Roger L. Simon: Confessions of a Chickenhawk on Memorial Day Weekend

I never joined the Army, wouldn't have thought of it, in fact did everything I could to avoid the draft during Vietnam short of burning my draft card because ... I was too chicken even to do that (there ... I've said it!).

When I so much as see violence in the street I do my best to avoid it. Once, sitting on a restaurant patio in Venice CA, when I witnessed some gangbangers bashing in the face of a member of another gang, I bolted back inside the restaurant like the Road Runner, ostensibly to make sure someone was "calling the cops," but really because I was scared out of my knickers they'd beat the crap out of me. On other occasions I have crossed the street when I have seen scary characters coming down the sidewalk, sometimes two or three blocks off. I don't go too close to the weight lifters on Muscle Beach and I generally steer clear of bikers. I don't even own a gun and, although the Second Amendment makes some sense to me, I have never seriously considered buying one.

My family's military history isn't very distinguished either. My father served in World War II, but was sick most of the time and never left the US. An uncle of mine went to West Point but dropped out after two years.

In much more recent times, I have been invited, once or twice, to visit Iraq to report on the situation over there but declined, saying I have a wife and eight-year old daughter (don't our troops?) and that didn't allow me to go. Actually I was thinking "no-way-hosay-I-don't-want-be shot."

But then I wondered. Maybe I would go ... Now ... If I were single. And therein lies the reason for this post: More than anyone I can think of, this onetime war protester, who had pacifism drummed into his head as child by his mother, admires the US troops. Not only are they defending our county, they are defending the best of our civilization. They are more than our hope. They are humanity's hope, even if some sections of our body politic and media do not want to admit it.

But I wouldn't be surprised if ... just like us "Off the Pig" hippies calling the cops in days of yore when our houses were broken into ... those same anti-war "progressives" will soon be screaming bloody murder for the help of that military to whom they now pay only lip service. That would be poetic justice, but much as I might enjoy it, I sincerely hope that it is justice that doesn't have to be served. And if it isn't, it will be, ironically, because of our military.

UPDATE: Something you can do for our military on Memorial Day - donate your frequent flier miles to wounded soldiers. [Full disclosure: I am donating some, not all, of mine.]

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

Nice. A free country requires men who are mostly like you, Roger. Peace loving, avoiding violence in all circumstances until it is thrust upon them.

Of course, we all have different thresholds determining when violence has been thrust upon us. If a person is sane, they will have considered 9/11 to be a case of declared war. A case where a violent response to wanton violence is the only choice.

If a person is less than sane, they suppose that the US government destroyed the WTC towers and part of the Pentagon. If they are irretrievably brain dead, they go public with their conspiracy ideas.

People who cry "chickenhawk" as if it were a potent weapon against people with whom they disagree, are somewhat short of a full deck. The logical fallacy they are committing, although obvious, simply does not float to consciousness.

In Robert Heinlein's "Starship Troopers", only those who had served in the military were eligible to vote. Such a rule, although excessively restrictive, would at least be internally consistent.

"Chickenhawk" is a verbal stick and stone meant to silence debate. The modern decadent left is very big on such tactics. You recognized the tactic, and moved to defuse it in an open manner.

Thanks for your heartfelt entry.
As a prior enlisted Sailor, now officer, I understand that some people might cringe at the thought we might need such a violence-capable armed force to protect us. Back when I was a liberal (Berkeley grad), before I woke up, I used to think we could maybe turn all the military bases into colleges, etc.

That day changed my life, gave me a hell of job. I am the luckiest man on earth. Every day I get to put on the uniform of my country and go serve. It is often not glamorous, but all we ask is that you don't blame national strategy on us.

I remember being in a Northern California town and hearing that an Air Force Airman had a Coke spilled on him. We were told to be very careful and not to engage town folks in negative conversation. I also recall being in the same town at a Wendy's in whites (what was I thinking, being around ketchup in a white Sailor uniform?) and having a lady just stare at me with sheer hate/anger. It was very weird. She would not look away, but I did. I said a prayer for her. Looking like you want to kill some Seaman for some perceived slight is not healthy. God bless her.

So thanks for your Memorial Day best wishes. Know that you have military readers who appreciate your work. I share/will continue to share your links with my shipmates. . .

Great posts, all the way around. Special best to you on this Memorial Day, navyone. And, thanks--the home front appreciates you.

Roger, don't whup on yourself --your best weapon is words, and you wield that weapon well, and do lots of good with it.

You ain't dodging bullets, but you're dodging an awful lot of incoming fire that would be as deadly if only it could. You're out there, and you're in it.

Think we refer to you guys from the sixties war protests as men with "Viet Guilt."

But now some of us have learned our lesson. And we're singing a new song forty years later, and may yet make a difference when those tired old hacks like Jimmy, Harry and Nancy trot out their anti-war, defeat-at-any price slogans in the War on Terror.

navyone.."having a lady just stare at me with sheer hate/anger"...there seems to be a lot of this kind of thing going on. There was recently a letter to "Dear Abby" by a military wife about how badly she had been treated because of her husband's service.

It seems obvious to me that people who act like this are not motivated by disagreement with any specific policy like the Iraq war. The roots of their anger must go very deep and are directed at large numbers of their fellow citizens.

Roger, this post resonated with me, partly because I was such an anti-military lefty for many years, starting in high school. Can women be chickenhawks? I just reject the whole pejorative but I understand what you're getting at. The thing is, we are sheep, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing if we love our sheepdogs. I wholly support the 2nd Amendment (I even joined the NRA for a couple of years) and I don't own a gun and have never even touched one. In fact I've never seen one in person. As for running from violence, HECK yeah! The only violence I like is on "24."

But the warrior spirit is strong in Americans and that can only be considered a good thing, in this age as much as the past. The contempt for our servicepeople that some confront is disgusting and beneath contempt. The ignorance and arrogance are breathtaking. I always try to go out of my way to thank any service people I see (I live near an ANG base so I see a lot). I think I'm going to start trying to buy their coffees for them in Starbucks (I think Glenn R. says he tries to buy them rounds of drinks anonymously.)

I don't think there's any shame in not wanting to fight and defend. But there's plenty of shame in loathing those who do while simultaneously loathing those of us who don't but appreciate and revere those who do. (If that makes sense.)

Thank you, Roger. For myself and for my sons. If we had more like you, we'd need fewer like us.

I recently made a trip home to visit my family and I was surprised at how many young men and women I saw in uniform. I was also surprised at how many people walked up to them and thanked them for their service.

I know I am very proud of them and I pray for their safe return home to their families and their friends.

Re: the Wendy's lady.
I live in a big military town. If I saw someone do that to one of the airmen or soldiers in my town, I would make her regret it. Fortunately, around here, the people appreciate our military folks. I certainly do, especially on this sacred day.

Thank you, Roger, for what you do. Our military can do almost anything--it's the civilians at home who weaken and fall back into appeasement mode, and that's why your work is so important.

I would like to concur with navyone at May 27, 2007 5:07 PM and thank him for his current service in the face of the conduct of so many politicians, news and entertainment media, and academia that can only be considered as treasonous.

I have no problem with Roger opting not to serve, but much appreciation for what he and others are doing for their country in their own ways.

I spent a good many years of my life in military service, 1952-1955 and 1957-1965. At the time I felt extremely fortunate to be a member of the military, and even more so to be a military aviator, even though we weren't exactly the most popular kids on the block in those days. Actually, I felt a little sorry for others who were living more mundane lives while I was experiencing the exhilaration of military aviation and serving my country at the same time.

Navyone, thanks for your service. I'm sorry you were treated in such a despicable way.

(BTW, Roger, after reading your review the other day I ordered Manolo's pamphlet. I can't wait to read it! This enthusiasm is quite odd in that, usually, there's nothing that interests me less than fashion. ;-) )

For some reason the chickehawk argument is only used for the war and not for other situations in which others risk their lives. I sure as heck expect firefighters to run into burning buildings when they can in order to save lives, but am not sure if I could get myself to do the same. Firefighters went into the Twin Towers as others left; were the ones who left chickenfirefighers? Should we hold those who escaped the Twin Towers to some sort of moral opprobrium?

I want the police to go into situations I would avoid like the plague or to go undercover in places I don't want to tread. And there are many other jobs people do that I want to see done, like working on skyscrapers, but you're not going to catch me up there.

Soehow it's only the war that rises to the level of moral outrage at our all to human inconsistencies. Ultimately, yelling "chickenhawk" is a political tactic and not a philospohical argument. It is the attempt to induce shame into those who support the war for the sake of reducing support for the war and achieving the political objectives of war opponents. One can only yell "chickenhawk" from a place of safety protected by people who go out there.

We should honor their sacrifices to say the least, even if Google can't muster enough to display the kind of icon they so easily create for Halloween and Groundhog Day.

Personally I had to learn my way past my familial upbringings, which were not matching up with the rest of the world, under come to terms with my own views of the role of warfare in this world of ours. I have 'been there, done that' through teen years listening to various protests and the fossilized instructors at the university level, and their apparent disconnect between their views and what that led them to and what I was observing. Being interested in warfare from a young age did help a lot, and so did studying on it and the men involved...

My body, however, would disqualify me from any such activities and coming to terms with that did take a bit. Serving the Nation, however, looked good just from personality viewpoint, financial viewpoint and not minding lower pay to know something good was being done. As it was DoD beat out Interior by a week. And while the bureaucracy is frustrating beyond belief, being able to ensure the warfighter got good information in a timely way and finding better means to do so is a great satisfaction. I have met and worked with men and women from all branches of the service, plus a number of our Allies and came to a deep and abiding appreciation and affection for them all. Using years of my life to hand something back to them and my Nation fits with what life handed to me. I came into work after 9/11 even with back spasms that could barely let me drive and a half-hour walk to get from the parking lot to my job... which I then volunteered to help spell those working around the clock to get every shred of information we could out to the warfighter. Just do the work and let those who had been doing it rest, for it looked to be a long fight ahead.

Those memories will be with me even as my physical self goes into worse condition. And knowing that those who protect *me* were given my full support then and with whatever I can give financially and in the way of material goods. So when I hear those trotting out 'chickenhawk' the question is: what have you done for your Nation beyond yell and scream and protest? And if I am disqualified due to not serving, then so are those who have not served who deride and degrade warfare and the Nation. But as we have civilian control over the armed forces, I give due honor for those that have served and recognize such. Once you go back to being a civilian, however, that time served gets no free pass on anything as that voice and view is exactly equal to mine in this democracy, and I have seen some in High Office that have forgotten that. Because that is what that service is *for*: so that we may be equal as Citizens to build this Nation together.

It was a privilege and honor to help the warfighters at low pay in rooms where sunlight has not touched the floor since the building was constructed, years or decades ago. They offer their lives to protect mine... how can I not support them in return so that they may do their jobs well and succeed?

Thanks everyone for your heartfelt well wishes on this Memorial Day. This link will be shared.

I previously posted an entry on a rough encounter I had at a Wendy's in California.
I probably should have balanced it with an experience that almost made me cry it was so touching.

I was down training in Pensacola over Thanksgiving a couple of years ago. I had spent Thanksgiving at a friend's house ninety minutes away in Mobile, Alabama. I decided to drive back alone that night, but first stopped at Dairy Queen (again at a fast food place in my whites!) for dinner.

As I was getting my food, I turned around and a young girl, no more than five, looked up at me and said, "Thank you, sir, for fighting for our freedom. . ."

I thanked her the best I could. I went over to her family and thanked them quietly and returned and ate my dinner. To this day I remember Alabama fondly.

Heck of a nice bookmark, navyone. I can just see the little girl looking at the uniform and knowing what it meant. Good image. Maybe someday all will be peace and happiness, and the nation's defenders can stand down, can go fishin'. But in the meantime, well, the little girl sees clearly.

Buddy, I look forward to the day when I can fish more often than I do now. I don't know where that little girl came up with the term: fighting for our freedom. It was so heartfelt, I just wanted to hug her.

Photoncourier, I read your post: An Incident at the Movies. Nicely written and interesting. I have lived through those moments and understand the discomfort of them. There should not be a gulf between our fighting men/women and society. It is good for every American civilian to know someone in the military.

First off, navyone, thank you for your service and your comments. You should visit/comment more often. We who, for various and sundry reasons, cannot physically serve, need the perspective from those who can and are.

Lastly, my teary eyed thanks for all who have died for the freedoms we enjoy today. The only way we can even begin to repay their sacrifice is too continue the fight for which they died.

Lastly, my teary eyed appreciation for all who have died for the freedoms we enjoy today. The only way we can even begin to repay their sacrifice is too continue the fight for which they died.

Well, I'm gonna forgive Luther his double post, on the grounds that he's a Vietnam combat vet who fought the NVA nose-to-nose in the jungle, and it's Memorial Day. I think I thanked you last Memorial Day, Luther, but here's another 'un. Ya done good, old feller.

Re Rhod commenting above, I recollect from a few months ago in these comments, his mentioning in passing that his two sons had followed him into the service, and were both deployed or soon to be at that time. I believe one was in Afghanistan and the other on his way to Iraq?

Thanks, navyone, for your service to our country (as well as others here like Luther and Rhod). There's at least one person here in Northern California who appreciates it.

Thanks Buddy, sincerely. But really, survivor's guilt is a hell of a thing to overcome and/or live with. I did nothing in comparison to some.

i got the draft call in the late 60s (can't recall, 67 or 68), but flunked the physical. Had had two knee ligament operations in high school and drew the "1-Y". But I was a man mountain in those days, big, fast, strong, I could benchpress an 18 wheeler. Did I fight the 1-Y? Did I do a damn thing to over-ride it and join the best part of our generation over in the jungle? Nah.

For years I never even weighed myself against that incident. But, as so many have said, 911 wiped away a whole way of thinking--or not-thinking. Now I feel bad about the lucky 1-Y. I could've written Roger's post. Well, less elegantly.

The other specious aspect of the chickenhawk argument is that the politicians choosing to go to war NEVER are in harms in way.

"It is often not glamorous, but all we ask is that you don't blame national strategy on us."

A completely understandable request. It is revolting and contemptible to express hostility towards our troops due to decisions made by politicians of all stripes. I must say, I've seen very little of this in our public discourse, and heard of very few incidents such as the one Navyone says he heard about (someone spilling a drink on an enlistee). This is in welcome contrast to what happened in the seventies, post-Vietnam.

Unless, that is, one considers any form of disagreement with the war to be disrespectful or injurious to our troops in the field. I'm curious what men in the field think that people who either oppose the handling of the war, or think we should leave quickly, or think we shouldn't have entered in the first place should actually do. Is there any way we can express our political views while at the same time demonstrating respect for our troops? Or must we muzzle all objections to national strategy for the duration of the Global War on Islamofascisism?

Anyway, Luther is right that this day is about those who paid the ultimate price, including the son of Andrew Bacevich, whose essays and most recent book, The New American Militarism, have taught me alot. They ought to be required reading for Americans, including conservative Americans, enamoured with neoconservative foreign policy thinking.

Well Buddy, if we could get that damn Habu to put his squad together, we could play a role yet :-) though that is unlikely too happen :-(

Damn you markus, back for another Memorial Day stab in the back. Your weasel words mean nothing too me. Your only honor is defeat.

Markus, the nation tried your way through the 90s, and it didn't work. Maybe this way won't work either --but your way has already been tried. The jihad didn't wither under "soft-power" --it grew like a fleur de mort. Why do you want to reprise that failed policy?

You know what taught me a lot? Watching those towers fall. That taught me a hell of a lot.

I would say watching a bunch of people drag dead servicemen through the dusty streets of an African city had some impact too. They were left there and we should never leave our people behind. That is what respect is all about.

So the 90's was about retreating under fire and that lead to where we are today. So no markus, I see no point in going back to that.

Thank you Buddy. It was all three boys. Two are home now, another still in Baghdad. But they're not the subject of Memorial Day, and I'm (so far) grateful for that.

All of us who found ourselves in combat know it was a roll of the dice. Luther understands what I'm talking about. Maybe we resented the guys in the Quonsette Huts and the fellows at home, but it doesn't last long. It can't.

Daily life is hard enough for everyone. Mailer said it, I think, and I agree - for an agoraphobic, crossing the street is an act of heroism. We can't measure ourselves against others in any meaningful way; it's all chance, and bravery is simply an act of will, place and time.

The only ones who deserve our eternal regard are the ones resting with little flags above their heads.

Amen, Rhod. Glad to hear you have two of 'em back stateside. What a family--good on y'all!

I grew up in Post WWII utopia, with Korea only slightly registering in my young brain, I remember asking, "why not nuke the north?". Oh silly me. We used to play army year round, my favorite being in winter when we could play Battle of the Bulge. But come Vietnam I knew a few years in that I'd probably be drafted and awated that day. Come 1971 my number was drawn, a safe number of 350. But the weeks and days leading up to that moment were filled with trepedation. Should I run to Canada? Pretend to be homosexual, take illecit drugs; what was I to do? Thankfully, since I won the lottery, none of the above was necessary. But the reason they so haunted my mind in those dwindling days of our active involvement in Vietnam was due to the false and libalous actions of John Kerry, The New York Times, CBS News with Uncle Walter and their ilk. We were winning and all we saw was a meat grinder perpetuated by baby killers and drug crazed murderous zombies. I am a chicken hawk now, the establishment media betrayed my country and me in the early 70's and they are doing so once more. I won't be fooled again.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Thank God "the people" include chikenhawks like us... and i suppose markus too ;)

BTW if you don't feel anything reading the Gettysburg Address, I would check with the nearest doctor.

I toss back the "chicken hawk" epithet with "chicken dove." You see, I suffered a permanent injury to my right leg while serving my country in the U.S. Peace Corps. I was injured in the cause of peace, so those who toss the "chicken hawk" epithet around get asked by me, "Oh, did you serve in the Peace Corps?"

Those who haven't risked themselves in the cause of peace -- say, by putting yourself in harm's way in Central Africa -- cannot speak but hypocritically when they call others "chicken hawks" if they haven't served in the Peace Corps or a similar, risky organization. Protest marches are safe. Going overseas to represent your country, to give a face to Americans, is a good way to do that.

"Unless, that is, one considers any form of disagreement with the war to be disrespectful or injurious to our troops in the field. I'm curious what men in the field think that people who either oppose the handling of the war, or think we should leave quickly, or think we shouldn't have entered in the first place should actually do. Is there any way we can express our political views while at the same time demonstrating respect for our troops? Or must we muzzle all objections to national strategy for the duration of the Global War on Islamofascisism? "

1. Realize that advocating a policy with intent to support the troops versus advocating a policy that actually does support the troops are potentially two different things. It really helps to have a good understanding of how the military works, for example. Some seriousness about global and domestic politics is a plus. Finally, recognize that any position that consists of some way to, "make the troops abandon the mission midstream," is going to be a hard sell on the "we support the troops" claim. Tough, if that's your position, you have to do extra legwork.

2. Next, when your position is countered, don't lightly pull out the, "any form of disagreement," schtick. There's a good chance that the argument is with you or your position, not everyone that disagrees. Track record counts for a lot here, too. I think William F. Buckley is wrong on Iraq in the end. However, I'm pretty darn sure based on his arguments that he is coming from a consistent position and happens to view one or two key pieces of data differently than me. Other people, like you, give me the impression that they simply don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about.

Just in case, I'll spell it out for ya: Buckley's disagreement is not anti-patriotic. In fact, it's patriotic, because it's informed and sincere. Joe Biden is in the same boat. Bob Kerrey is probably there too. Murtha is most clearly not, by anyone that is paying attention. Say too many silly things, people start looking to intent to explain them. At your peril, use phrases such as "redeploy home" or "fight the terrorists in the real hotspot in Afghanistan."

3. Moving goalposts make you look like an opportunist or an idiot (pick the one that best fits in each case). Thus, "I voted for it before I voted against it," became *the* campaign 2004 defining phrase. It is true that many Americans will forget what was said two years ago, and the MSM will help them remember it differently than it happened. However, not all of them will. The ones that don't tend to have a sense of history. If they are still a bit picqued at Lindbergh's comments on the Nazis, it's unlikely that they'll forgive you some stuff said in 2005 that you've no doubt put behind you now.

4. Once the country votes to do something, the debate is over on that particular thing, and it's time to get the job done. Yes, there should be some review and change over details all the time. Yes, even the strategy should be reviewed from time to time. (The time for this is *not* when it will cause the most political trouble for your opposition or least trouble for yourself. Otherwise, you look like an opportunist.)

However, if you spend all your time fighting the, "do it my way, or I'll my ball and go home" stuff, don't be surprised if the rest of the team thinks winning is not #1 on your agenda. Sometimes, a guy can't pull a Hoover working for Roosevelt thing and help the country. It happens. But almost anyone can sit down, shut up, and get the hell out of the way. If they really care to. (Jimmy C., I'm talking to you.)

5. Listen to what the troops have to say through their limited outlets, remembering all the time that they are required by their rules to not be overtly political.

Biden supports the troops. Murtha does not. If you don't like which end of the scale you get placed, then I invite you to read Dickens.
To paraphrase the ghost of Christmas past, "that these things are as they are, do not blame me."

"It is often not glamorous, but all we ask is that you don't blame national strategy on us."

My incident at Wendy's had more to it than I shared. I also was with 4 or 5 shipmates at the time. Even though I was the same rank as them, E-3, I was at least 8-10 years older than them. I personally could care less that some middle-age woman was seething at me had I been alone.

I went to Berkeley, have seen people dragging the American flag in the street, seen riots, etc. I also lived in Santa Cruz which was pretty much Berkeley with a beach. (I really should watch where I move next, but that is another story altogether.)

What did concern me about this lady looking at us like we were junior Geng-ghis Khans (phony mispronunciation) was that I was with some young men who were highly impressionable and not from California. Granted all military men/women are fighting men/women, but we were linguists. Which meant we were "in the rear with the gear."

I had wanted to steer them clear of that sort of malignant nonsense that I had seen at Cal. But I did bring it up with them once we were away from the glare. They just shrugged it off with smiles and greasy hands wrapped around frozen milkshakes. Fast food solved that problem, if only temporarily.

I want to give our young guys every chance to love the Navy as I do. I don't want them to be weirded out, disheartened, etc. Language school was very, very difficult. And we were just blowing off steam. And remember, after the soft drink incident, the CO had given us strict orders not to respond to the townies. (Not that we called them that, I saw it used in some 80's movie, whose title I forgot in the 90's.)

The sad thing about the soft drink thing, that Airman had been out with his family. . .

My time in Alabama also had more to it than I shared. Thanksgiving morning we (four of us with high and tights) had gone to Cracker Barrel. Someone had bought had our breakfast. The waitress told us with a knowing smile as if it happened all the time. We left an awesome tip. I remember scanning the crowd carefully, but it was a typical Alabama morning, not that I knew anything about Alabama mornings. Trite story wrap: it was the best Thanksgiving of my life and I had no family around.

I went to an Orioles game last week with a linguist friend who was in town. Some young Marines were ordering food in my row. Just as they were paying, I remembered Cracker Barrel and wish I had beaten them to the bill. One day I will get my chance.

The bottom line is this: Dissent about national strategery is fine. But choose your forum wisely. Plaster eleven crooked bumper stickers on your car ruining its resale value. Please post rants on blogs. Do whatever. But go easy on the death stares. And the soft drink baths.

Yep. Mitchell's excellent post includes that #4 which implies that foreign policy should stop at the water's edge. The water's edge doesn't mean *just* the ocean seas, but at any point where to proceed is to drown. IOW, it's a matter of degree, Markus.

Oh, I know the hypothetical--it's "what to do with an out-of-control president?" That hypothetical is why "Bush Lies" is so all important for the left.

Well, congress is answering that for you. After Dem leaders have laid out all the 'illegitimate war, illegitimate president' rhetoric for the enemy to revel in, they proceed to fund that war.

Do you get the implication, Markus? It's that the "over the water's edge" anti-war left is the only element in the mix that IS illegitimate. Why, because an enemy does exist, and the anti-war left is helping that enemy.

The rhetoric from your own leaders has just been a tool all along (witness Sheehan). There's your answer for you. Push comes to shove, the enemy must be stopped, if this nation is to proceed in its chosen way. All else, that is, methods and modes, is commentary.

If you agree with any of that, then you'd have to agree that what your end of the political spectrum ought to be doing is helping to win the war, in order to get it over with --instead of stringing it bloodily out forever, apparently in hopes of nothing loftier than greater domestic political success.

The Left's contempt for the military, and military people, isn't ideological, it's snobbery. I can't be argued.

The Left's contempt for the military, and military people, isn't ideological, it's snobbery. It's not amenable to change by argument. The offensive class must simply disappear in order to make the world right.

I think you may be on to something there Rhod. I would just add that the mere presence of a uniform drives some up the wall, as it is an affront to their belief that there is no evil in the world. That all problems can be solved with the right mixture of fairness, equality and oh yes...money.

Buddy, way too much common sense in "helping to win the war, in order to get it over with." The same could be/has been said about my war. But you are right of course, politics is the motive and all else is secondary, too some.

Luther, we lost your war in the streets of America --that's been said so many times in these later years that it's become almost a cliche. But cliches are cliches because they're true. The 58,000 on the Wall are beyond politics now, but no one should ever forget that they believed in their country, and that what they did bought time for the rest of SE Asia --where freedom rings today, there could have been a region-wide Pol Pot smear that could've pushed the whole planet over the edge of sanity.

Playing with fire behind a shield known as the Armed Forces of the United States of America, which still happens to be the most respected institution in the country, according to polls (hey, a poll I like, for a change).

I didn't mean "just" the soldiers on the Wall --all who fought alongside them are really "on the Wall", too, in a real sense. Like Rhod said, chance and the luck of the draw.

"But you are right of course, politics is the motive and all else is secondary, too some."

Especially when people with religious impulses aren't believers in something normally recognizable as a faith and have to channel those impulses into something else--like politics.

SM, what's so weird about that, tho, is that by all the precepts of the new religion (helping the oppressed, human rights, gender-equality, non-violence, te cetera), the new religion has plopped itself down on exactly the wrong side of this war. The almost perverse silence on these issues would be astonishing if we weren't so used to it by now.

I can't help but feel that if USA could've maintained it's 2002-03 robustness (had the Dem 2004 presidential primary not gratuitously swung the party so far left that it could not come back), the jihad might well have by now slid back into remission.

When we should've been convincing the jihad we were serious, we've instead encouraged it that we're not.

It's a miracle--and a tribute to the armed services alone--that the war is going as well as it is, under such appalling political conditions.

Buddy your premise (actually your attribution of their premise) is just flat out wrong.

Those aren't the precepts of the new religion. The precepts are FEELING good about onesself and FEELING superior to everyone else.

They are "for" the oppressed cause the oppressed are so obviously inferior. Therefore the left can feel good about their own superiority. But this can also be said about the oppressors!! The left can feel good about their superiority over them as well!!

Since it's all about feelings they don't actually have to do a thing. They fight against those who expect them to put "their money where their mouth is", cause that's about doing, not about feeling.

Sad to say, you're probably right. It probably is overly generous to say that the hard left is wronger than it is lazy, when truth is, it's probably lazier than it is wrong. And that at least takes some doing.

That, and secular "religious" movements can get hijacked the same way real religions can (or even non-religious movements, for that matter). In a temperance movement, for every little old widow missing her husband that drank his liver away and wants other people to avoid the same, you'll find someone that likes the feeling of telling you what you can and can't drink.

Even today, some people are "liberal" primarily because they really care about other people. In the Democrats, most of them have already faced up to the fact that their party contains a lot of distinctly not liberal elements, and come to some kinds of terms with it--or they've carefully avoided that subject the same way that they avoid the reality of Islamic fascism.

The committed, little old lady faced with the power guy has three choices, really:

3. Keep telling herself it will get better all by itself, since obviously the movement is so important an all.

Too many choices Steven. I think 3. would cover most, if not all. Though Cindy S. would appear too be a 2. I suspect hardly any opt for 1. And in the end there are really only two choices for now. Independents have never done very well. They just throw things to one side or the other.

We seem cursed/blessed with the two party system. And it ain't we smuck's that make the decisions, it is those who desire power, who actually participate, grassroots and up, that decide who wears the crown. I'm guilty of not participating, I can't stand the smell.

BTW, Buddy, I'm not losing faith in the goals, but I am losing faith in either party directly confronting all that ail's us. We need an honest person that can join us. Impossible I know.

I agree. Don't know how much more of this rancor we can stand. We really really need to have a non-polarizing prez next election. Tall order.

Navyone.
You're fighting for something larger than yourself, and your own selfish interests. You're fortunate in that regard. God bless you and all the other people on your ship.

Luther,
i didn't stab you in the back. and I've never said anything disrespectful about you, your fellow servicemen, or OUR country. So, stop whining.

Steven,
"when your position is countered, don't lightly pull out the, 'any form of disagreement,' schtick...Other people, like you, give me the impression that they simply don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about."

I've tried repeatedly to engage you in debate, Steven, and the problem is YOU, not me. You "counter" with personal insults, and vague, indeciferable impressions. For instance, what the hell are you talking about when you refer to the "'any form of disagreement' schtick"? Anyone else reading this able to explain what Steven is talking about? It is your PREJUDICES against me, prejudices with no basis in fact, that make it impossible to engage in debate.

By all means, someone take over explaining to markus why blowing one's credibility in the past makes disagreement on this issue suspect. :)

I was going to post a few of your comments from your first visit to this blog on Memorial Day of 05. I'll do just one instead:

"Judging from the comments, I got a rise out of just the people I wanted to get a rise out of: those whose eyes are willfully shut."

Two years later and you are still up to your old tricks. Insultingly suggesting that only you have your eyes open, only you know which are the good wars or the bad wars. Only you have thoughts for the twenty year olds with their limbs blown off. How egotistical.

Pandering your political tropes on a thread such as this is disrespectful in and of itself. Disrespectful of me, present and former members of the military, and most especially, those have died in the service of this country. Whining indeed.

There are other days and other threads in which you could be proselytizing your agenda. But you just can't help yourself, you make a point of choosing this day instead of just leaving it be. As I said up thread:

Rudyard Kipling was 100 or so years ahead of you. Except that he didn't particularly have to go through a conversion to see what social benefits the Tommies conferred on civilization in general. But some of the English had gotten a little too comfortable with their situation, and like a lot of our goodthinkers of the left, didn't think much of their own military guys.

And I can't think of the title of the jingle RK wrote, but there are a couple of lines in it that are spot on with your post above:

What is the proper way to dissent while still remaining patriotic? Forget that stupid quote that my shipmate (John Kerry) tried to attribute to Thomas Jefferson, what really matters is this: how can we keep dialogue open on both sides while showing respect for the troops and our current status? I see this, obviously, as a dilemna mostly afflicting the Democrats.

That said I have absolutely no idea the solution to this challenge. My enlistment threw my family into a minor emotional chaos. I have some family members that became politely belligerent and began blaming George Bush's faults on me, irregardless of the fact I had never yet voted for a Republican when I had joined. (I have since remedied that blemish.) I have not spoken to one of my brothers since he caused a scene at my OCS graduation pre-planning. (It was over the phone, but still painful.)

Abu Gharib was brought up very pointedly at one dinner conversation. It was Thanksgiving (only a handful of posts on this blog and again I bringing up that holiday!) when I was still in training. Now that I have been operational for a couple of years, and more mature, I wish I had the opportunity to address Abu Gharib more explicitly. If one claims to support the troops while bringing up Abu Gharib, I would say, that person better know the 2 names of the Medal of Honor winners from this current war. (SFC Paul Smith, USA, and CPL Jason Dunham, USMC.)

My family has grown a lot in the last couple of years. It has been a good struggle, but I only have to see them once every two years or so. It is convenient to be deployed sometimes. I can sincerely point to members of my family who have grown along with me, and while they do not support the mission or its handling, they are very supportive of my role. Every family should have at least one person in the military at any one time. It lends an interesting dynamic.

But the question still remains, how does the Left show its patriotism while supporting us? I don't buy John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or Kerry for a second. There is a hilarious picture floating around of Hillary with a soldier, who is flashing the POW sign for coercion (middle finger) while smiling into the camera with her. (www.snopes.com) And I just read an essay on John Cary today written by a SEAL who called him a Blue Falcon. (The Blue stands for Buddy, guess what the Falcon stands for. . .) Joe Lieberman and one or two other Democrats are the few from that aisle who come across as genuine in their support. Of course, I don't speak for the whole military, just myself and maybe my small circle of friends.

Once I became a one issue voter, terrorism, I had no place with the Democrats. They had better wise up. They are not winning elections on their own accord, but on the failure of the Right. And the Right, like the South, will rise again, hopefully very soon.

Lastly, Markus thanks for your acknowledgement. I see there exists some unexploded and exploded ordinance among you and some other posters on this site, and I appreciate your comment regarding my service. However, it is not through sheer altruism that I serve. I don't want to die in another 9/11. And I like the fact that I don't have to pick out my clothes every morning.

I don't mind dissent at all. If it's honest. And that is a fine line I admit. Perhaps my history jades my view. Keep up your comments if possible.

I agree --well said, navyone. Re the topic of dissent, dissenters need to remember that our elections are polls, and that the only way to work things is to have elections and then support the results where foreign policy is concerned. Deviations from that base are fine, but these deviations should always proceed from that base, from a recognition that the nature of the project--that is, making policy alongside global allies--requires that it not turn on every whim will-nilly, that it proceed as a large ship (indeed the ship of state), and move slowly, surely, and without surprise antics.

Luther, I concur on the fine line of dissent. Take Sheehan's form of dissent, she grumbles about her country on a soapbox built upon her son's death. Has anyone interviewed friends of her son? I had the idea of tracking some of them down and seeing how Casey Sheehan felt about his mother and the war. If he saw his mother as a kook, then her "populist" dissent born on her son's back is all a sham. Same thing if he vehemently supported the mission. And everything points to the fact that he did. He was in not in an MOS (job field) that required him to be on the front lines every day. Yet, he volunteered for the duty that got him killed. I respect the son as an American hero and distrust the mother as an American fraud.

Buddy, you had me at "large ship." Any form of Navy analogy is bound to win me over, shipmate. I agree, the truest polls are elections, including the one in 2006. Are they perfectly honest? I doubt it, but I still highly trust them. Notice that just leading up to the election the loony Left was taking about the diabolic Diebold machines. Even the day of the election, there was talk of a conspiracy going on. And when the Left won, suddenly all that went away!

Ain't it the truth --makes you wonder about the honesty of the complaint, doesn't it--

Well navyone, it is a fine line. Sometimes it is only those who have walked that line that appreciate the factors involved. I don't like calling it that way, and maybe I'm wrong in doing so. But I think young Casey might have agreed with me, versus his Mom. Though it may have ripped his heart to do so. Maybe I'm going full circle on the 'chickenhawk' meme. I mean, naively, do I get extra points for experience? Its late, a bit much brandy, and watching UofA Women's Softball. IOW's distracted.

May we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

May 27, 2007: Confessions of a Chickenhawk on Memorial Day Weekend

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post