Of Chickenhawks and War.
The other day Carissa from VV came over here, and one comment she made really pissed me off, and I wanted to delve into it a bit further:
I am not anti-war, but I believe in fighting SELECTIVELY. I believe there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Being anti-IRAQ war does not = being anti-war overall.
I have a problem with pro-war Republicans who have not served in the military and/or neither are their children. I have a problem with hypocrisy
At the time I responded with the following:
Also, for clarification, “Pro-war” republicans with no service are not allowed to back it, what about Anti-business Democrats being allowed to vote on bills which impact small businesses if they never owned one? Is that okay? What about any Rep who is not a doctor voting on health care issues? For that matter, what about tax cheats voting on Tax bills? Or are Republicans the only ones exempted under your form of representative democracy?
I’d like to look at that some more, but from a slightly different perspective. Imagine if you will a group of citizens who band together. Largely they are significantly more wealthy and more educated that the populace at large. Less than 4% of this group has served in the military, and yet, on behalf of the entire populace, these people declared war. Carissa would apparently not espouse the belief that they had political authority to do so, nor that they had any moral authority whatsoever to do so. And yet, that is in fact what they did. Because I had a friend of mine research it for me today, and of the 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence, only 2 (Matthew Thornton & Oliver Wolcott) had served in the military prior to serving in the Continental Congress.
Now, many of them did serve during the war, but that is impracticable during today’s conflicts, as the ages of the Members of Congress back then were significantly more youthful than today. Clearly Carissa meant something different, or at least I assume she did. But looking at the analogy further, I find it interesting that a further complaint of Ms. Picard’s was that:
My issue with most Republicans is that they want to overfund military actions while underfunding veterans care. I believe if you send our men and women to war, you have to take care of them accordingly when they return if they are suffering the effects of that war. Period.
My assistant, Siggurdson also sent along this Wiki Page, recounting the Newburgh Conspiracy:
With the end of the war and dissolution of the Continental Army approaching, soldiers, many of whom were now deeply in debt due to their pro bono service, imagined that Congress would not meet previous promises concerning back pay and pensions. Congress, at the mercy of the states for all revenue, did not seem to have any way of paying more than a fraction of the money owed. The result was that, by March 1783, many officers were talking of launching a coup and setting up martial law to secure what had been promised to them.
Now, I don’t mean to say that we *can’t* take care of veterans. Hell, I spend all day pointing out how much money we waste on stuff, and how it would be better spent caring for veterans. But unlike Carissa, I don’t believe that helping veterans is the sole provenance of either political party. There are DEMs and GOPs who are good on veterans issues, there are DEMs and GOPs who suck on veterans issues. But these groups just sow confusion by citing to votes that aren’t so clear cut. Beware scorecards on veterans issues, because as I showed with the IAVA scorecard, not all votes are as they appear.
Anyway, the whole Chickenhawk meme thing pisses me off. It seems like it is some mantra of the left to ward of evil spirits or something. No matter what the issue I get to hear about the phantasmagorical boil on Rush Limbaugh’s ass, or Dick Cheney’s deferments, regardless of whether either of those have any bearing. We live in a representative democracy, wherein we elect people to espouse our views on Capitol Hill. On selective issues, like the various venues in the Global War on Terror, Carissa and the others in the “GOP as Chickenhawks” brigade would try to rob those representatives of their voice to speak for us. I never really understood the logic of that before, and in looking at it through the lens of the revolutionary war it makes even less sense to me.
I had hoped Carissa would come back to respond to my follow up questions, but she seems to have disappeared on us.
Category: Politics
I’m medically disqualified for military service, but I’m currently a DOD contractor. It would be nice if Carissa et al would let me know if I’m a Chickenhawk for never serving but being pro-war, 1/2 a chickenhawk since I didn’t serve but work for the DOD, or 3/4 chickenhawk since i’m just a contractor.
I am deeply concerned about my own personal hypocrisy.
I doubt she will return, another hit & run blogger from the left. They stand on the sidelines and point fingers at anyone who can see the dangers this country faces, while claiming that, if only we would bow and scrape like the Obamunist, apologize to tin-pot dictators like Chavez, and embrace murderers like the Castro Bros, everything would be peachy and the world would love us. Then there’d be no war. Morons and idiots!!!
Not every foreign policy issue can be resolved by force of arms. I have yet to hear any chicken hawk Republican claim otherwise. However, there are some issues that can ONLY be solved through force. I truly believe that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was one of those issues. No amount of UN sanctions or embargoes, or Jack Bauer/Jason Bourne-esque CIA espionage or magical unicorn fairy dust would have removed Saddam or his sons from power. The timing and execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been flawed. Certainly, the justifications we tried to sway the world’s opinion with were also wrong, but the bottom line is that we removed a dangerous tyrant from power the one way he could.
“The hand of aggression is swayed by force alone.” – Eisenhower
I have been waiting for a response, from her, on my post in that thread, also.
What about dems who send people off to war and who have never been in the military themselves? How come she just highlights “pro-war” republicans. Isn’t there presently a democrat in the white house prosecuting two wars? Is O!bama a chickenhawk, carissa? Carissa has to say yes. That is if she has an ounce of respectability and honor. BTW, I think that term is unbelievably stupid and childish, but hell it’s her rules.
If there is a flaw in your effort it might be that reason, even if bolstered by history, has little to do with this issue.
Said another way: These folks don’t come here to argue, they come here to preach. The only explanation I can see for them to even comment here is a missionary zeal. Some might even hang around wondering why the big pot of water is hanging over the fire pit…
Hey Carissa, I have a question for you. How come you libs who don’t like “pro-war Republicans”(lets cut the “pro-war” crap OK? no one I know is “pro-war”) that “never served,” are strangely silent about anti-military liberals who attack and bash our military, and 99.9% of them NEVER SERVED!
Do I smell hypocrosy here?
Correct me if i am wrong, but haven’t Dem Presidents started/gotten involved in more wars than Rep ones? at least since 1900? WW1, WW2, and Vietnam were all under Dem leadership. Then there’s Bill Clintons Ploice actions. Before you start calling one party chicken hawks, mabey you should read a history book.
Sgt D in The Sandbox, you are correct, and I thank you for pointing that out.
You might be interested to look at (if you’ve never seen it before) the “Who We Are” page of Antiwar.com at http://antiwar.com/who.php where they point to the same thing. (Surprise, surprise…Antiwar.com is run by Republicans…)
Carissa is being incredibly childish and as such she should be completely ignored in our discussion of The War on Terror. Attacks such as this (from both sides) do not help our troops and definatly don’t help us secure freedom.