Asymmetrical Information

The standards tend to change, so I don't know what is required now. For vision, 20/200 correctable to 20/20 used to be the standard, at least for officers. I doubt that asthmatics would be acceptable--I have allergies, but they didn't develop until after I was in the service.

Note that these are the standards for normal enlistments; draftees in real time of need (cf. WW II) usually are held to lower standards. And don't overlook the fact that ANY standard can be waived if the gummint wants you badly enough.

Um, Jane? You are female, no? Unless they make a fundamental change to the Selective Service Act, I don't tink you have to worry about it.

Ian, I think what Jane was saying is that, even if she volunteered, the armed forces wouldn't take her. Needing glasses to not walk into walls is a disqualification for some specialties (hopefully including any sort of combat troop), but not for mechanics and other support troops - and in Iraq, that doesn't make much difference as to getting shot at.

The standards do vary with need. In 1972, when about 10 percent of the eligible 19 year olds were drafted, an acquaintance of mine was 4F merely for being too fat. (He was also possibly gay and too mentally unbalanced to be trusted with live ammo - but apparently the examination stopped at weigh-in, so they never reached the other issues.) In 1942, I think they'd have drafted him and run the fat off in boot camp - then put him in a job where he might get shot at, but he wouldn't get much chance to shoot back...

Seems like your in the same category as I am. Since I'm deaf in my left ear and I just passed the standard first round draft age. Things will be really desperate if the military has to go with a, "Damnnit son we are down to you" policy.

The whole chickenhawk argument seems ridiculous. We don't ask people who support more police to combat crime why they don't join the policeforce. Ditto with the firedepartment.

You would at least be "1Y", the classification I got in 1970 at my draft physical. It meant I was undraftable except in WWII-type situation, which Vietnam was not.

What I love about the "Chickenhawk" epithet is that it is directed at individuals who are unenlistable anyway. "Pacifists" love to go on about the "cowardice" of precision bombs and superior firepower, and taking on "weaker" enemies. Like they really care or know about such things.

What I love about the "Chickenhawk" epithet is that it is directed at individuals who are unenlistable anyway. "Pacifists" love to go on about the "cowardice" of precision bombs and superior firepower, and taking on "weaker" enemies. Like they really care or know about such things.

No, the "chickenhawk" argument is usually aimed at those who COULD have been enlistable yet didn't and now are gung ho about fighting a war now that they are unelistable. A good example of this is Newt Gingrich, who thinks Vietnam was "the right war at the right time", but invoked deferrments to get out it. Another example is Dick Cheney, who was healthy enough back then, but "had other priorities", yet is now gung ho about war.

anyone who supported the war has to contend with the cries of "Chickenhawk!"

Nah, it takes a lot more swaggering and impugning your opponent's cojones than I've observed you doing in order to invite that retort. The "chickenhawk!" cry is best reserved for those men (and they are always men) who claim that they strongly identify with American soldiers, understand them, can speak on their behalf, while casting the Americans they disagree with in the role of identifying with Saddam's cronies or, more charitably, Chirac's soldiers. It seems a fair response--if you're going to say that you want to go to war with Iraq, Iran, or Syria, because America needs to have BIG BALLS to go after the ISLAMO-FASCISTS and you've fantasized 50 different ways to get the job done, you should be prepared to present proof of your own BIG BALLS.

I'm generalizing, of course, but that seems to be ok. (For every misuse of the "chickenhawk!" attack to respond to someone who isn't woofing it up, I'll find one liberal who doesn't think Korea was a questionable war.)

I'm guessing the cutoff for "too puny to draft" is somewhere between Jane Galt and Jonah Goldberg.

I think Megan and all bloggers will have to worry. The wars of the future will be fought more and more with automated machines guided by remote human hands. Nothing can be more remote than blog communication. Surely the most popular bloggers will be used to maintain military morale blogs.

I can see it now. Each soldier will have his/her own computer issued where he/she controls a Rumsfeld Mark XXIII battledroid. They will read Megan's blog, Target Information, and will not care a whit whether she is blind or wheezing as she churns out entries that inspire these next generation of computer warriors to do their best.

Anyone see the latest army commercials that make it appear like war is a video game? They know that kids are trained to kill on the computer and they're taking full advantage of that. If you've played Doom, or any other first person shooter, the military has a place for you.

Megan, would make a good "soldier", even if it's just because she would publish Twain's War Prayer on his birthday, just to keep a little balance and perspective - not because she thinks everyone that supports war is a chickenhawk.

My father-in-law entered the service at age 23 in 1945, with flat feet and born deaf in one ear, and a 2 year old daughter. I'm not sure if he was drafted or enlisted.

His troopship arrived at Okinawa on VJ day.

SDAI-Tech1: Anyone see the latest army commercials that make it appear like war is a video game? They know that kids are trained to kill on the computer and they're taking full advantage of that. If you've played Doom, or any other first person shooter, the military has a place for you.

For God's good sake, if you're going to go off on an Ender's Game rant, at least be aware that the United States Army has, in fact, published a video game that they explicitly use as a recruiting tool, and has established a presence at the canonical video game trade show, the Electronic Entertainment Exposition or E3, complete with Army Booth Babes.

My dad always said 'do not join the service. Go to college and at least maybe you'll be an officer. I joined the Air Force, and the Korean War started the next day'.

Paul,

Thanks for the links. I hesitated to mention Card as I assumed the readers here weren't sci-fi immersed. I guess I was wrong.

Though Orson Scott Card and Ender's Game is so, so...70's. And to tell you the truth he modified the idea from Hugo Gernsback who published a fake magazine article, World War III in Retrospect...way back in April of 1953 in a short-lived publication called Science Fiction Plus.

Hugo envisioned what we call "smart bombs" but called "Television Bombs", the "US Electronic autogun (Braingun)" was the remote controlled fighter and the "Ultrasonic Telehypno" was the precursor to psychological warfare such as employed against Noriega in Panama, and other remote fighting techniques.

Yes, Hugo was way ahead of his time. Our military decided many of these were good ideas and, when the technology became compact enough and feasible, adopted it.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this? Does the detached video game kill mentality lead us back up to the "just push the button" dilemma? Do we want soldiers who are detached from reality?

Kicking tail shouldn't mean we have to robotize our troops.

There has to be a degree of "robotization" involved in forming our military simply because of our culture. And this is not a new phenomenon--I went through Parris Island in 1968, and the vast majority of us had to be trained to be able to pull the trigger while the enemy was in our sights. Given this fact, then why does it matter if the training uses video games? Let's face it; most Americans are not raised in a dog eat dog world, and we have to be trained to be able to pull the trigger when the time comes to act in defense of our country--it doesn't always come naturally.

And training to be able to pyull the trigger when/if the time comes does not mean that the troops become robots. The average American fighting men and women think for themselves in a fashion almost unique in military history. Talk to one if you don't believe me.

The "Chickenhawk" attack is as idiotic as the people who use it. Everyone in this world has something that they are best suited for, just because you are not suited to be a fighter means that you can not support war? So a scrawny 120 pound weakling can not think this war is right? A mathamatical genius who is developing new technologies should stop doing something that is his most valuable asset to this country and go to war if he supports the war.

This is Ted Kennedy type idiocy. People with small brains and no depth to their arguments fall back on it. Most importantly, no one who is there fighting for us says this, and they should be the ones who have more of a say. My best friend volunteered to be in the Marines to protect all of us, including me.

Simple answers to these morons should be that whatever job they are doing they should stop that and work full time for organizations that help the poor or the environment. If you are not willing to help these people yourself then don't take my tax money to do it. Or since you believe that we are at fault for making these towel heads hate us then why don't you go over to Saudi Arabia or Pakistan and set up an organization to convince them we are not that bad. Or since you believe in higher transfer payments for the poor and lazy, why don't you give all your money outside of what you need for necessities to the poor.

Or...if I join the military, when I come back I expect you gone. I don't care where you go, you just better not have USA on your passport.

This is typical small minded democratic babble that makes no sense. Rather than propose any sort of solutions or come up with any ideas or even refute somoene else's ideas intelectually they rely on this garbage.

Oh, enjoy Howard Dean as your party chariman you losers.

Peter, you certainly haven't gotten any brighter since the last time you posted on here. You accuse others of small mindedness then roll out every moronic right wing talk radio argument that there is. "Ted Kennedy blah blah blah...welfare for the lazy, give all your money to the poor blah blah blah..towelheads...blah." The "Towelhead" comment reveals you to be a racist and a grade A moron. As for you joining the army, that will never happend until you grow up and grow a a sack full of balls.

You're 6'2" ! Who's going to call you puny?

Planet McArdle.

I thought chickenhawk was directed at those, like nost of the GOP leadershiop it seems, that claim to be ardent supporters of the military yet when they had the chance to defend this country managed to find all sorts of creative ways to avoid doing so.

Wasn't it Cheney who said he had other priorities during Vietnam? And Delay who claimed he couldn't get in because of all the minorities? Or Bush who specifically made clear he was not volunteering for Vietnam?

Those are good examples of chickenhawks.

I'm tired of being called a chickenhawk. I am using this forum to announce that I am available for service in any army anywhere. Any. Army. Anywhere.
I am 45 years old. I have flat feet, a crippled left shoulder, my vision is about 20/1200 (uncorrected), my hearing is bad (nerve deafness) and I have about $6k worth of titanium replacing the left side of my skull (bicycle accident). I'm also fatally allergic to bee stings. I smoke a pack a day and down 2 cases of beer per month.
On the plus side I can write lean 'n mean C code.
Any takers contact me at velocette@gmail.com.

Why don't you take your "chickenhawk" argument to its logical conclusion: Propose a constitutional amendment that no one can become president unless they served in the armed forces (BTW--Bush would qualify as he did serve in the armed forces.)

Oh, and condemn Bill Clinton while you're at it. If I remember correctly, didn't he send troops to Kosovo and Haiti?

Yeah, it would be nice if Cheney, Bush, Clinton, etc. had served in Vietnam, if for no other reason than it would end this idiotic debating tactic. But the fact is, they didn't. They still have every right to send troops into battle.

But if you're not willing to propose an amendment, then you're just engaging in cheap insults and trying to end a debate. Otherwise, it has no relevance to whether or not the Iraq war was justified.

Will you please stop misreading "Starship Troopers"? The author makes plain in the book that the society as a whole is not particularly militarized. In fact, when they aren't at war with scary aliens, even the Federal Service isn't very military.

The book just seems that way because the protagonist, Rico, is a soldier in the army during a shooting war.

The 'chickenhawk' gambit boils down to:
"I'm against civilian control of the military"
or
"Everyone who disagrees with me has to join the military, and the military has to obey my orders."
A weak effort: invalid and 'ad hominem.'
It fails to apply to me, personally.
Is the 'loyal opposition' really that short of ammo?
Or just naive?
Try harder, guys.

Jane, you'd be out. You're WAY to short for the military! ;-)

I'm against civilian control of the military"

No. That is a thoroughly retarded interpretation of the chickenhawk argument. For example, Ike, U.S. Grant, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, George H.W. Bush weren't chickenhawks because they served in the U.S. military but they were civilians when they became president. Thus, there is no validity to your claim;

Franklin D. Roosevelt did not serve in the military and helped shepherd the US into the largest war in its history.

Chickenhawk?

Ditto for Abraham Lincoln.

Why don't you take your "chickenhawk" argument to its logical conclusion

Oh, and condemn Bill Clinton while you're at it. If I remember correctly, didn't he send troops to Kosovo and Haiti?

Tee-hee! Y'all were getting closer to the reason why Democrats like using this particular criticism, and now you hit the nail on the head without realizing it.

"Why not condemn Clinton?" Clinton was raked over the coals by Republicans for years for this very reason. Any time he wanted to send troops to prevent massacres in places like Bosnia or Kosovo, we had to hear about how this draft-dodger had no place putting our young men and women into harm's way when he found a safe place to hide out for himself during Vietnam. You couldn't turn on a radio for several years in the mid-1990s without someone bringing up Clinton's unfitness to command American troops because of his wartime record.

And people made these complaints secure in the knowledge that their own party was too patriotic, too respectful of American sacrifice, too well-identified with the American military to ever nominate a draft-dodger for the highest office in the land. Look at the track record: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole did have military records to shame Bill Clinton and the man the Republicans would eventually pick as their choice to lead the country.

Now that some of these charges are being leveled against the current president, we hear, "it's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair!" Suddenly, all the attacks that were made against Clinton are logically inconsistent, ludicrous, not fit for a moment's consideration.

Hey, I'd be happy to declare a cease-fire on this issue. I thought Clinton had the right as a civilian to serve as commander-in-chief, and Bush has the same right. I can't help it if people try to appeal to the beliefs of people who feel differently, and I don't think anyone who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with people who made the same attacks on Clinton in the 1990s have any right to change the rules.

I've never understood the "chickenhawk" concept. If I see people trapped in a burning building, should I not call the fire department unless I, too, am willing to put on a fireman's helmet, slicker and boots and get on the hook-and-ladder myself? If I see a bank robbery in progress, should I not call the cops unless I, too, am willing to join the police force and shoot it out with the robbers? I admit it: I'm a "chicken." That is, I am not brave enough to face combat; the idea of communal barracks life fills me, the arch-individualist, with horror; and most of all I fear going to the bathroom in front of other people. But I'm glad there are people who are willing to do these things. Isn't that what we have a professional warrior class for, the fight the battles for the rest of us not suited for a warrior's life? I don't want to squander my protectors' lives or risk them needlessly, but if my taxes are paying to support a volunteer army, I see no reason why I shouldn't send them to fight my battles for me. That's the deal we have.

Bilwik

Brilliant and to the point!

thedaddy

If I remember Starship Troopers correctly, their society was at war most of the time. In fact, I think it was humanity that started the war with the bugs in a struggle for territory. After all, the two species were both so similar: they colonized the same planets, they were both composed of group minds, they both had a tendency towards unchecked explansion...

Since I raised the issue of Ender's Game and America's Army, I guess I should at least reply. I agree that Ender is very 1970s, and to listen to Orson Scott Card talk about the War on Terror, apparently he agrees: he's a rather staunch supporter.

As for the question of desensitization, that's been shown to be a canard with respect to "toy guns," of which video games are merely yet another manifestation, repeatedly. There's just no solid evidence that supports that view, statistically speaking. It would require that the person playing be unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality to any great degree. I'm reminded of the gut-wrenching critical scene in "Breakdown," where the late, great J.T. Walsh's character orders his, oh, 10-year-old son who's been trained to shoot, to shoot Kurt Russell's character. We almost think it will happen... but the little boy can't, and starts crying. That was an excellent fictionalized representation of the real psychology of it.

Even if that weren't the case, play the game sometime: it isn't all about combat at all, and even when it is, the emphasis is overwhelmingly on teamwork. In combat, one hit and you're out of the game. Violate the rules of engagement and you go to jail. You get bonus points for protecting your teammates. Anyone who tries to play this game like a mindless run-and-shoot-fest like the Quake or Unreal series is going to be very frustrated very quickly. Far from being desensitizing, the game reinforces important concepts in the reality of army life: you cover your team's backs and they cover yours. One 9mm slug is all it takes. There are rules, and if you break them there are consequences.

My point was just that if you wanted to yell "Ender's Game," you had better ammo than you used given a perhaps naïve reading of America's Army. :-) But I gather that you were actually asking a sincere question, so I apologize for my overreaction.

"they served in the U.S. military but they were civilians when they became president"

Oh, right...that makes all the difference.
Not.
Try harder, 'Beastie.'
:-)

Kevin? Lincoln served in the military. Not particularly excitingly, but he was a militia captain during the Black Hawk War in the early 1830s.

And Brittain33 has the 'chickenhawk' issue pinned perfectly.

"Now that some of these charges are being leveled against the current president, we hear, "it's not faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaair!" Suddenly, all the attacks that were made against Clinton are logically inconsistent, ludicrous, not fit for a moment's consideration. "

Actually, the attacks made against Bush are logically inconsistent and not fit for a moment's consideration - Bush served. He wore a uniform during time of war and had no idea whether he would be sent directly into the action, as other National Guardsmen were, or not.

I think conscription is an extraordinarily bad idea, that it's pure luck that it didn't blow up in our faces earlier than Vietnam, that Vietnam would have had a much better outcome for all concerned (except the North Vietnamese and their sponsors) if we had fought it without a draft, and that bringing back the draft now would be the best way I can think of to ensure that we lose the war on terror.

No matter how many more troops we need (and I think we need plenty more, if only as a reserve to convince certain foreign states that we can and will deal with them if we need to), we can and should recruit them as volunteers.

I'm not in the military, and have no plans to join, so I will say that, as a taxpayer, we should hire more soldiers, and repeal the Selective Service Act while we're at it.

Bush served. He wore a uniform during time of war

You should know where this discussion is going and that you don't want to go there. There were multiple ways of dodging the draft.

Re: Many ways to dodge the draft.

Like John Kerry asking his draft board for a 12 month deferment to study in Paris, and when turned down deciding to enlist in the Navy Reserves?

A couple of comments:

1) In Starship Troopers, society wasn't particularly militarized but only soldiers and veterans could vote. I could live with that even though I was never in the army (I was 4F in 1971). Why do I think that's not what the Democrats making the "chickenhawk" argument have in mind?

2) My 13-year-old son plays America's Army online and it rocks. Great game, but very, very hard, harder than, say Halo 2.

Of all the posts above, I agree with Bilwick's the most.

As far as personal insults go, I guess I don't have a problem with the "chicken" part of "chickenhawk": if you want to criticize someone for avoiding service in Vietnam purely out of his fear or unwillingness to endure hardship, then you are welcome to express your opinion. However, trying to make a case against the war in Iraq by calling some of it's proponents "chickenhawks" is a pure example of the ad hominem fallacy, and also carries the absurd implication already pointed out by Jane and others that only those who once faced the dangers of military action are fit to decide whether or not it's an appropriate solution in any given case. Which, come to think of it, is an absurdity the Democratic party apparantly embraces, as the only memorable thing about their convention last summer was the constant reminder that their nominee served in Vietnam.

Jane linked to the wrong Starship Troopers. The Paul Verhoeven movie is terrific satire and had Doogie Howser in fascist couture. The book is a saber-rattling bore.

This thread is ludicrous. I note that I don't think I've ever heard anyone call a woman a "chickenhawk" except maybe as included in a larger group of men. (It could happen, but, AFAIK, it's not widespread). It's a male charge, and it's directed at men, not as reasoned argument, but as a response to a first unreasoned argument.

Dems and the like tend to start calling out "chickenhawk" about 10 minutes after Bush supporters start puffing up with manliness ("dead or alive") and either saying or implying that everyone against the invasion of Iraq lacks physical courage and is a wuss. Being a guy and being known for physical courage has pretty big advantages; conversely, being known as a wuss is a disadvantage. If you don't know that and didn't control for it, you should probably ask your kids' real father to explain it to you. Now, whatever else people claim, everyone knows that people in the military (male and female) lack for no physical courage. People out of it are open to doubt. It's entirely reasonable to wonder if non-military Iraq opponents are wusses; but it's equally reasonable to wonder if non-military Bush supporters are wusses. But Iraq policy opponents don't get the benefits of pretending to have an undemonstrated strength. Hannity and rest certainly claim them. Calls of "chickenhawk" are just an attempt to remind people that, assuming equal wussiness, (as every school kid knows) it's worse to be the wuss parading around on the strength of others.

So it's pretty easy to stop any calls of "chickenhawk." Stop claiming the physical courage of others, or the attendant moral courage "to do the hard things." Non-military Bush backers have not demonstrated that they have either.

Tim, I have indeed been called a Chickenhawk in these comments sections, rational or not. I agree that hawks should not claim the mantle of our soldiers' physical and moral courage for themselves. However, I suspect that this is a human, rather than a hawkish failing, about of a piece with liberals who believe that they deserve the honor given to the charitable because they are willing to use the power of the state to force other people to donate money to their favourite causes.

Any decision to go to war should be made by people whose lives are on the line. That includes:

Pentagon civilian employees (this group is already involved)

Wall Street bond traders

Tourists in third-world vacation spots

Anybody who lives near something spectacular (e.g., Disney World, the Sears Tower, Mt. Rushmore, etc.)

I suspect that quite a few "chickenhawks" are in one or more of the above categories.

Britain33,
That may be the theory. In practice I've seen the phrase "chickenhawk" directed at veterans, women who said they wish the troops well, and just about anyone else who ever disagreed with the Leftists on *anything* concerning military affairs. As far as I can determine it seems to be a preemptive attack by Leftists used to prevent questions concerning their own courage. ^_^;

Huck,
Actually, since Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Harry Truman never served in the military they would doubtless be "chickenhawks" by the standards of the Left as well. ^_~

- S.P.M.

hey jane-

audie murphy was tiny and still managed to become the most decorated soldier in ww2 (recieving every medal for valor the united states offers at least once, plus 5 foreign medals). he was even rejected by the marines and paratroopers for being too short before he made it into the army infantry.

so jane, we may make a soldier out of you yet!

Small Pink Mouse, you have my full agreement that anyone who is dumb enough to lob the term "chickenhawk" at a veteran doesn't deserve to be listened to. Feel free to shunt them aside. Better yet, link one of those cases here so I can laugh at their stupidity and irrelevance.

I do recall an embarrassing episode a year or so ago when Tom Tomorrow drew a cartoon called "Chickenhawk Down!" making fun of the keyboard-bound war heroes among us, and some military blogger Instapundit linked to (sorry, that's all I remember about him) wrote a letter explaining that he supported the war and had good military credentials. Tomorrow replied that's ok, it should be obvious from the cartoon that it wasn't active-duty soldiers he was talking about, and the guy wrote back reiterating that he was a soldier, that he'd busted Tom Tomorrow, and generally missing the point. It went on for a few more rounds and was genuninely difficult to read.

Anyone else remember that?

LBJ's service in WWII was brief, and he used political connections to get a silver star.
LBJ biographer Robert Caro’s newest volume, Means of Ascent, takes umbrage at Johnson’s receiving the nation’s third-highest combat medal for what amounted to taking an airplane ride and spending :a few minutes under fire." But it never happened. The fact is LBJ never got within sight of Japanese forces. His mission, like so much of his life, was a lie.
The point is moot, since it's just an ad hominem attack. It's devoid of any actual substance.
And, FTR, I really liked Starship Troopers, but haven't read Ender's Game. I'm planning on rectifying that.

Huck,
Actually, since Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Harry Truman never served in the military they would doubtless be "chickenhawks" by the standards of the Left as well. ^_~

- S.P.M.
S.P.M,
Truman served in WWI actually, so he couldn't be called a chickenhawk by any stretch of the imagination. Wilson never served. FDR is debatable since he wasn't able bodied and more to the point, he had war thrust upon him, not the other way around. The lack of service and unwilliness to fight when it was your turn is combined with the bravado with which you urge others to their deaths is what makes a true chickenhawk. FDR really didn't have a choice to go to war. Japan attacked us and Germany declared war on us first.

I've never understood the "chickenhawk" concept. If I see people trapped in a burning building, should I not call the fire department unless I, too, am willing to put on a fireman's helmet, slicker and boots and get on the hook-and-ladder myself? If I see a bank robbery in progress, should I not call the cops unless I, too, am willing to join the police force and shoot it out with the robbers? I admit it: I'm a "chicken." That is, I am not brave enough to face combat; the idea of communal

The logical fallacy of this is that no fires, or bank robberies were being committed, metaphorically speaking as it pertains to the Iraq war. There was no crisis. Americans liver or property were not at all at risk, unlike in your hypotheticals.

By the way:

In 1913, Franklin Roosevelt moved to Washington DC to accept a nomination from Josephus Daniels, President Woodrow Wilson’s new Secretary of the Navy. Roosevelt would now hold the position of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. He advocated an active position in foreign affairs, and, of course, a large Navy. FDR advocated going to war with Germany in 1917.

(This was before his polio, which he got in the early 1920's.)

So in regards to WWI, the term might well apply. (Ever seen WWI-time pro-war propaganda? "What did you do in the war, Daddy?") This does not make me cry, because I don't worship past Presidents.

1) I initially supported the war in Iraq reluctantly and with many misgivings. Over time I have become more supportive.
2) Along time ago in a place far, far away, I was awarded the CIB.
3) I have no problem with Pres. George W. Bush's military service. He put himself in harm's way flying highly dangerous jets and anecdotes suggest that he actually explored volunteering to fly in Vietnam but by that time the Air Force was reducing its deployment.
4) Sen. Kerry gratuitously slagged off his fellow servicemen and women. Still, he too put himself in harm's way.
5) What saves Pres. Clinton, VP Cheney, and Rep. Gingrich from being chickenhawks is that although they are asking others to do something they were not willing to do themselves, today's soldiers are volunteers, not draftees.
6) The character of the debater is irrelevant to the validity of his or her position. An argument has to stand on its own merits, not those of its advocate.

I only call people ChickenHawk if they support things like war, and lets see...and don't support veterans. You know, like cutting longterm med care for National Guard call-up folks. You know like not wanting to increase the size of the army, but instead of leaning on the National Guard. Oh, wait, that would be Rummy.

Oh, wait...even worse, that would be the Republicans. Ah hell, that would be all politicians, from Billy boy to Georgie Porgie. Drinking over the summer with a couple of "ex" Marine (no such animal...) friends, right around the time we got to the big guns(the tequila from Mexico) we concluded that words like ChickenHawk and Politician are synonomous. Ho hum.

Lost in this debate is one of the main reasons why many of us find these purported "chickehawks" so loathsome is not so much that they didn't serve and are now pushing for war, is the false machismo that many of them exhibit. They like to talk tough, throw around military lingo, and hold forth as experts on weaponry and military tactics and in many cases, attack the patriotism of those who even question whether the war we are fighting was the right thing to do. Lots of these people even claim to speak for the troops, as if they know anything about service. Someone in this thread raised the example of the 120lb weakling. My problem is not so much that the weakling supports the war, after all, he has a right to. It's when this weakling thinks he knows more about war than people who have actually fought in them and questions the courage of others simply for disagreeing with him that sticks in my craw.

Amen, Willie.

The logical fallacy of this is that no fires, or bank robberies were being committed, metaphorically speaking as it pertains to the Iraq war. There was no crisis. Americans liver or property were not at all at risk, unlike in your hypotheticals. - "The Fact Finder"

Bilwick didn't say anything at all about the Iraq war, he simply gave some examples to illustrate the stupidity of the "chickenhawk" criticism. If you think providing an actual argument against a specific war (and whether or not one agrees with it, "Iraq was no crisis" is an actual argument) somehow turns calling someone a "chickenhawk" into another legitimate argument against the same war, then the logical fallacy is all yours.

anecdotes suggest that he actually explored volunteering to fly in Vietnam but by that time the Air Force was reducing its deployment.

Seriously? That's what you believe?

Are there other people here who believe that Bush really wanted to go to Vietnam, and would have happily gone wading through the swamps with his rifle over his head if the armed forces hadn't conspired to keep him out?

It blows my mind that anyone would believe this.

I can accept if Republicans don't care what he did in the Vietnam era, after all, it was a difficult time and many of us faced with the same choices and opportunities that Bush had would have gone the safe route as well. I should be grateful I was never tested in the same way. I can accept that.

I can also accept people drawing a distinction between a serendipitous entry into the Texas Air National Guard and outright draft-dodging. Yes, he secured a spot almost 100% guaranteed safe from combat, but planes are dangerous, and it looked like he was following the rules even if the rules can be bent somewhat for the well-connected. I don't think this distinction erases the distinction between serving in the NG and serving in Vietnam, but it has some meaning.

But your narrative... my goodness. Your faith in our President is touching.

I guess you and I agree. I said Clinton, Bush whoever had the right to send troops. You're chickenhawk argument seems to be, "Well those mean right-wingers did the same." I never had any use for the "draft-dodger" epithet against Clinton either. So we're on the same page.

As for the other criticisms, I supported the war but I don't think I try to usurp the bravery and valor of the troops. Nor do I claim to speak for them. So if there's people doing that, then I guess I agree with that criticism also.

As for the criticism that the GOP is cutting veteran's benefits or whatever, this usually turns out not to be the case if you read the fine print, but I could be wrong.

Cheers.

sorry, my comments were mostly meant for Brittain.

Besides that Doonesbury character you never saw without a helmet, did anybody WANT to go to Vietnam?

The point of Starship Troopers wasn't primarily chest-beating militarism but the controversial theme that only those willing to place themselves "between their loved home and the war's desolation" should have the vote - that while voting was a right, it was an earned right. Anyone who volunteered for federal service had to be accepted in some capacity, no matter how physically (or presumably mentally) unfit they were, and to earn the franchise you had to serve a minimum two-year term that could be extended indefinitely at the government's need. And then it was about the usual Heinlein three-stage character coming of age and learning that personal responsibility is the only valid foundation for societal morality.

Was the movie satire? I thought it just sucked... though Johnny Rico was cute.

Britain33: Actually, the first accusations I heard of "chickenhawk" were against Dan Quayle. A Republican. Apparently he'd been quite vocally pro-Vietnam war (echoing his newspaper-publishing father), but he or his father pulled strings to get him into a safe National Guard slot. So at least one of them was a rank hypocrite. (It might not have been Quayle - but if he was ever too naive to not notice such use of political influence, he really didn't belong in politics.)

OTOH, Clinton dodged the draft in a war which he opposed. No hypocrisy there, and no hypocrisy in deciding that other wars were OK decades later. (But tons of hypocrisy in getting Oval Office BJ's while supporting expansive definitions of sexual harassment for everyone else.)

I am not aware of GWB expressing strong opinions for or against the Vietnam war at the time. And he served in a job that was actually pretty dangerous, even though the danger came from the old crate he was flying rather than someone shooting at him. I don't see any hypocrisy there. (It might be different for Cheney or Rumsfeld.)

Finally, there's a case to be made that, other things being equal, experience in uniform will make for a better commander-in-chief. But of course, other things are never equal. Clinton wasn't a lousy CinC because he never served, he was lousy because his political positions were opposed to good military decisions - and Kerry wouldn't be any better, no matter whether his medals were earned or not.

Dumb question here but is Starship Troopers the one with the big bug things in it?

It's wrong of us to start draping a mantle of moral courage over our soldiers. Soldiers are expected to give up their moral autonomy when they join any of the armed forces. Except for some very narrowly-defined illegal orders, they are expected to follow commands, and are considered largely exempt from the possible consequences of what they are ordered to do.

But giving up moral responsibility is a double-edged sword. Soldiers cannot simultaneously be absolved of the negative moral consequences of their orders and prasied for the positive moral consequences of their orders. They are not autonomous agents in the same way that guns and tanks are not autonomous agents. They are tools, and they are supposed to be tools; moral blame and praise goes to the people that wield them, because they're the ones with the responsibility.

It's been so long since my vision was measured as 20/anything that I have no idea. My eyeglass prescription is approximately -9.5 diopters, with a diopter and a half of astigmatism. I have been correctable to 20/15 (!) with hard contacts, but can't wear any contacts at all anymore. I do know that in middle school, my vision went south of 20/400. I had no idea that I was 4F, though. I did try (and fail) to get into the AF Academy as a lad, but I didn't know what the standards for enlistment were. I never imagined myself as unacceptable for service, though, because I was fit as hell.

I apologize for not reading through the comments before answering this question. too much verbiage for this time of day.

If you have taken asthma medication after the age of 12 you would be 4F. Like I am. They do not want to worry about ashmatics and their meds in the field. I take Advair 250-50 right now for asthma.

Oops, let me say this also.

"Starship troopers" as envisioned by Heinlein is nothing like the realized version in the movie. The book is so different as to be almost completely disconnected from the screen version. I noticed, when watching the movie, the stamp of so many re-writes as to be almost unintelligible with respect to the printed version.

"is Starship Troopers the one with the big bug things in it?" Yes. But, as cranky said, read the book. Not that the movie is bad for a sci-fi shoot-em-up, but philosophically it's an utter mess. The scriptwriters imposed their own anti-war liberal ideas on top of Heinlein's hawkish conservative-libertarianism. And worst of all, they dropped the key enabling technology from the movie entirely.

Hear hear, markm! The book won a Hugo. The movie deserved a big razzberry.

"The Paul Verhoeven movie is terrific satire and had Doogie Howser in fascist couture. The book is a saber-rattling bore."

I never saw the movie. The reviews were so universally awful. The novel is in my estimation a masterpiece. On one level it is a completely realized bildungsroman. At another level it is a novel of ideas. In particular it grapples with a very difficult political problem that has never been successfully solved.

The problem is the balance between the need for arms and the danger of armies. Every state must have arms. An unarmed state will soon be overrun and destroyed. But many states have been consumed by their armies. Military dictatorship is perhaps the commonest form of government in the world, but it is not the best.

Philosophers, ancient and modern, have thought that republics are the best form of government. But, how are they to solve the problem of arms? Republics have tended to be commercial and pacific. In Renaissance Italy they were notorious for becoming dependant on mercenaries, the condotteri, who in turn often robbed them of their money and their liberty. The example of the Roman Republic of antiquity has often been the subject of philosophical contemplation on this question. Machiavelli devoted his great work, the Discourses, to it. Our Founding Fathers recurred to it ceaselessly.

In modern times, Switzerland has attempted to square the circle by requiring all men to serve. And Israel upped the ante by including women, but slid back by excluding Arabs and Orthodox Jews.

Heinlein wrote Starship Troopers at the height of the cold war to propose an answer to this vexing question. Not, I think because he thought it should be implemented, but because he wanted a marker for values other than the mere warm bodies that the Democrat Party tossed into the debate of the 1950s and, indeed, still does today.

BTW: Jane. In SST The Federation must take all applicants, the example is given of a blind double amputee –- they will take him and find a job for him.

>what is "too puny to draft"
When I went to a police academy, one of the women was very puny. One day, on the firing range, we were doing shotgun training. The range safety officer got a strange look, and only let her load one round in the shotgun (12-gauge). BOOM, knocked her not just on her butt, but over, with the shotgun now pointing at the rest of the cadets. Too small to fire your weapon = too puny to draft.

Comments are Closed.