Ask the Neo-Con, Part 3

Reader Jody E. asks:

[D]id you ever serve in the military? Why or why not and if so, when and where and what was your MOS?

Have you sent (or will you send) your children to fight in Iraq? Are any of your family members currently serving in the military?

My (slightly edited) reply to such illogical poultry:

No I did not serve. Shortly after September 11th, I looked into volunteering and discovered I was too old. Additionally, none of my family currently serves (though several friends do).

I would, however, be willing to die for America in the war on terror. To the extent your questions are designed to establish facts to support a "chickenhawk" claim, I reject the logic in its entirety, for several reasons:

First, the notion would invalidate nearly all wars without reference to their justness, and endorse some that were unjust. Washington had no children; President Wilson had three daughters who didn't fight. Does that automatically mean the American Revolution and WWI were wrong? Had Jefferson Davis's son fought for the Confederacy, would the Southern cause become just? Why would one narrow the analysis by excluding other relevant factors?--unless the objective is strict pacifism. Especially because ours is a volunteer Army.

The second reason is that neither you nor any war critics apply chickenhawk logic to other issues. I recall you as anti-Bush. But you've never been President, right? Or run the grueling gauntlet of campaigning for the job. So what qualifies your critique?

The notion that persons belonging to a particular group are the only ones capable of understanding or opining on public policy affecting the group is factually erroneous and has truly noxious consequences, including invalidating the idea of any representative democracy such as America's. And it ignores the fact that most terror victims were -- like me -- civilians; what disables me from seeking justice for my murdered friends?

Finally, the chickenhawk philosophy narrows the relevant voices in ways unacceptable even to Iraq war opponents, as Rich Lowry recently noted:

Its logic, if taken seriously, actually would boost the hawks. If only members of the military — who are overwhelmingly conservative — were considered competent to decide the nation’s posture on matters of war and peace, we would have an even more forward-leaning foreign policy. I’m comfortable letting the 82nd Airborne decide what we do about anti-American rogue states. Are opponents of the war? I’m guessing that even if you let only mothers of fallen soldiers in Iraq direct our Iraq policy, the result would be stay-the-course rather than the immediate pullout favored by Sheehan.

Christopher Hitchens puts it differently, but similarly observes that chickenhawk advocates implicitly "suggest. . . that there ought not to be civilian control of the military." Is that your position?

In sum, I agree with John Hawkins' analysis, written last year:

[T]his whole "chickenhawk" catcall is little more than an attempt to stifle debate and divert attention away from the lack of substance that undergirds much of the anti-war side of the debate. The fact is that many people in the anti-war crowd hold dovish foreign policy views, believe in only using America's military when our interests AREN'T at stake, & are more concerned with world approval than defending America. Because of that, they are simply incapable of taking positions that would allow us to win the global war on terrorism that we are now engaged in. Rather than deal openly and honestly with issues like that, issues that could cost Democrats the election, they'd rather cry "chickenhawk" and hope that, rather than their foreign policy views & how we should proceed in the war on terrorism, will become the subject of the debate.

If my anticipatory defense mistakenly ascribes views you do not hold, I apologize. But should this be your position, I welcome your rebuttal--addressing the actual issues.