The chickenhawk argument.

There is a lot of truth in what you say about the chickenhawk argument, and I'm not denying it. But I would like to flesh out the argument a bit, as there are more perspectives to consider.

I would submit, that you are using a strawman version of the chickenhawk argument. While I don't agree with it, at least you should get WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS correct, or realize there are different versions of this argument.

Your version: "You support the war, so why don’t you go over there and fight it, or else shut up?”

Now, a more acceptable version - "a fat guy on his keyboard shouldn't be criticizing people who are AGAINST a war, as cowards, especially those who have served".

In this sense, for example, Jonah Goldberg called John Kerry a coward, for opposing and criticizing the war on Iraq - as well as Vietnam.

Now, what right does Goldberg have to call someone who served in the military, both killed and saved the lives of his mates in combat? What right?

I would think the only right thing to say is, "I respect John Kerry, but I think his position is wrong".

How can a person like Goldberg talk about personal courage, and dismiss Kerry's, when Kerry has more courage in his left pinky that Goldberg has in his entire body?

As well, there is this concept of duty, right? Of taking care of business? In this case, the army "has need" for more soldiers. And there are people who loudly support the war, and recognize that there is a need, and they can fill they need, but don't.

For example, Ben Ferguson

If something needs to be picked up at your house, do you loudly say that "that needs to be picked up and cleaned!", and then simply wait for someone else to clean it?

I'm trying to remember the folk tale, perhaps someone can help with this. The one about, is it a chicken? that wants to make food, but all the other animals won't help/too busy - but when it comes to EATING the food, all the animals come out of the woodwork. People want the BENEFIT without the SACRIFICE, that is required. (the benefit in this case, would be enough soldiers on the ground to make Iraq a success, and the sacrifice would be to volunteer to be one of those soldiers.)

There is a moral value there. It is the same moral value that Pat Tillman showed, when he left a lucrative contract in the NFL, to serve.

We RESPECT that - universally. We recognize that, ethically, Tillman walks his talk. Right?

For myself, I've always thought of that as a very CONSERVATIVE type of value. Don't you?

Some have said that the chickenhawk argument is a way to "silence the opposition". However, a lot of the "Hawks" ALSO use smears, calling anti-war people "cowardly", etc - are similarly attempting to silence the opposition.

To restate, I am NOT categorically stating that all chickenhawk arguments are correct - but there is SOMETHING THERE. There is a moral value of supporting a goal, where THAT person CAN support that goal in a real and direct way,by enlisting - but they don't.

hypo - a point of genuine interest, if I may. Outside of the fringe Freep crowd (and I get flashes of that on my gun mailing lists), I haven't seen a lot of 'coward' namecalling around the war or int'l relations in general.

Did I miss stuff (I do, in large part because I only dip into much of the MSM commentary - I find the blogs more interesting as commentary, personally)??

I'll push back against your final conclusion, though. George Soros could choose to pay 90% of his income above, say $2MM/yr in taxes...but he chooses not to. Noam Chomsky could choose to donate the proceeds from his books and lectures to charity, or to supporting the Movement ... but he chooses not to.

...you see where this is going. As the parent of two young men (one of whom is planning on enlisting this year), I'm hypersensitive to the issues around service and duty. I also believe that there are many ways to discharge that duty, and that being the best citizen you can is one of them. How's that?

A.L.

Don't think we are too far apart. My handle, in this case, is pretty apropos, as we all tend to be somewhat guilty of hypocrisy. Accusations fly back and forth, without much merit.

You aren't referencing the different TYPES of chickenhawk argument, so let me know which ones you are referencing.

Callimachus's type - "You support the war, so why don’t you go over there and fight it, or else shut up?”, is one I don't agree with, BUT I do recognize that, again, there is something there. We are in a different era, but in the 1940's, EVERYBODY went down to enlist, once Hawaii was hit. And guess what? If you didn't, you were called a coward, during those times. As I said early, this is a standard traditional view.

Where I believe the chickenhawk argument HAS LEGS is when referring to certain TYPES of hawks.

there is a subclass of hawks that smears, denigrates, makes fun of, accuses the antiwar opponents of not supporting the military. You can see that rank hypocritical politicization in the Ferguson exchange with Rhodes.

Or, in Goldberg smearing Kerry.

Calling these two, or those like them, chickenhawks, has some merit, as THEY began the smearing/accusations of cowardice.

So calling that type 'chickenhawk' is merely saying "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." If you are going to pretend you are tough, tougher than those antiwar folks, then, you better have the background to back it up, right?

Again, the "gray area", is simply it is more ignoble to support something, without doing what is necessary and most needed to have that thing happen. That's why Tillman is worthy of such admiration, and the same for your son.

Your example of Soros isn't very good, because he probably give s more of his wealth away, than anyone other than Bill Gates. Now, COULD he give more? Sure. (And why bring in Noam Chomsky? wtf?)

Regarding duty - it isn't an on/off, you are doing your duty/you are not.

There is a minimum standard of duty. Be a good citizen, don't break the law, take care of your family, and yourself, financially. That is pretty good, say 70% on the duty scale - good, a passing grade, but not great.

Those like Tillman, who choose to go beyond that basic duty - in fact to SACRIFICE for what one's country needs - Tillman's duty percentage meter is at 99%, relative to the rest of the population.

I guess I tend towards a position which goes very close to "silencing the opposition", but it's tentative. I'm more concerned with knowing why someone made a judgement call not to serve.

Let's take the Ben Ferguson example - at least taken from the transcript provided. If someone is trying to convince me to listen to why the advocate furthering a war, I would want to know why. Medical? Married and more concerned with giving your family a good lifestyle? Scared of dying? Other priorities?

There is no doubt that others would use these answers to try and silence people - but if you're trying to convince 10 or 10 million listeners, I don't have a problem knowing the background of the speaker.

ugh, awful typos.
"If someone is trying to convince me to listen to why they advocate furthering a war, I would want to know why they chose not to serve."

Kerry was guilty of political cowardice for failing to confront his base on issues of the greatest import to the nation.

Forget Iraq; his comments that terrorism is like prostitution and America can and should go back to treating it as a criminal nuisance is political cowardice of the highest order.

Something Bush in calling Islam "the religion of peace" is also guilty of (pandering to the press and liberals who dominate the media and politics).

Quite simply Kerry's positions on use of force (Global Test), response to terrorism (work with other nations) and Iran (negotiate, negotiate, negotiate) were the mark of a political coward and hack machine politician who failed to challenge his base on a single issue they found important.

McCain at least follows his own drummer, as does Rudy. To the consternation and anger of their Republican base.

John Kerry was unwilling to cross Daily Kos, DU, and Howard Dean on issues of the greatest concern to Americans: how to respond to the prospect of a nuclear strike on American cities. [Something GWB has also cowardly avoided.]

A man like Randy Duke Cunningham may be extraordinarily brave (America's last Ace in the Vietnam War) in combat and yet lack elemental bravery when it comes to politics and corruption. Similarly a man may have a a non-descript military career (Lincoln) and yet offer the primer on political bravery and leadership.

However this is irrelevant. The Chickenhawk argument is "our military vets are against the war and have absolute moral authority. Shut up!" Now it's applied to Lefties and they don't like it.

But now that the card has been played you cannot unplay it. There are going to be around a million Iraq and Afghanistan combat vets who will view Dems and Lefties and the Press as the enemy and defacto allied with the people trying to kill them. Certainly the Dems having a terror Imam give the DNC invocation will not escape their notice.

Nobody should be applauding Soros for giving his money away. He is actually buying the Democrats as his pet political party, to no good purpose.

Disgraceful... it s the only word that fits these idiots

Don't you all think that you might be overthinking the rationale (nuances) of the whole chickenhawk argument? To me it is pretty simple. Those on Left who use the chickenhawk argument state two things, one explicitly and the other implicitly:
1) (explicitly) Only those who have served (are serving?) in the military can have a view in favor of the Iraq war that is considered LEGITIMATE.
All those who have not served, their support for the war means nothing, and is not a legitimate opinion.
2) (implicitly) Anyone, regardless of military service or not, can have a LEGITIMATE view of being against the war in Iraq.

The beauty of this position is that there are alot more people who have not served in the military than served, and therefore alot more possible "legitimate" opinions against the war than "legitimate" opinions in favor of the war.

The stupidity of this position is easy to point out.

If the only LEGITIMATE view in favor of the war is by those who have served in the military, then the converse is also true. Only those who have served can have a LEGITIMATE view in opposition to the war. So the few of acquaintances of mine who have tried the chickenhawk argument on me, I just respond that what they are saying is that only those who have served can have a view on the war and that their opinion and mine don't matter.

Of course, since the outcome and aftermath of the war affects the entire US, all citizen's voices are legitimate.

Jonah Goldberg called John Kerry a coward, for opposing and criticizing the war on Iraq - as well as Vietnam.

Do you have a citation for that? I find it highly doubtful. Jonah may have called Kerry a coward (though I doubt that, too), but if so, I'll bet he didn't do so for those reasons.

I am also interested in this marriage between old and new media-- how a blogger can have external censors on what he is allowed to speak about, what threads of conversation he may not be allowed to pursue. A blog is, by its nature, typically unfettered by "editors." This is why the people who turn to them, away from the newspapers and Big 3 newscasters, enjoy them so much, and why the blogs is where to find some of the msot insightful and in-depth analysis of current events. The leash on this blogger provides an interesting context for this conversation's unfolding.

As a side note, I realized this morning that I hardly know how to pronounce most of the Big Names In News anymore. And that reason is that when I want to find out what is going on, I read blogs and never watch the news, where the newscasters teach us how to pronounce "Ahmadenijad," for example, with such excruciating correctness.

The chickhenhawk argument is widely misunderstood. It never was an argument that only vets could judge a war. It was an argument that those who choose not to serve shouldn't call those who oppose a war cowards.

I am amazed at the folks on this thread who express surprise about or deny the existance of cries of cowardice. Callinng Democrats cowards has been standard righhtwinng fair for years. and not just Limbaugh, Malkin etc. Republican Senators and Representatives have used that kinnd of rhetoric and, of course, it is routine on righhtwinng blogs. I am not sure I believe the deniers of this phenomenon are being honest in their denial.

The chickhawk argument is a counteragrument to the lie that war opponents are cowards. That simple.

Just how far apart is Arkin's "don't be mean to elites, even if they didn't serve" argument from Dick Cheney's "I had higher priorities" argument for not serving in Vietnam? (I believe it was Cheney who said that, but perhaps not.)

Those who find it amusing that Arkin's past service in the military is overlooked by his critics should also look to their own houses. The number of times I've seen reference to Donald Rumsfeld as not having served is legion. Arkin's lack of combat experience (while in uniform) is as relevant (or irrelevant, IMO) as Rumsfeld's.

mycat - as noted, I read a lot of stuff, and can't think of a non-nutcase (Coulter et alia) charge of 'cowardice' while 'chickenhawk' is something pretty widely used - I've been called one. So absent some pretty clear cites a) I don't buy the 'contra-cowardice' argument; and b) even if a) were shown to be wrong, the actual use of the meme has been to challenge those who support the war to go enlist. You're redefining this postfacto to suit your argument.

A.L.

Of course, this is going to bite the left more than the right in the end (because the right has more combat experience). I find that the whole chickenhawk arguement is likely designed to fight back the "tough" label that was applied to republicans, who often got the 'military experience' bumper sticker regardless of service (and those on the left who did serve who were pre-labeled 'not military savvy'). This is a major punditry battle win for the Right (and probably always will be). Of course, using the chickenhawk argument just circles around and bites the left harder.

I'll admit, I have used the chickenhawk argument to a limited extent with some individuals: namely those who supported vietnam but deliberately dodged the draft, and now ask for others to vollunteer today. It's asking for someone to make a sacrifice that you yourself were unwilling to make (and even went out of your way to avoid). Note: for me this doesn't apply to anyone since the draft ended (though serving will always make you look better as a candidate).

Of course, if you disagreed with vietnam on moral grounds, it makes some sense that you would try to avoid the draft (and therefore not die for a 'false' cause). Again, candidates who chose this path will always be on shaky ground when dealing with the military, and chickenhawk is probably not the best label to throw around. Even for those who did serve, it's probably not a wise strategy for the left.

Kerry was despicable despite his service and because of it.

He traded on his service to smear our troops.

BTW post WW2 it was the right which was considered weak on defence. Which is why they had to run Eisenhower. Then the left got wise and ran PT109. They tried it again with JFK II. Who has all the charisma of a dead fish. He flopped against one of the weakest candidates of all time. Bush.

It seems to me that when some one urges that a war be fought but is not him or herself willing to fight in that war, this fact can be used to judge his or her character, but shouldn't be used as a factor in judging the merits of the argument for or against the war. Also, it seems to me, that the military service or lack of military service by a speaker can neither deny nor offer legitimacy to an opinion about the wisdom, necessity or morality of public policy, including war. I would think that, of course, military experience would give weight to an opinion about the conduct of a war but never whether about we should or should be fighting it.

Being a hypocrit can't invalidate an opinion or the right to express an opinion or else none of us could ever have an opinion.

The "chickenhawk argument" is simple ad-hominem rhetoric. It isn't a valid logical argument, although it is an effective rhetorical attack. The point of rhetoric isn't truth-seeking between debaters, but persuading observers.

It seems to me that when some one urges that a war be fought but is not him or herself willing to fight in that war, this fact can be used to judge his or her character...

To something like this:
It seems to me that when some one urges that more clerks at the driver's license bureau are required but is not him or herself willing to join the driver's license bureau as a clerk, this fact can be used to judge his or her character...

Lurker, Better idea: Let's not. Because it's a silly analogy. It would be less silly if the orignal statment had been something along the lines of advocating a larger military unaccompanied by a willingness to join up. What we are talking about here, though, is advocating a policy that requires the sacrafice and risk-taking of others not merely performing a task. There's another important element your leaving out. The vast majority are against the policy, which, I think, puts a greater burden on those who want to do it to lend a hand.

hypo -

Why isn't my example of Soros any good? he advocates a system whereby some will pay higher taxes. We presume he practices tax avoidance-i.e. actively minimizing his taxes under the law. What's wrong with suggesting that his position on taxes is 'immoral' given his elective behavior?

A.L.

A.L.

If I may butt in here for a moment. 1) that's quite a presumption; 2) wouldn't his "morality" depend on his willingess to pay taxes under the system he advocates if it were ever enacted, rather than his willingness to do so unilaterally prior to its acceptance? I mean, if I were to say, hey guys why don't we all throw in a little more and get something really nice for billy and jane's wedding, I wouldn't be expected to pony up more unless everyone agreed to it.

mark,
I think my analogy is sound. I can see Posh Spice Beckham having a valid complaint about long lines at the driver's license bureau, and still not waiting to work there because it would be a sacrifice for her to be a clerk.

The vast majority are against the policy, which, I think, puts a greater burden on those who want to do it to lend a hand.

So, you are defending an ad hominem with a Bandwagon Fallacy. Excellent!

Lurker, I'm glad you think your analogy is sound. I guess that pretty much settles it, then.

As far as the ad hominem goes, go back and read the full exchange. You'll see that I clearly separated the character issue from the advocacy issue. I'm limiting a question of character TO character and saying it is not to be used to attack the argument. That, my friend, was the whole point of my post. You've separated the introductory remark and are now trying to let it stand in for the argument, which isn't very helpful.

As for the bandwagon falacy, please reconsider. I think that upon reflection you will agree that I was not using it defend anything, but rather using it to show where your analogy was less than perfect. Further, I don't see an ad hominen attack in the belief that if you think something should be done and nobody else agrees with you that it should be done, it might be sound thinking to at least help do it yourself. call it politeness, call it an effective rule of thumb, call it what you will, but calling it ad hominem is stretching things a bit far, don't you think?

mark -

But you're saying that a 30-year old me (i.e. me 24 years ago) who advocated the war,accepted the notion of a volunteer army as constituted, but didn't choose to serve is somehow less moral than a George Soros who chooses not to use a 1040EZ? I'm missing the distinction...

A.L.

A.L.,

Cmon, there is no need for the false analogy.

a. You haven't dealt with WHICH chickhawk argument we are talking about. As mycat says about, the chickenhawk argument is what is told to those who call Democats cowards, but have themselves no real proof of sacrifice or bravery.

For myself, THAT is the one definition of chickenhawk that no one can argue with.

b. If we agree with that, then fine. Then what we are having is a philosophical discussion about a gray area. Again, the "gray area", is simply it is more ignoble to support something, without doing what is necessary and most needed to have that thing happen.

There isn't a right and wrong answer here - circumstances change, the events change, the areas of life change, etc. But really, all I'm saying is "Walk the talk". That simply is a more moral stance, a higher percentage of duty.

I'm willing to have that discussion, and advocate and discuss that there IS a "moral" issue here, with walking your talk - but if you use flip counter-examples, then this discussion will go nowhere.

You know nothing about Soros. You know nothing about the money he has poured into Europe attempting to create democratic societies. You know nothing about the taxes he has spent. And you certainly don't know enough to assume he doesn't pay his fair share of taxes.

And neither do I.

So let's not muddy the conversation.

If you note, for this post and the thread attached, I'm being very polite. The reason being, is that I'm attempting to not be my handle here - probably unavoidable, but I'm attempting.

To continue: I'll cite some research, and offer some suggestions about the level of morality that people are LIVING from, rather than what they are SAYING. (And again, this is a discussion, not a slam on anyone, so in this case, let's keep it civil.

Morality tends to go in a pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional order.

See some of the discussion about Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)

1. Obedience and punishment orientation
2. Self-interest orientation
( What's in it for me?)

Level 2 (Conventional)

3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
( The good boy/good girl attitude)

4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
( Law and order morality)

Level 3 (Post-Conventional)

5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
( Principled conscience)

A suggestion - while someone can SAY that "we need to succeed in Iraq", if there is an obvious need - such as more soldiers - if the person who favors that policy doesn't follow through - in that circumstance, there person is still ACTING from a pre-conventional stance - i.e, their self-interest.

Again, that is a suggestion. In matters of morals, while there is clearly a moral development order - as evinced by the research cited above - applications and specific situations are not so easily pigeonholed as the general arrow of moral development, towards less self-interest.

I would be interested in cogent thoughts on this, however.

hypo - sure. Let's start by defining the universe of incidence. Can you quickly pull a representative set of cites for non-Coulter commentators raising the 'cowardice' issue?

Because I don't see that class as big enough to be worth discussing; but I could be wrong, so let's go to the facts.

A.L.

Hypo,

"[A] fat guy on his keyboard shouldn't be criticizing people who are AGAINST a war, as cowards, especially those who have served."

If that's a straw man, then it's not one of my construction and I'm under attack by a straw armada.

If something needs to be picked up at your house, do you loudly say that 'that needs to be picked up and cleaned!', and then simply wait for someone else to clean it?

Even if the first statement I quoted in this comment is invalid -- and we agree it is -- that doesn't make the second one an appropriate response to it. It's not.

And for the record, I was raised by and among Quakers and have a great respect for pacifists, and have never called anyone who opposed a war a coward based on the opposition.

I'll see what I can find, although it may take a couple of days - as an example, I believe there is there is a Jonah Goldberg criticism of Kerry that quotes a letter writer to Goldberg, and that letter writer calls Kerry a coward, while Goldberg looks favorably on it.

Also, I'm surprised you argue this, as pretty much the Bush campaign for 04 ran on fear- don't know if you remember the whole "wolves" campaign commercial?

Also, are the terms defined by what? Access to power? Readership? I am going to asssume readership - in which case, a lot of "nutjob" posts WILL be included. Hey, if powerline was blog of the year, you have to include them, right?

At any rate, if you ask the question, I'm assuming the same applies to you "Can you quickly pull a representative set of cites for non-Ted Rall/Michael Moore commentators raising the 'chickenhawk' issue - in the way that Callimachus DESCRIBES THE CHICKHAWK ISSUE in #28 above?"

That's your test.

Callimachus,

Okay, you say "What I'm talking about is "if you think this war is a good idea, get your ass down to the recruiting office and enlist in it." Which I've heard or read directed at me literally dozens of times, as have many who post here, I'm sure."

I would disagree with this, except for the gray area as defined above, and that, as I've mentioned, is up for discussion.

So, I'm assuming you mean email responses. Note that above, in Armed Liberal's challenge to me, he specifically rules out the "nutballs" like Coulter, and I'm assuming, crackpot emails.

Since Armed Liberal is "looking for examples", I'll give his exact same test to you -

"Let's start by defining the universe of incidence. Can you quickly pull a representative set of cites for non-Ted Rall/Michael Moore commentators raising the 'cowardice' issue?"

What fair is fair, after all.

And again - there are a LOT of the leftwing, who are reacting to being called cowards, and then raise the chickenhawk stuff - so those can't be the examples.

Callimachus,

I wasn't clear - based on the chickenhawk view you outline above, I agree with you - it is a bad argument. Where we disagree is that this is the ONLY form of chickenhawk argument, and also, who uses that argument.

hypo, I think that you're trying to define the problem out of existence.

I can't think of a case of any serious commentator (I'd include Goldberg,and exclude folks like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter) challenging the physical courage of liberals or those who opposed the war. Folks like Lieberman have impugned the political courage of those opposed to the war, and that challenge is a legitimate one - going both ways.

But the standard 'chickenhawk' claim isn't a response to that claim - that the war opponent lacks courage. Just search Winds for 'chickenhawk' and look.

So I'm not sure why we're discussing it. I'll happily agree that saying that people who flatly oppose the war do so because they lack the physical courage to fight it is a ridiculous claim. I've expressly criticized claims that are aimed at delegitimizing participants in debate - and that claim would certainly be one of those.

So let's discuss the core chickenhawk claim - as made by Duncan Black, Tom Tomorrow and dozens, if not hundreds of their like-minded peers.

A.L.

"Can you quickly pull a representative set of cites for non-Ted Rall/Michael Moore commentators raising the 'cowardice' issue?"

I don't know anything about you personally, but I did look at your "who blogs here" profile and saw your picture. You appear -- though I could of course be wrong, as it's not a great picture -- to be a man of an age appropriate to be a member of the armed services. If you have already served, then as a fellow veteran I thank you for your service. If you have not, what is preventing you from heading on down to your local recruiting office and volunteering?

But one could argue that the mere use of the above words marks someone as a "Ted Rall."

So here it is in Glenn Greenwald:

"As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so."

[William Kristol's zeal for battle is truly inspiring. In fact, it inspired me to think: Maybe he should join the fight. He could emulate Theodore Roosevelt, who proved his zeal for the Spanish-American War by quitting his cushy desk job and organizing his own regiment to fight in Cuba. It was called the Rough Riders. Kristol's regiment could include other war-hawk opinion slingers in the Murdoch empire, guys like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. He could call it the Tough Talkers.

I have a lot of respect for pacifists too.

Peacemongers.

If too many people fall for that stuff they will get a lot of people killed. So yeah. I respect them the way I would respect a rattle snake without a rattle.

Armed non-violence - don't tread on me. The only way to go.

#32 A.L.,

You left out moral courage. There appears to be a shortage on the left. However, they are not bidding up the remaining supply.

Maybe they don't know what they are missing.

A.L.

"But you're saying that a 30-year old me (i.e. me 24 years ago) who advocated the war,accepted the notion of a volunteer army as constituted, but didn't choose to serve is somehow less moral than a George Soros who chooses not to use a 1040EZ? I'm missing the distinction..."

I think you are. The distinction in this particular case is that when advocating for an unpopular war in Iraq you are advocating that OTHERS put their lives at risk for the wellbeing of everyone, while you do not. In the hypothetical example of Soros, he is allegedgly advocating a system which would raise everyone's taxes, inlcuding his, but until that system is in place, he is continuing to use the current system, same as everyone esle.

So the distinctions are these: the extent of sacrafice being asked of others, i.e. lives vs. dollars; the willingness of self to make same sacrifice if what you are asking is adopted.

The central fallacy, if that's the right word, of your chosen analogy is that what the "chickenhawks" advocate is happening, while what Soros is allegedly adovocating is not happening, so he can't be accused of bowing out.

All that said, all I ever claimed was such i(n)actions are legitimate factors for judging an individual's character. They are not necessarily judgements I would make.

But mark, I know people who refuse to game the tax system because they think it's immoral. They can afford it, they believe in taxes, and they're proud to serve by writing checks. Other, lower-income people don't even get to choose- the tax code just screws them.

And I know people who have voluntarily enlisted,knowing that they could be placed in harm's way by a political decision. They are also proud to serve.

I really don't see a distinction. Yes, the soldiers are in harm's way - but that's what they signed up for. In some of their cases (talk to BlackFice or Uncle Jimbo) that risk is a feature, not a bug.

A.L.

A.L., you make it sound as if it's all or nothing and that there are no gradations of either vice or virtue. I'm not saying that someone who advocates the Iraq war but refuses to serve in it should burn in hell for eternity. But on the virtue scale, I'm probably not going to rate him as high as someone who advocates the war and volunteers to help out. Meanwhile on the vice scale, I'll probably rate him a little lower than someone who advocates a 36% tax rate on income over $200,000 but who pays the 33% rate that is currently in effect.

I guess, too, that I reserve the right to judge a person's character by the extent to which he or she is willing to "put their money where their mouth is," as the old saying goes. It's not question of whether it right or wrong, okay or not okay, moral or immoral, it's a question of character judgement.

It's a fair question, isn't it: if Iraq is all that damned important--the main front on the battle against terror, the calling of our generation, etc., etc., then why the hell aren't you helping out? (of course, I don't mean you personally). I mean, c'mon, if someone believes the rhetoric supporting the war, surely they have some sort of responsibility, given the nature of the argument, to bloody lend a hand. If they don't accept the responsibility of their own argument, I think I can drop them a notch or two in the esteem I hold them.

As mycat says about, the chickenhawk argument is what is told to those who call Democats cowards, but have themselves no real proof of sacrifice or bravery.

For myself, THAT is the one definition of chickenhawk that no one can argue with.

I will argue with it. What I have noted in all your and mycat's definitions is that the actual behavior of the people putatively slurred ("Democrats" in this formulation) is irrelevant. You are claiming that no matter what person A does, no matter how craven, if I haven't served in the military I can't call A a coward. I can't see that as anything except silencing debate over A's behavior. Is that really the position you want to defend?

Now, you could reformulate it as "… who call Democrats cowards for opposing the invasion" and I would view that as a reasonable position, but then you'd have a much smaller sample on which to make this an issue.

And mark, here we'll find some agreement.

Phil Carter has both more moral authority than I do on the war - because he re-enlisted and served - and a higher degree of tactical, local insight. Does that mean that what he says trumps what I see and believe? No, not necessarily. But I take what he says with an extra grain or ten of seriousness because of his actions.

Bill Roggio, ditto.

I'd hope that my work with Spirit of America might buy me a little, but to be blunt much of the effort I put into the blog is involved in trying to understand and so some small part in shaping the national sentiment on these issues - which is also damn important.

That's radically different than calling someone a 'chickenhawk' and suggesting that they have no standing to support the war unless they enlist.

A.L.

A.L.

Just to be clear, in my first post--and one or two subsequent--I voiced the opinion that someone's advocating the war but refusing to serve was totally 100% irrelevant to either his right to speak out OR to the validity of his argument. I very clearly limited it to being a character-judgement issue.

Callimachus,

The Glenn Greenwald article is a good link - points to you. There probably is no better argument out there for the "gray area" portion of the chickenhawk argument. Worth clicking through. Note, again, that he distinguishes his argument from what he sees is an invalid version of the chickenhawk argument.

It sure isn't the version of the chickenhawk argument that I've been advocating, but is notably different, more in line with your version of the argument. That is evidence that my version of the chickenhawk argument is in my head, not in reality,so if I don't find refuting evidence, I'll be shown wrong. (I like being shown wrong, it means I'm learning.)

A.L,

You consistently refuse to engage my points - but instead make points sideways to what I assert, or simply re-assert your own points, or make little objections, tangential to what I'm saying.

You could actually learn a bit from how Callimachus engaged my comments. (I particularly enjoyed "Well, first we'd have to agree on who's "non-Ted Rall," lol." Brought a smile to my face.) Unless I engage in some good research he has shown him to be right, me wrong, until more evidence comes in. And he did so by clearly and directly engaging me, and then finding evidence.

The type of back and forth you engage in, is more of an advocate, or an ideologue, rather than a discussion with evidence.

That's fine, if "that's your bag baby". But I have a feeling you will continue. like Austin Powers, to genially deny it...

:)

hypo -

Sorry, I'm not getting it. Maybe I'm just reading too quickly.

You raised a construct of what 'chickenhawk' meant. I criticized that construct, suggesting that it was historically inaccurate (vide Callimachus) and that as a form of argument it attempted to win the case in the definition, and so was unfair.

What haven't I addressed? I want to, really...

A.L.

hypo - OK, looking at your post #26 - is this the one?

Two fast responses (still working). 1) it seems that the same moral hierarchy applies to Soros just as neatly; or to Gore in traveling by G-IV while promoting 'Inconvenient Truth' where self-interest trumps universal principles; and 2) in reality the application of 'chickenhawk' by Black or Greenwald or Tom Tomorrow isn't a nuanced moral argument about communitarian obligations, but a rhetorical device aimed at delegitimizing - not even lowering the authority of (as in 'you don't know enough to argue the case that...') - particpants in a public argument.

And to me that last act is one of the least moral things you can do.

A.L.