July 07, 2005
The Paucity Of The Chicken Hawk Argument
One of the major disconnects between the left and the right these days is the war on terror. Most of the left doesn't get it, most of the right does from my point of view. Duncan Black writing as that well known Atrios recently attacked the Young Republicans and their chair a Mr. Taylor for this comment:
Most of our members either serve, have served, or plan to serve in the United States Armed Forces, or have participated in events or projects supporting the United States Armed Forces. We will not be intimidated.Atrios notes that Young Mr. Taylor's Young Republicans
Most serve, have served, plan to serve, OR HAVE PARTICIPATED IN EVENTS OR PROJECTS, such as Operation Drink a Beer for the Troops, Operation Burn a Dixie Chick CD, or Operation Put a Yellow Ribbon on my SUV, supporting the United States Armed Forces.This was all preceded by this comment:
THE ARMY can't find enough recruits. Could there be a clearer expression of Americans' disenchantment with the war in Iraq?Of course, this was BEFORE the Army announced that June's quotas were more than met or that re-inlistment quotas of those ACTIVELY serving in the Middle East often reach 150% of needs.
This is democracy where it matters. No one should doubt that young Americans would willingly go to war if they believed in it.
But that is not my point of contention with many on the left, my point is that the favorite sobriquet of the left for those of us who support the war on terror, who know the proclivities of the islamo-fascists (even as many of the left do) is the dreaded term "Chicken Hawk." Oh, the horror!
The argument is thus: "You can't support the war on terror (or the war in Iraq) (or the war in Afghanistan) unless you are willing to enlist and put your life on the line for what you believe. What a load of bullshit, crap, caca! a cursory search of the internet discovers a number of arguments totally refuting the Chicken Hawk observation, notably Donald Sensing who writes at The Sound Of One Hand Clapping here :
What gives you the justification to speak against the war? What are your credentials that make you someone I or our nation’s leaders should listen to regarding national security? Why should non-serving supporters be silent while non-serving critics be heard?
Of course, Sensing, having much more "sense" than Atrios has has a lot more for you to read so I encourage you to read it all.
The argument regarding the paucity of Atrio's comments (argument?...no, an argument is when you can present real evidence..ed.) is further reduced by a comment made by Blackfive:
(the Armys)...3rd Infantry Division in Iraq surpassed it's re-enlistment goal by 250%...that should tell you what the men and women that are actively engaged in the fight think of the mission in Iraq.Uh, Mr. Black, did you get that? 250%! So, those with first hand knowledge (which Mr. Black does not have - to my uncertain knowledge) of the rigors of combat and service in the Middle East in the current war are re-inlisting at a rate 2 1/2 times greater than expected. How can that be Mr. Black?
One of the sites I read and enjoy is Winds of Change. In an article posted by Armed Liberal the "meme" of the Chicken Hawk charge is once again taken out. In Operation Yellow Donkey Armed liberal points out earlier attempts to drive a stake through the heart of the meme but also makes this comment:
It's an immoral position, a politically naive position, and one that undermines our polity. Plus it's just plain rude.Can't say I disagree. In fact, one of the commenters (Bill -here) in Sensing's article noted:
How many are willing to go to Iraq, Israel, and now, Lebanon, and act as human sheilds (REAL human sheilds not the cutesy fashionable and oh so bogus ones who went to support Saddam’s Iraq - and don’t pretend that that wasn’t their long-term goal when all the math was done) for Iraqis volunteering to be police in their new state - or substitute themselves for hostages held by foreign “insurgentsâ€Â, or stand between the Palestinian Terrorists and Israeli settlers in Gaza as they are evacuated, or stand between anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians and shrapnel form pro-Syrian “operatives.†Don’t worry, you wouldn’t have to join the military for that  just as before the Iraq war when they thought they were just goign to protect orphanages and mosques, you can come as you are. Of course, just as the “human sheidls†in Iraq freaked out when they were asked to acutally put themselves in harm’s way. I doubt that we’ll see a lot of volunteers.Those that make the chicken hawk argument are intellectually dishonest and their argument is not to foster debate about the war or its outcome or the rationaile for it, it is simply to shut up anyone who dares to disagree with them. If you use the chicken hawk argument than you absolutely must be willing to enlist yourself, after all, we all understand that change is much more rapid "from the inside." No takers? Hmmm, didn't think there would be! Posted by GM Roper at July 7, 2005 08:00 AM | TrackBack
Excellent posting. All non-military supporters are actually serving their country when they support its defense. The morale of us who are serving is greatly affected when we go overseas to fight by whether we have people back home supporting us, and the reason we are serving. It is also affected by these anti-America far lefties that sympathize with the enemy. Keep up the great work.
Posted by Jay at July 7, 2005 10:58 AM
Hmm, that part about being human sheilds is excellent. Of course, since the most involved our leftazoids get is by signing online petitions, I do not expect them to put their money where their mouths are.
Posted by William Teach at July 8, 2005 09:29 AM
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard B. Myers, told a town-hall meeting at the Pentagon today that the Army had exceeded its June quota, but gave no details. Senior Army officials said in interviews earlier in the day that the Army had exceeded the goal of 5,650 recruits by about 500 people. (emphasis added)
New York Times
For First Time in Months, Army
Meets Its Recruiting Goal
June 29, 2005
The Army . . . fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May, officials said Wednesday. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the target was lowered by 1,350.
Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, spokesman for the Army's chief of personnel, said . . . the Army remains cautiously optimistic that it will make up the lost ground this summer  traditionally the most fruitful period of the year for recruiters  and reach the full-year goal of 80,000 enlistees.
"One number matters: 80,000," Hilferty said. "The Army's fiscal 2005 goal was, is and remains 80,000 recruits" . . .
Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September. (emphasis added).
CBS News
Army Recruiting Continues To Lag
June 9, 2005
____________________________
For the moment he had shut his ears to the remoter noises and was listening to the stuff that streamed out of the telescreen. It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it. The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen.
George Orwell
Posted by ohyeah at July 9, 2005 11:49 AM
Thanks "ohyeah" for the comment. And your point is? Do you know about estimating force requirements? I do. How many of those 80,000 that will be needed are support staff? Can support services be contracted out? These are questions you didn't answer. Yet, who knows, you are sure to be able to find some sources as credible as cBS of Memogate fame. Oh, and at least your fellow Bernhard left an identifying name, yours is totally anonymous. How brave you are.
Posted by G M Roper at July 9, 2005 12:15 PM
So if there is conflicting information, who do you think is more informed -- a Lt. Col or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Posted by Ogre at July 9, 2005 12:31 PM
The liberals/progressives/ are cowards (that means you ohyeah) that delete comments that they disagree with. All they know is what their masters (cBS, etc..) tell them to believe. They have been told that America is evil and darn it we are evil chicken hawks.
And we will lose everything if they have their way.
Posted by Michael at July 9, 2005 12:40 PM
of course they can contract it out. that way some of those contracots can make money off the war!!!!
haven't you heard about our most experienced guys opting out of the military to work for the private contractors so that they can make 150,000 a year?
they have contracted out about as much as they possibly can, where do you think all the billions are going? certainly not decent equipment for our troops. you may be be only person who isn't aware recruitment is down the lowest in years , why else do you think bush was pushing enlistment in his last speech, here's a story from your very own fox news. and so what what my name is. call me betty, call me joseph, call me clueless, call me gutless, i don't care. you are in denial if you think we have a surplus.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158992,00.html
"Others, speaking privately, said the official optimism is sagging rapidly. They note that with only four months left in the budget year, the Army is at barely 50 percent of its goal. Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September.
Charles Moskos, a sociology professor and expert on military personnel issues at Northwestern University, has said the Army's recruiting woes are likely to persist until the children of upper-class America begin to enlist more readily. He also sees a possibility of the services relying more on non-Americans to sign up.
Posted by ohyeah at July 9, 2005 01:02 PM
Did anyone ever consider that the army is only claiming that numbers ar down to actually drive them up?
If I was running it I may decide to do that....good marketing.
Posted by Kender at July 9, 2005 01:08 PM
of course they can contract it out. that way some of those contracrs can make money off the war!!!!
haven't you heard about our most experienced guys opting out of the military to work for the private contractors so that they can make 150,000 a year?
they have contracted out about as much as they possibly can, where do you think all the billions are going? certainly not decent equipment for our troops. you may be the only person who isn't aware recruitment is down the lowest in years , why else do you think bush was pushing enlistment in his last speech, here's a story from your very own fox news. call me betty, call me joseph, call me clueless, call me gutless, i don't care. you are in denial if you think we have a surplus.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158992,00.html
"Others, speaking privately, said the official optimism is sagging rapidly. They note that with only four months left in the budget year, the Army is at barely 50 percent of its goal. Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September.
Charles Moskos, a sociology professor and expert on military personnel issues at Northwestern University, has said the Army's recruiting woes are likely to persist until the children of upper-class America begin to enlist more readily. He also sees a possibility of the services relying more on non-Americans to sign up.
Posted by ohyeah at July 9, 2005 01:31 PM
oh yeah is full of bull just like the Castro News Network among others. Those of us who have normal thought processes know there is a different story to be told.
My older son is serving and my younger son is about to sign up. There are old mothers and grandmothers over there serving in support roles. Why? Because their younger relatives are serving in the military and that's their way of thanking them. This is happening all across the country, so I hardly think the doom and gloom coming out of the media is worthy of mention.
To hell with idiots like 'ohyeah'. None of these people have loved ones who are serving--when you do, you want to make damned sure what they're doing is worth the ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately, they do the most terrible things to the families who are left behind--saying things like they wish more american servicemen and women would die over there.
Leftists are despicable.
Posted by Cao at July 9, 2005 03:37 PM
Ogre, the way you decipher who is telling the most likely truth is to check the light bird and see if he is now a Major or a full colonel.
You're an idiot if you think the chief of staff of the Army won't tell the top hands (pres. Fox News, etc) what they want to hear.
Posted by JAmes Melbert at July 9, 2005 03:48 PM
a chicken hawk is someone that quite vocally and emphatically suppports mass slaughter AKA the business of war. However, this ill considered support would never extend to actual enlistment. Under no circumstances would these people sign up.
Like John Wayne, during WW2, actively avoiding service and then making all these rah-rah war is romantic and gloriously heroic flicks. My father volunteered in WW2 and found nothing glorious, heroic or honourable in gutting teenagers.
The President recently called for patriots to enlist and, overall, the quota is down. He and your country needs you.
A chicken hawk, rather than putting his money where his mouth is and enlisting, will instead be saying things like "given a choice, I'd rather die in the glory of battle, for the betterment of mankind, than by some fatal disease".
Of course, chicken hawks do have a choice, unlike most people that contract a fatal disease. That choice is, invariably, to remain a civilian and wait for disease to take them.
We would not be having this discussion if the admin had not lied about the rationale for diverting anti-terror resources into anti-Saddam actions.
This "strategy", your unquestioned support of it and the over 100,000 needless deaths are not justified.
Posted by jcairo at July 9, 2005 04:38 PM
Throw out the old rules that don't make sense. Get out of your comfort zone. Go to the front of the fight and stay there.
for a shrink you certainly bailed on this subject quickly.
you come over to our blog and insert your racist comments, challenge us to respond to you, link to your narrow minded neandrathal blog and then don't have the courage to print the fox article. face it, your screaming righties , who are the ones who want this war. are to chickenshit to fight. the president is calling.... he needs you, or weren't you listening. they have lowered the standards for service
of course they can contract it out. that way some of those contractors can make money off the war!!!!
haven't you heard about our most experienced guys opting out of the military to work for the private contractors so that they can make 150,000 a year?
they have contracted out about as much as they possibly can, where do you think all the billions are going? certainly not decent equipment for our troops. you may be the only person who isn't aware recruitment is down the lowest in years , why else do you think bush was pushing enlistment in his last speech, here's a story from your very own fox news. call me betty, call me joseph, call me clueless, call me gutless, i don't care. you are in denial if you think we have a surplus.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158992,00.html
"Others, speaking privately, said the official optimism is sagging rapidly. They note that with only four months left in the budget year, the Army is at barely 50 percent of its goal. Recruiters would have to land more than 9,760 young men and women a month, on average, to reach the 80,000 target by the end of September.
Charles Moskos, a sociology professor and expert on military personnel issues at Northwestern University, has said the Army's recruiting woes are likely to persist until the children of upper-class America begin to enlist more readily. He also sees a possibility of the services relying more on non-Americans to sign up.
for a shrink you are pathetic.
Posted by callmewhatyouwant at July 9, 2005 05:28 PM
"Throw out the old rules that don't make sense. Get out of your comfort zone. Go to the front of the fight and stay there. for a shrink you certainly bailed on this subject quickly."
Actually, I was in Berlin on 9/11, one of the very first things I did when I returned Stateside was call the Army and offer to re-up... I had been in the army in the late 60's early 70's. They said I was too old. I made the effort. did you?
Posted by G M Roper at July 9, 2005 06:15 PM
I have a question for the lefty types that are making comments in here. Many of you folk are calling the author and righty commentors all kinds of names (a favor that has been returned a time or two) but you are only looking at part of the article. None of you left types have answered the questions posed "What gives you the justification to speak against the war? What are your credentials that make you someone I or our nation’s leaders should listen to regarding national security? Why should non-serving supporters be silent while non-serving critics be heard?" Instead, I see a lot of ad homynem attacks and name calling.
The issue of recruitment is a no brainer. We've had trouble making goals in peacetime too. This is nothing, levels go up, go down etc. Take a look at the recruitment of the 3rd ID in Iraq... 250% of goal, any of you lefty's have a quick answer for that one? Marines who have a higher casuality rate than the Army have no trouble meeting their goals. So, if you can think, than you might understand that the issue is not the war, the issue just might be the way the Army goes about recruiting. I mean, they got me to sign up, but I ain't that bright. On the other hand, it seems that I'm a little brighter than some of you lefty types.
Posted by Been There, Done That at July 9, 2005 06:52 PM
Given what some of the more "progressive" folk here are saying regarding Army recruiting, I thought I would include this link..... go there if you are a lefty and have the guts to read what recruiting is really about I guess the righties can go there also...
Posted by G M Roper at July 9, 2005 10:36 PM
IF the 3rd Infantry Division's recruitment is up by 250%, as advertised, does that mean the overall numbers cannot be down?
The theme of this thread is chicken hawkism. There are at least two people here that do not fall into that category, apparently including the author of the article - he did try. This does not mean that there aren't those that do.
I wonder if the 'wunderkind' that enlisted has been in a firefight yet. When that happens their attitude may waver. If that person has already experienced battle, Dad had a term for them - 'war lovers' or people that enjoyed all means of slaughter. Psychopaths, if you will.
I took Dad's advice and was never stupid enough to join the armed forces. I almost did once. Hence his admonishment of me for being stupid.
Posted by jcairo at July 10, 2005 09:13 AM
I read the recruiting article - without fear, BTW - and it isn't new information by any means - or relevant.
Except for the phrase 'camp follower' being given a new meaning. Prostitute is the traditional one.
________________
no fear? good for you!
Posted by jcairo at July 10, 2005 09:27 AM
