Of Chickens and Hawks

I think Kevin Drum is misconstruing the force of the point Lawrence O'Donnel is making here. Kevin's right to say it doesn't make sense to say that only veterans are allowed to have opinions about questions of war and peace (democracy and all that) or that only veterans are allowed to favor military deployments (since most people aren't veterans, this would just mean the military could never be deployed), but I don't think that's what's at issue here. There are two different sound points in the chickenhawk neighborhood.

One is just that it's a way of calling bullshit on people's insistence that doing this or that is vitally necessary to the security of the country and the world. If you say "The war in Iraq is going downhill, but it's not hopeless yet and it's vitally important for America to succeed -- failure is not an option" I think it's fair to ask in response why you're not putting any skin in the game. Are you volunteering? Encouraging your son, daughter, or little brother to volunteer? The interns working in your office? The college students you might be invited to address on this or that topic? If you're not doing any of those things -- if you don't think you could look a 20 year-old kid you care about in the eyes and tell him with a straight face that it's vitally important for the world that he sign up to fight -- that seems like a good indication that you don't really believe the things you claim to believe. As with any hypocrisy gambit, the reverse might be true -- you might just lack the courage of your convictions rather than lacking conviction -- but it seems likely to me that you're probably just fronting convictions you haven't really thought-through.

The other thing is just the annoying rhetoric of strength, courage, and toughness. Actually punching some dude who hassles you on the street is genuinely tougher and braver (though possibly also dumber) than trying to back down and de-escalate the situation. Advocating that someone else punch some dude who hassles you on the street is not. It's just an opinion. Maybe a right one, maybe a wrong one, but no braver, tougher, stronger, or more courageous than giving the reverse advice. Similarly, volunteering to fight "Islamofascism" in Iraq requires significantly more toughness than does writing blog posts about how troops should be withdrawn. But blogging about how more troops should be sent to fight "Islamofascism" in Iraq isn't a tougher, braver thing to do than is blogging the reverse.

Comments

Another point about chickenhawkery is how often it involves people who have never been anywhere near a shot fired in anger feel free to question the courage of combat veterans who oppose war. Compare Kerry, Murtha, Cleland, Webb, etc., with GWB. Or, going back in history a bit, compare the WWII records of Nixon and McGovern.

Posted by rea | November 22, 2006 3:13 PM

This first point is utter bullsh*t. If you say "Firefighting is extremely important for my community", I think it's fair to ask in response why you're not putting any skin in the game. Has Matthew joined the DC Fire Department without announcing it on the blog?

The second point is true but a straw man. Nobody claims it is personally tougher or braver to advocate war. It may be a tougher policy for the country, but can Matthew point to someone saying that they are personally braver for advocating the war? I would love to see that.

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 3:26 PM

al --- we're doing pretty good in the "war on fire", so i think matt can sit this one out with a good conscience.

Posted by bs23 | November 22, 2006 3:36 PM

There is another way to "put skin in the game": to pay for the war you advocate. Obviously every war will cost money over and above the normal needs of government. Anybody who advocates war is obliged to agree to find a way to pay. In practice there is no way to do this except raising axes. Borrowing the money from the Chinese Central Bank is not acceptable - particularly given that most of the warmongers consider China an enemy...
Maybe we can't aske everybody to put their lives on the line (as per Kevin Drum), but surely we can ask them to help pay for what they say is vital?

Posted by zumbrunndbla | November 22, 2006 3:44 PM

al --- we're doing pretty good in the "war on fire", so i think matt can sit this one out with a good conscience.

Really? According to the statistics, the percent of building fires confined to room of origin decreased from 64.2% in FY2004 to 45.9% in FY2005. The target is 75%. Through the first nine months of FY2006, the percent decreased again, to 45%. Looks to me as though the DC fire department is NOT "doing pretty good" in "the war on fire".

The chickenhawk argument has always been weakminded; it's rather embarrassing to return to it again.

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 3:47 PM

Borrowing the money from the Chinese Central Bank is not acceptable

Why not?

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 3:48 PM

This first point is utter bullsh*t. If you say "Firefighting is extremely important for my community", I think it's fair to ask in response why you're not putting any skin in the game. Has Matthew joined the DC Fire Department without announcing it on the blog?

So purposely obtuse...comparing firefighting to one particular instance of war(ie. the Iraq War), as if Matt is arguing anyone who supports having a professional military must enlist. A better example is an arsonist who, upon seeing the fire chief decide to pull out the firefighters because a building cannot be saved, starts yelling for the firefighters to run back in to save his cat/baby/pony.

Posted by Rambuncle | November 22, 2006 3:51 PM

True to form, Al has just done deliberately and with sophistical intent what KD--in a rare lapse--did inadvertently, viz. reject an opponent's position by taking the opponent to have deduced it from a principle which is pretty obviously open to serious objection. The principle Matt is relying on--though this shouldn't need saying--is something like: if you think that something is terribly important, that that something requires mass manpower & you are not disqualified by age, incapacity or otherwise impeded, then you should lend a hand. If you don't, there is at least a tension between your professed view and and your actions, and questions can legitimately be raised about your sincerity in just the way Matt describes. If someone in a small town, which depended on its volunteer fire dept., went on about the vital importance of firefighting the community, heaped abuse on his fellow citizens for shirking and the like, but did f***all himelf, then he would be liable to the same kind of criticism...

Posted by J | November 22, 2006 4:01 PM

Al,
I think I actually have heard people about having the will to stick it out in Iraq. Stupid I know, but I have heard it often.

Posted by theCoach | November 22, 2006 4:02 PM

The principle Matt is relying on--though this shouldn't need saying--is something like: if you think that something is terribly important, that that something requires mass manpower & you are not disqualified by age, incapacity or otherwise impeded, then you should lend a hand. If you don't, there is at least a tension between your professed view and and your actions, and questions can legitimately be raised about your sincerity in just the way Matt describes.

Too true. I believe the same about universal health care. If you think something is terribly important, that that something requires lots of money and you are not poor, then you should pay for someone else's health care. If you don't, there is at least a tension between your professed views and your actions, and questions can legitimately be raised about your sincerity in just the way Matt describes.

Posted by ern | November 22, 2006 4:09 PM

How would paying for someone else's health care bring about universal health care?

Posted by Marcel | November 22, 2006 4:16 PM

How would paying for someone else's health care bring about universal health care?

That is not the point I was trying to make. J at 4:01 was making the point that if you really believe something is important and don't provide "skin", whether money (my addition) or service (his), then, at a minimum, your convictions can be questioned.

But to answer your question, a supporter of universal health care can bring that goal closer to attainment by adopting someone without health care than a chickenhawk can bring the Iraq war to a successful conclusion by volunteering for Iraq. But again, I don't the success/failure of the enterprise fits into the analogy.

Posted by ern | November 22, 2006 4:27 PM

if you think that something is terribly important, that that something requires mass manpower & you are not disqualified by age, incapacity or otherwise impeded, then you should lend a hand.

And that renders the firefighting example I provided inapplicable... how exactly? Are you saying that the DC fire departmentment does not require "mass manpower" somehow (it has over 2000 FTEs)?

Presuambly Matthew thinks firefighting is important. And presuambly he wants DC firefighters to appear at his door if he has a fire in the house. It is an activity that requires mass manpower; he is not disqualified by age, incapacity or otherwise impeded. And his contribution is...?

BTW, another statistic is that civilian deaths from fire increased in FY2005 over FY2004 (as they did in FY2004 over 2003). It sounds like they could use a guy like Matthew.

The point of the example is that the assumption that we should all "lend a hand" in these types of endeavors - war fighting, fire fighting, etc. - by actually joining is asinine in a society like ours in which we all have specialized roles to play in society. Hell, I think political writing is important, and am glad that Matthew is specializing in it ratehr than war fighting or fire fighting. People who are interested and able to do those other things will do them, and we will pay for them with our tax dollars, because that's how our society works.

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 4:27 PM

Hey ern -- I'm enthused enough about universal health care that I'd pay extra taxes to fund it. Which is decidedly un-chickenhawkish behavior, in the utterly irrelevant context that you decided to drag in.

And golly, Al, why does the term "chickenhawk" make you even more shrill and incoherent than usual? It's almost like you take it personally, somehow....

Posted by sglover | November 22, 2006 4:39 PM

I still haven't stopped being amused that Al thinks his firefighter analogy is a good one, as if waging war is just any old job that we occasionally hire people to do. You can tell he really, really thinks it's a spot-on analogy, and that just cracks me up.

Posted by Steve | November 22, 2006 4:44 PM

I suppose one difference between the two examples is that everyone isn't talking about how we need more firefighters, or how fire departments are being stretched to the breaking point.

Posted by Kiril | November 22, 2006 4:46 PM

Well, surely the epithet IS personal to me, sglover, since I support the war and have not volunteered.

Also, I don't get your point to ern about being "enthused enough about universal health care that [you would] pay extra taxes to fund it." I'm enthused enough about the war that I would cut other spending sufficient to fund it (since money is fungible). Does that make me not a chickenhawk? I thought Matthew's point is that you have to actually volunteer to engage in the activity; paying taxes in insufficient.

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 4:47 PM

as if waging war is just any old job that we occasionally hire people to do

Um, what exactly is the US Army, then?

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 4:48 PM

I would also posit that there is a new brand of chickenhawk out there (and I think that was what was being referred to in the Huffington Post article). This brand of chickenhawk is one that has basically admitted that the war is lost and that there is nothing that we can do to win it, but that we must still keep our troops stuck in the middle of it, watching helplessly while the Iraqis kill themselves (and our troops).

Its one thing to advocate a strategy without military experience with the hope of winning. Its quite another to admit that "winning" is not possible and that our presence must continue so as to "save face" -- all the while leaving our poor troops in a hopeless situation....

Posted by Palooza | November 22, 2006 4:50 PM

Hey ern -- I'm enthused enough about universal health care that I'd pay extra taxes to fund it. Which is decidedly un-chickenhawkish behavior, in the utterly irrelevant context that you decided to drag in.

Would it be okay, then, for the chickenhawk to reply that he would gladly go to Iraq if drafted but would rather not volunteer?

Posted by ern | November 22, 2006 4:50 PM

Al, your firefighting analogy would at least be superficially logical if Matt (or anyone) were saying: (a) that there is a aignificant shortage of firefighters;(b) that more effective firefighting should be America's most vital national priority because our safety as a nation depends on it; and (c) that anyone who disagrees with (b) is a coward or traitor or both. Since no one is saying that, the analogy fails.

Am I safe in assuming, Al, that you are an able-bodied male U.S. citizen within the required age range for enlistment and combat service?

Posted by Gator90 | November 22, 2006 4:53 PM

Shorter AL:
I willing to cut government spending that benefits others! Look at my sacrifice! I also willing to have others die for me! Me big man!

Posted by Rob | November 22, 2006 5:00 PM

What about the whole idea of "subject matter knowledge?" Is that not also a "sound point in the chickenhawk neighborhood?"

Re the firefighter analogy, can't anyone remember this post? http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2005/02/chickenhawk.html

Posted by BruceR | November 22, 2006 5:07 PM

Gator90: I don't believe your (a), (b), or (c). I'm not sure what the top age limit is, but I might just sneak in. What's your point?

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 5:09 PM

Re the firefighter analogy, can't anyone remember this post?

Why do you think I used the analogy?

Posted by Al | November 22, 2006 5:14 PM

I disagree entirely with Al's claim that pro-war types never attacked anti-war people's bravery or manliness. It isn't as common NOW, when the Iraq war is obviously FUBAR, but it was all the rage in 2003. I leave it to someone with some Google Fu chops to prove that, but I have no doubt that it would be easy.

Posted by Pithlord | November 22, 2006 5:47 PM

I think the difference between firefighting and the Iraq War is that some are presumed tougher because they call for more troops in Iraq and some are presumed weak because they want fewer, or even none. President Bush said "The party of FDR and Truman has become the party of cut and run." Obviously W. was playing on already present stereotypes about Democrats being weak on defense. "Cut and run" is not something divorced from context. The media has fallen into the trap, over the years, of proclaiming pro-war candidates to be "tough." The opposite of this toughness is weakness, and it gets carried over into sterotypes about liberals in general. I think the point Matt is making is that if one wants to claim that their position is tougher, then they ought to be the ones fighting. Being in favor of sending someone else to do the fighting may be right or wrong, but it's certainly not tougher than being against sending others to fight. If the GOP lost it's aura of toughness, then they would lose more of their Nascar-dad like appeal.

As far as firefighting, I know I for one could look a young person in the eye and tell them that firefighting is of vital importance and that they would be undertaking a great public service by doing it.

Better yet, if I were King, I don' think I would feel comfortable telling America's young people to sign up to go to Iraq. I do, however think I would feel good about telling them to sign up to be a fireman, and if I thought we would leave them there until the job was finished, I would feel very comfortable telling them to sign up for Afghanistan.

Posted by Jay J. | November 22, 2006 5:53 PM

The other way firefighting alaolgy would apply is if there was a group of people out there saying that firefighting is vitally important, but simultaneously calling for the elimination of the taxes that paid for fire-fighters.

Posted by Eric | November 22, 2006 5:57 PM

We'll make a firefighter out of Al in no time.

Posted by Dan | November 22, 2006 6:00 PM

Folks, I'm pretty sure Matt covered the firefighter thing with this section

if you don't think you could look a 20 year-old kid you care about in the eyes and tell him with a straight face that it's vitally important for the world that he sign up to fight -- that seems like a good indication that you don't really believe the things you claim to believe. As with any hypocrisy gambit, the reverse might be true -- you might just lack the courage of your convictions rather than lacking conviction

Now, given someone's unwillingness to join the fire company, is it reasonable to conclude that A) they don't really believe in fire companies or B) they're flabby cowards who are afraid of burning to death.

I think in this case its way more obviously B) than A) than it would be in another situation, such as the Iraq war, because lots of people oppose the war in Iraq but not many oppose fire companies. I personally attest that, in my case, I'm not a fireman because of B) rather than A).

The case of failing to privately pay for other people's health care at first seems more reasonable since you're just asking people to put forward dollars rather than receive third-degree burns. And, it's reasonable (though not indisputable) to think that universal health care would be more likely in a world with more charity dollars going to health care.

Logically, though, it's actually less reasonable than the fireman example--because whether or not you support universal health care, you would probably laud the sacrifice of someone who gave their private fortune to health care--conservatives admire folks like Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet who have done basically that. Most people would say that it's better to give money to someone else's health care than to spend it on your selfish desires, regardless of either their actual actions or of their support for UHC.

That is definitely not how I feel about Iraq. I may admire the sacrifice someone makes to join the military, but I'm still going to counsel them against it as a bad idea as long as we're still in Iraq.

Moreover, since there is currently no UHC program for me to send extra money to, this would be the equivalent of criticizing people for supporting a war with Iran but not signing up for a private mercenary squad to launch a private war against Iran.

Also, the sticking point for UHC is obviously the additional taxation required to pay for it. I generally support redistributive tax policy as a good policy regardless of what it pays for, but given that I would benefit from such a regime, I'm not sure what sacrifice I'm supposed to make to show such support.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 22, 2006 6:09 PM

Al seems to have stumbled upon a new way of arguing. If he says "I don't get your point" often enough, he apparently thinks he's effectively rebutted the argument.

Posted by just some jerk | November 22, 2006 6:28 PM

Much of what needs to be said has been said here. A couple more comments, though:

1) A significant line of conservative thought says that demcoracy doesn't do a good job of defending itself, because potential soldiers get to vote. One way to get around this is have a highly mechanized fighting force and an volunteer army that only constitutes a fraction of the population, so that most voters *aren't* actually fighting or related to a fighter. This argument opposes a draft because it claims that the problem is precisely that democratic peoples don't want to fight as much as they should fight. Liberals need to understand this argument and admit that instituting a draft is indeed a way to prevent or end wars that should not be fought. The counter to the conservative argument is that when few if any voters (e.g. only mercenaries) have to risk their lives in a fight, then elites may find all kinds of reasons to fight bad wars. Some of the reasons themselves can be very bad--e.g. in order to receive the beneficial political side effects of war.

2) But one could in fact agree with the conservative line that there are some wars which need to be fought, but which people left to themselves may not want to fight. But here again a draft would remedy this problem by instilling military virtues in the population broadly. This argument is fully in line with classic republican thinking, that any free people must have a certain level of public spiritedness and discipline. Plenty of democracies in the world require military service (Brazil, South Korea, Israel).

A draft or required military service would prepare the country to fight the wars we should fight while at the same time prevent us from fighting the wars we shouldn't. The phenomenon of chickenhawkery has really become lost in partisan warfare, but it really is one of the most important features of American politics since 2002.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 22, 2006 6:40 PM

Matt~

You and Kevin have missed the central flaw in the chickenhawk argument. It's not about fighting; it's all about will, baby. Keep the national will stoked and the war will be won. That's the role of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists--maintenance and stoking of will. Their mission is so critical that it would be a disservice to the country for them to stow their keyboards and go into combat.

Posted by Steven Donegal | November 22, 2006 6:50 PM

Regarding fires and firefighting: If there was an actual massive fire going on in my town and I beleived (i)that the fire department was stretched thin, and could not handle the fire given their current manpower levels; (ii) that the fire was close to the point of raging out of control and burning down the entire town; (iii) that professional reinforcements could not reach the fire before it is too late; and therefore (iii) that it was vitally important that more people join the effort to fight the fire right away, then I certainly would volunteer to pick up a bucket or a hose and help out in whatever way I could.

There are many Iraq hawks who claim to believe some combination of the following: that the Western society itself is under threat from the Islamofascist hordes; that if Iraq collapses, Iranian power will be solidified; that Iran is attempting to build a bomb with which they intend to incinerate Israel; that the Iraqi insurgency is made up primarily of Islamist terrorists; that having helped expel us from Iraq, these emboldened jihadists will flood out of Iraq into all corners of the Western world and conduct terrorist operations that will make 9/11 look like a picnic; that the collapse of Iraq's government as a result of terrorist determination and American weakness will destroy the reputation of democracy itself and spark a global anti-democratic, totalitarian wave; that we will lose strategic control of energy resources and suffer massive economic hits from those who will then use oil as a weapon against us; that the Russians and the Chinese will move into Iraq in large numbers and get richer as we get poorer; that without a strong US presence in the heart of the Middle East, Hizbollah, Syria, Iran and others will ultimately attack Israel and drive Israelis into the sea; that if we don't "fight them there" we will have to "fight them here"; that Islam itself is a global menace will not rest until it is either thoroughly crushed or we have all been reduced to dhimmitude etc., etc.

For someone who really believes these things, the stakes in Iraq really are "vital", and America and the Western world faces a dire existential emergency that will require the fighting sacrifices of millions upon millions of people.

And yet many of them are just blogging about it.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 22, 2006 6:53 PM

A draft or required military service would prepare the country to fight the wars we should fight while at the same time prevent us from fighting the wars we shouldn't.

You fail to explain this fortuitous result--why would the draft only prevent wars we shouldn't rather than all wars--or prepare the country to fight wars we should fight rather than all wars.

As for me, I don't think military virtues are uniformly virtuous. Public spiritedness and discipline are good. Submission to authority, uniformity, and seeing the world in terms of violent conflict are bad. There is no reason to connect these goods to these evils, other than the fact that this particular connection happens to be useful for killing people. Mandatory public service might be a good thing, but mandatory military service would be a very grave evil.

Posted by Consumatopia | November 22, 2006 6:55 PM

"Mandatory public service might be a good thing, but mandatory military service would be a very grave evil."

You're right that there is no guarantee that mandatory military service wouldn't only prevent bad wars, or would only prepare us for good wars. The observation is that it is possible for bourgeois democratic society to run the risk of both being too wimpy to fight any legitimate wars at all (because the voters are merely individualist consumers) and finding a way to fight wars technologically or through mercenaries and then fighting too many of them. Mandatory military service is a remedy to both root causes even though it does not solve completely the general problem of too many or too few wars.

Mandatory military service has not been a very grave evil in the democracies in which it is now practiced. I've lived in country where it is practiced (Brazil), and I think it leads to a lot more realism about the military. Instead of actually serving in the military we put stickers on our SUVs, we never allow any criticism of military figures in public discourse, and our politicians make statements that border on military worship. People who have served in the military seem to me to understand that it is an institution that can make mistakes, just like any other.

"Submission to authority, uniformity, and seeing the world in terms of violent conflict are bad."

Submission to authority as an absolute principle of social life is bad. Learning that it is one important part of grown-up life is good. The same for uniformity. Have you ever met a veteran? They don't "see the world in terms of violent conflict". They generally recognize that sometimes violence is a very evil necessary evil. I don't think that democracy should be militarized, i.e. based completely on military virtue. At any rate that is impossible. But there must be some ways to prevent it from being based on consumer 'virtues', because that is the most probable alternative and among the worst alternatives currently on offer.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 22, 2006 7:32 PM

I assume the hilariously inaccurate "firefighter analogy" is common among Bushocrats. Former Bush speechwriter Paul Burgess also used it recently, in a slightly-different-but-still-hilariously-inaccurate way.

Speaking of which, the inability to construct accurate analogies seems to be a unifying characteristic among the Bushbots. On this subject and many others, they keep coming up with hideously botched attempts that would cause them to fail 7th grade English.

Posted by Jon | November 22, 2006 7:45 PM

Umm, a firefighting is to waging war analogy? Umm, come on. The analogy is inapt because war is a nigh universally condemned act of evil which is only moral under the most proscribed of circumstances. Check out St. Augustine's thoughts on the "Just War" doctrine. The requirements to wage a just war are very high. Firefighting is a municipal service for its residents. No sense of morality is attached to it, and it is offered for a purpose of safety. It is dangerous to life and limb, but not to the soul. So, let's just drop any further comparison or discussion concerning firefighting and waging war.

The "chickenhawk" discussion is a valid one in the context of the larger discussion of the draft. Let's just put it plainly to you....if you believe that the Iraq War is just, justified and otherwise a good policy for this country, then are you willing to volunteer to fight to defend this country? If not, then your BS stinks all of the way here from wherever you live.

War should not be a policy debate between Republicans and Democrats, and should not be bantered over the coffee table like it was last week's college football game like UM-OSU, but Rather, it is an act that should be decided upon by a great portion of the society, and furthermore, supported and engaged in by the society, i.e. a draft. The professional army should otherwise be maintained during times of no wars in its defensive and prophylactic stances.

Read Federalist Paper No. 4 (John Jay, I believe - it is very short, and the point is made in the first 3 paragraphs - google it), wherein Jay notes the seduction that waging war often has for our leaders: "It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people." The draft is the effective means by which the people, through their representatives, agree with the executive or do not. In other words, the people, when faced with a draft, will vote with true conviction whether the battle should be waged. In our lifetimes (kind of), this principle was demonstrated when the people wholeheartedly agreed with the justness of waging war against the Axis in WW2, and similarly disagreed with the war in Vietnam.

So then, Al, are you willing to put your life on the line for the convictions that you have? Or are you such a life-long carrier of water for the Republican Party that you cannot, for even ONE moment when faced with something as dire as a WAR, turn around and ask the leaders in the Republican Party, "You want to do WHAT?"

Posted by Jacek P | November 22, 2006 8:16 PM

> I assume the hilariously inaccurate "firefighter
> analogy" is common among Bushocrats. Former Bush
> speechwriter Paul Burgess also used it recently,
> in a slightly-different-but-still-hilariously-inaccurate
> way.

The paid Radical trolls are however very good at developing off-kilter memes that derail thoughtful discussion and, once unleashed, are very hard to shut down. Minor facts (100% of young boys {and today, probably 33% of young girls} greatly desire to be firefighters; large fire departments have 5 year waiting lists for applicants; many many men would give firefighting a chance except that unlike the Army fire depts expect you be in prime physical shape at the time of application, etc) don't do anything to deflect these memes once looosed.

This was a real problem for Gore and Kerry and it is going to be a real problem for the 2008 Dem candidate as well; the traditional media soaks up these memes like a sponge.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 22, 2006 8:44 PM

Amazingly, I find myself partially agreeing with Al here.

The danger of the "chickenhawk" argument for Democrats is that it will come home to roost when President Obama wants to deploy US troops as part of a UN mission to end the genocide in Darfur.

Obviously there are huge differences between firefighting and warfare, and you can pick apart the analogy if you want. But it captures the basic point that there are some life-threatening ventures which a responsible citizen in our society should support, even if she is not willing to volunteer for them herself. I would not have been happy about Democrats opposing the US's intervention in Kosovo simply because they, themselves, were not willing to risk their lives or those of their children for the Kosovars.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 22, 2006 8:50 PM

And just to be clear: it's completely appropriate to call Jonah Goldberg et al chickenhawks. They've been cheering long and loud for violence which they don't want to volunteer for.

What's not such a good idea is to argue, as Glenn Greenwald did yesterday, that THE question of whether a war is worth fighting is whether you yourself are willing to enlist, or for your children to enlist. I don't want to serve as a peacekeeper in Bosnia, but I do think somebody has got to do it.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 22, 2006 8:54 PM

The paid Radical trolls are however very good at developing off-kilter memes that derail thoughtful discussion and, once unleashed, are very hard to shut down.

True enough, but just based on limited observation, I don't think derailing discussion is the objective here for people like Al. For what I've seen, the firefighter analogy developed and spread through pretty limited circles -- that of young-ish Republicans in and around the Bush administration. I also think they've mostly told it to each other rather than the outside world. Obviously they needed some fairy tale to tell themselves to justify their squalid moral choices.

Of course, as I say, it's hilariously stupid. But all their other choices to postpone their own recognition of who they actually are are even worse, so they grasp at it.

Posted by Jon | November 22, 2006 9:01 PM

There doesn't need to be a chickenhawk "argument". There's a chickenhawk mockery.

Doonesbury, btw, is doing a very good job of that this week.

There's always a question about asking people to die for questions of state. There's always questions about fat old men asking young men to die. Iraq raises that taunt to the level of conviction. It was an optional war which our leaders lied to produce the initial consensus. And yet ... No domestic sacrifice from the present era. No taxes in support. No broad appeals for volunteers. And virtually NO volunteers from the class of people who most dearly love the war. Sure. If there's no personal downside to a war, why not?

And yet, our anti-tax people (uncannily virtually the same crowd who are pro-war) rail against witholding tax because it numbs people to the cost of the tax. Al, you side with the most cowardly politicians in our history. Even Southern slaveholders had the courage of their nasty beliefs. Not you guys.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 22, 2006 9:35 PM

I don't mind people saying there should be more support for firefighting without joining the fire department themselves. What I, and I suspect most soldiers if asked would object to, is people who believe their blogging about the need for firefighting is as important to the firefighting effort as the fireman's occupation itself is.

Posted by BruceR | November 22, 2006 9:41 PM

im surprised even liberals seem to misunderstand the chickenhawk argument. the argument is simply that the chickenhawks dont have any visceral idea about war (they are chickens) so they will more likely rush into military conflict (they are hawks) because of this. it doesnt prove anything, its just an indication that they do not have a proper aversion to war, that they will more freely start wars because its not real to them.

Posted by haerhrea | November 22, 2006 10:19 PM

the chickenhawk argument only applies to people who do not view war as a last resort also.

Posted by haerhrea | November 22, 2006 10:23 PM

This discussion reminded me of a Hardball episode with John McCain I saw a month ago. I think people will find it validates the chickenhawk arguement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nsTA-V0Gbo

Posted by Jenn | November 22, 2006 10:28 PM

"The danger of the "chickenhawk" argument for Democrats is that it will come home to roost when President Obama wants to deploy US troops as part of a UN mission to end the genocide in Darfur."

If the chickenhawk argument were: "No one who has never served in a war can be commander-in-chief", then yes it could be applied to Obama as well. But that's not the argument. The argument was that Cheney and Bush actively evaded the draft when the country was at war. The country was not in a long term military committment when Obama was that age. Bush and Cheney were at the time pro-Vietnam War but anti-signing-up-and-going-to fight-in-Vietnam.

Besides logical consistency, if we're worred about the *effect* of the arguments we choose, it doesn't matter if we make the argument now or not. Or whether a Democratic president is a veteran or not. They will still be attacked as "unfit for command". It's the GOP which is going to come back to bite us again and again, not arguments we make.

Posted by Jeremiah J. | November 22, 2006 10:57 PM

Someone upthread said:
"as if waging war is just any old job that we occasionally hire people to do"

To which Al replied:
"Um, what exactly is the US Army, then?"

Glad to see what a high opinion you have of those who serve Al. One further problem with the firefighter analogy is that, while a dangerous occupation, there are very rarely people actively trying to kill you.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | November 22, 2006 11:14 PM

Jeremiah, I'm not saying they're going to attack Obama personally for not having served in the military. No doubt they will. I'm saying they're going to accuse Democrats and liberal internationalists in general of being touchy-feely naive "chickenhawks" for advocating humanitarian intervention in areas where the US has no strategic interest, as they did in the '90s. And if you make the chickenhawk argument in stupidly exaggerated ways now, your words will come back to haunt you in a few years. "If Glenn Greenwald is so hot to send American soldiers to die for the UN, maybe he should sign up himself. After all, he himself claimed nobody should advocate a war unless they're willing to fight in it." If you phrase your argument poorly now, you're going to have a hard time responding to that one. If you phrase your argument well and avoid Greenwald's unfortunate exaggeration, they'll still use the attack, but you'll be able to respond well.

Posted by brooksfoe | November 23, 2006 12:12 AM

Or, you could do the short form. Maybe only soldiers are qualified to say when we should go to war, but we're all qualified to say when we should go to peace.

Posted by serial catowner | November 23, 2006 9:19 AM

I think the firefighter analogy would have more applicability to the Iraq war if the person refusing to fight the fire was also insisting that soaking houses in gasoline was an effective preventive measure.

Also, I think Al is a stain on a whore's mattress and should shut the fuck up.

Posted by Hamilton Lovecraft | November 23, 2006 6:56 PM

There is no "chickenhawk argument," and treating the chickenhawk meme as if it were an argument is a distraction. "Chickenhawk" is a term of abuse for people who support wars waged at someone else's risk AND make a lot of empty noise about resolve, strength, and courage -- qualities in which they themselves, if one looks into their lives (conspicuously including, but by no means limited to, active avoidance of military service), are glaringly deficient. The "and" is the key to the whole thing. "Chickenhawk" is an insult thrown back at those who started the name-calling. If they stop, we'll stop.

Posted by CJColucci | November 24, 2006 12:12 PM

CJColucci is dead on.

Chickenhawk is simply a riposte to the right-wing's habit of injecting gendered words - 'resolve', 'toughness', ect - into foreign policy discussions.

And, as the original poster stated, its an issue of conviction. If you believe that America (and by extension, yourself) will be put in great danger if we withdraw from Iraq, or if you advance the 'fight them over there' canard, than there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn't volunteer to be on the front lines. Otherwise, you are, by your own logic, intentionally endangering yourself and your family with your inaction. So i see 'Chickenhawk' not so much a slur to someones 'manhood', but as a means of demonstrating that pro-war gasbags really don't believe what they say.

Posted by Wilco84 | November 25, 2006 5:39 PM

dqtp imrjn rbumv nauchw astvgbwq qgmslb vdyeopl

Posted by hfwmqnt pqfaxdeu | May 30, 2007 10:02 PM

rcsow rmch vkmwhtp tcxsmehq dvbk anier gadwqex http://www.jhncwga.blvqfhx.com

Posted by vqrjymake auqpzb | May 30, 2007 10:04 PM

Very good site. Thanks:-)
http://sites.blockstar.com/micks/hydrocodone.html hydrocodone apap 5 500

Posted by hydrocodone oxycodone | June 8, 2007 11:42 PM

Good site. Thanks:-)
http://sites.blockstar.com/micks/valium.html diazepan

Posted by drug valium | June 10, 2007 9:42 PM