Poultry in the Present Tense
I've
countered the "Chicken Hawk" argument before, and most recently
here, but I recommend
Neo-Neocon's thoughtful post refuting the claim in the current context:
There are various mantras about the Iraq war that have become popular these days. One of them is that there is no military solution, only a political one. Another is that the surge isn’t working, sometimes modified lately to read: the surge isn’t working enough, or the surge is only working temporarily, or the surge is working militarily but not politically. And so on and so forth.
There’s no question that many proponents of these mantras are invested in the surge not working; after all, they’ve staked their political lives on that fact. . .
We in this country have a civilian, not a military, government. There’s a division of labor between the two, with the Defense Secretary and Commander in Chief ordinarily being civilians (unless, of course, the President is an ex-General such as Eisenhower; a rare exception to this rule). Most voters, of course, don’t have a military background either, since women seldom do and most men young enough to have only known the volunteer armed forces (which would be most men today) have not served.
Obviously, I’m not a proponent of the idea that only those who’ve served in the military can have an opinion on war (a variant of the "chickenhawk" argument). Nor do I think that only police can have an opinion on crime, or only doctors on health care, or any one of a zillion variations on that theme. To be responsible voters we all must come to conclusions on these and a host of other issues.
Some of those topics are complex, however, and expert opinion by those with experience in the field should have a certain weight. This is certainly true of military matters. Of course, as with all topics, it’s not difficult to find an expert on either side of an issue, and to cite the expert who agrees with the opinion you’ve already formed. That’s why so many people tow the party line; it takes quite a bit of time and effort to evaluate the often complicated technical information involved--and, of course, "a mind is a difficult thing to change."
But we do need to take cognizance of what experts say on a topic, and the experts on war are the military. And in the main, what they say can be summarized as, "The surge is working somewhat; give it a chance. A premature withdrawal would be far worse, both for us, the military, and the Iraqis."
Yes, they have their own agenda and their own biases. But they’re the best we have.
In a similar vein, read
former White House Counsel Peter Wallison's TCS piece:
[O]ne of the principal purposes of the surge is to persuade the Iraqi population that we are going to stay in their neighborhoods until the Iraqi army and police can take over and bring an end to violence. Only when they have confidence that we will not abandon them to the terrorists will Iraqis come forward--as they now appear to be doing--with information about who among them are the terrorists, militia members and other killers, and where they can be found.
Accordingly, efforts to force the withdrawal of our troops at a time certain undermine this policy and the work and bravery of our soldiers. They cause Iraqis to doubt our promises of long term support, and weaken their incentive to assist us with intelligence. Timetables, then, and pressing for a quick withdrawal, become a self-fulfilling prophesy. In other words, if the surge fails, President Bush will not be the only politician who takes the blame.
[Further], although Senator Reid and other war opponents can glibly claim that there is no hope that an independent Iraq can survive, there is one group that is truly expert on that question, and they clearly don't believe it. That group consists of the Iraqis who are now in the Iraqi government--from Prime Minister al-Maliki on down--who risk their lives and the lives of their families every day that they serve. They are Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, and all of them are targets of the insurgency and the terrorists of al Qaeda. What motive could these dedicated Iraqis possibly have to place themselves in such a position unless they believe that they can keep the country together and in the end produce a peaceful and unified state?
6 comments:
Judging by how much right-wing propaganda bullshit you manage to throw out there, it is clear that you’ve been feeling rather prolific, you miserable piece of shit. The time of reckoning is rapidly approaching and the clock is running out on the worst administration in the history of the United States. The eight dark years will soon be over and in this vengeful District of Corruption thick black cross will be put on careers of everyone, who associated with the Bush White House. You and your ilk are on the losing side of the history. You are the die-hard defenders of the failure in Iraq. The fact that you refuse to see the manifest incompetence and fatal mistakes perpetrated by this administration does not mean that you will be excused, since ignorance does not equal innocence in this day and age. You, chickenhawk, who is only capable of arm-chair theoretizing in the comfort of an air conditioned apartment away from the harm’s way, why don’t you join in the great effort to democratize Iraq by enlisting in the armed forces or embedding with the units in the combat zone? Or do you really think that by falsely wrapping around yourself the mantle of pseudo-patriotism you become impervious to criticism? I’ve got a surprise for you and your kind – you will soon become a minority in this country as the demographics clearly indicate. Yes, the black-brown-olive amalgamation of races will reclaim it from you in several decades and then your voices will be silenced once and for all. Dickwad, I pity you. Fuckface, you seem to have assumed that the true scholarship is demonstrated by how many lines in the paragraph you can hyperlink. You pathetic bafoon. Nowadays any teenager can outperform you. You are so poisoned ideologically that it will be probably impossible to channel your energy in any productive direction, you worthless parody of a man. My parting phrase to you is this – fuck you and all that you stand for!
PS: In the future, expect comments like this from time to time. They will be there to remind you how much of a bigoted mediocrity you are.
Mr. Fuck-You-And-Everything-You-Stand-For
So lively around here. Mr. Obscenity-Laced-Comment undermines his clearly stated confidence with his obvious hatred.
Isn't hatred a product of fear?
Res Ipsa Loquitur. Look it up.
Normally, I'd delete such an hallucinatory and hateful, profane and paranoid comment. But it could, some day, be a collector's item--lefty infantile rage preserved in amber. Besides, it's an object lesson; 5,000 years from now a curator will intone:
Here once lived the liberal man-mouse. For centuries the most numerous creature in North America, it retreated first to "blue states" and thereafter became extinct despite concerted efforts by liberal man-mice near Los Angeles to import African and Asian infant replacements to be raised in liberal man-mouse homes.
It is speculated that the species became imperiled when it gradually ceased to defend itself against aggression, a mutation first noticed in mid-1968. An alternate theory holds that beginning around December 12, 2000, social interaction among liberal men-mice turned more strident but less diverse--so much so, that traditional tribal social instincts (not grooming, mass Marxism, and chanting while carrying huge paper dolls) became confined solely to identical twins, with commensurate effects on the gene pool and population growth. A third possibility is that liberal men-mice of the "Carter" tribe migrated to what once was called Korea for what seemed excellent prospects in the shield trade; tragically, however, Korea was destroyed shortly thereafter in the Iranian attack, and all migrating man-mice perished.
A species called Senators from Maine is the closest living cousin to the extinct liberal men-mice; however, only two still remain -- alas, not a breeding pair.
I didn't notice that Mr. FYAEYSF provided any evidence for his point of view. He does seem remarkably certain he's right, though.
Could Mr. FYAEYSF be Charles?
I did wonder that myself. He's ruder than Charles, but the phrasing and themes are the same. So it could just be Charles being rude anonymously.
You can't tell the moonbats without a program.
Post a Comment