hate everyone' idea is just as insane as 'if you support the war, you must enlist.'

Looking at it logically (we liberals can do that, y'know), there is no reason for liberals to disdain their fellow man.

Does it help them politically? No.

Does it make them feel better about themselves? Well, there are sickos on both sides. I've been called a heathen more than once.

If you're not too busy making insulting and unsupported claims about my ideology, could you please tell me why I hate my fellow countrymen?