April 03, 2007
Chicken Hawks, Defeatists, and the Debate About Iraq
If the left had its way, very few citizens at home would be allowed to lend moral support to our soldiers in the field because the majority of us have not served in the military. This is the so-called logic behind the “chicken hawk” argument: If you have not served, or are not currently serving in the military, then you cannot under any circumstances support a war where real soldiers are dying. “Suit up or shut up!” “When are you going to enlist?”
Using this logic, if “chicken hawks” cannot support a war because they know nothing personally of warfare, then what makes those on the left who have not served more qualified to speak out against the war? Who are they to criticize the goings-on in Iraq? Do they know more than the president and the top military brass in the field? Why is it that leftwingers who haven’t served are qualified to say, “Bring the troops home now,” while rightwingers who say, “We support the troops and their mission” are hatemongers who pooh-pooh the very real dangers our soldiers face every day?
No one I know who supports the troops wants them to die. We would love for each and every one of our men and women in uniform to come home safely to their families. Unfortunately, we know the realities. Soldiers sign up for military duty for various reasons, but they all do so knowing that they might someday be called upon to go to war. They sign the dotted line knowing that even if they disagree with the mission, they have sworn to uphold it – or face the consequences of a court martial and possible jail time. And they do this even though there are people at home who think they are either ignorant or have no other options than the military. They do this even though some of their fellow citizens consider them to be murderers and baby killers.
By putting their lives on the line, our volunteer military allows us to continue to have the freedom to say whatever we would like, including the freedom to insult the very ones who keep our freedoms secure.
I believe part of the reason the atmosphere surrounding this war is so toxic is because of the Internet. The Internet is a wonderful thing in many ways: it allows information to be disseminated without being filtered by the old media, so that we are truly more informed now than ever before. It also allows average citizens to become actively involved in the debate, something that once was nearly impossible unless one had a “letter to the editor” published. Unfortunately, the ease with which people can either post blog entries or comment on blog entries made by others anonymously makes it easier for them to let out whatever pent-up rage or frustration that they may have about a situation. Rather than debate an issue civilly online, many prefer to unleash the kind of vitriol that would not be acceptable in face-to-face conversation. Personal, ad hominem attacks are frequent on both sides of the political fence. The only thing that does for the debate is to cheapen it.
Whether you approve of the war or not, it’s important to be able to support your reason. And like it or not, what we say here at home has a definite impact on how our soldiers function in the field. I would rather err on the side of supporting our troops and the mission they uphold than to demand they come home simply because war is an uncomfortable thing, with the consequence that our enemies would consider this our defeat.
And calling me names or telling me I’m full of hogwash certainly isn’t going to make me change my mind about these and other important matters.
Show Comments »
There is no debate in Iraq. We're there. Get over it.
If the moonbats want us out, have them cut off funding immediately, and let the troops get killed. End of debate.
Otherwise libs, spare us your self-righteous blathering.
Posted by: Wyatt Earp at April 3, 2007 10:28 AMHear, hear! (or is it "here, here"?)
Either way, great post.
Posted by: Reverse_Vampyr at April 3, 2007 04:30 PMWay to move beyond the "personal, ad hominem attackes" Pam was writing about, Wyatt.
Posted by: Ro at April 3, 2007 05:29 PMWyatt is completely correct in his critique. What's more, I think he understated it. Pam is also right.
And yes, I DO question their patriotism.
Posted by: Gayle Miller at April 4, 2007 08:01 AMI agree and I owe you an apology!!! But then there is the posts of Wyatt and Gayle who further anchor the polarization of the views of Iraq. Who the hell is Gayle to question the patriotism of any American? Wyatt is just plain ignorant in the same way that I was but at least I can recognize it and apologize to you for it.
The so called "moonbats" (whatever the hell that is) are not any less patriotic for wanting our troops home then you are for wanting them to complete this mission. You are patriotic enough to want to see success and the others of this country want our men and women home and home safely. Who is wrong and who is right when both sides make very valid points.
A question: Ths President has said time and time again that he's "going to listen to his generals" so why hasn't he? The first wave of generals told this administration that if they were going to occupy this country and maintain it's security for the transition, they would need a lot more troops. Those generals, relieved of duty and replaced with a bunch of bobble-heads. Now General Patraeus has said that "there is no military solution to Iraq". Does that not mean anything to anybody at all? What that means is our troops canot possibly achieve victory. Patraeus has also said that there needs to be a political solution or there will be no victory. When Hillary said that, y'all called her names and attacked her credibility but when Patraeus says it, its completely tuned out like he's talking to Martians. And what is so wrong with putting it to the Iraqi people to "get your head out of your asses or we're out of here!!!" If these people want to kill each other bad enough where the gift of democracy we gave them is that trivial to them then let them kill each other! See ya! Why waste any more American lives on these ungrateful bastards. The Al Qaeda want us to leave? The Al Qaeda wants us to stay so they can further undermine our credibility and they know the Shias will wipe them off the Earth if we leave. I say let the Shias wipe the Sunnis off the Earth. Bye bye Al Qaeda in Iraq. They can flee to Pakistan where they're all hiding anyways at the base and at least we'll know where they all are and will do nothing about it like we have for the past six years. I'm patriotic to know that a broken promise from a bullhorn is still a broken promise. Where is the justice I was promised? I lost loved ones on 9/11 and justice? It sure as hell isn't in Iraq. Its in Pakistan!
Now we have people "chomping at the bit" for a war with Iran and we haven't won the two wars we got. Hello? We got American soldiers going on their fourth tour of duty and people want to put them through more? We invaded two countries that couldn't defend themselves and we still can't claim victory and now we want to go up against a country that CAN defend itself while those responsible for 9/11 still get to enjoy their freedom 6 years later in Pakistan. How much combat stress can an individual possibly take? Do you know and do you care? And politicians taking strolls through Baghdad to prove how safe it is. Did you know that McCain's little photo-op BS stunt cost the lives of six American soldiers? How are we expected to believe these people anymore? I November of 2006, the American people made it clear...we don't beleive them anymore and Gayle questioning the patriotism of the 78% of this country who don't believe them anymore only makes the 78% question her minority status and her own "idea" of patriotism. It is the will of the American people. Get on board or get out!
Once again, I hope you accept my apology.
Posted by: Syntax at April 5, 2007 03:15 AMYOu got it wrong. People who have served can't speak out against the war, but they can speak in favor of the war.
Blow what you know.
Posted by: paul at April 8, 2007 04:34 PM
