Crush Liberalism

The "chickenhawk" argument by moonbats

We’ve seen that used here a few times, haven’t we, folks? The argument goes something like this: If you believe in any of the wars America is currently fighting, you must join the military. If you do not, you must shut up. If, on the other hand, you believe that America should disengage from all foreign wars, you may feel free not to serve in the military.

Moonbats now, all of a sudden, have a “love” for the military the way that an abused woman has a “love” for her shack-up drunk boyfriend. Ben Shapiro has an excellent, excellent column. Excerpt:

The media salivation over military mother Cindy Sheehan has renewed talk of a “chickenhawk” contingent controlling American foreign policy. According to the left, which has latched onto Sheehan more tightly than a barnacle latches onto a whale, the only people qualified to speak about American foreign policy are pacifists, military members who have served in combat and direct relatives of those slain in combat or in acts of terrorism. Everyone else must shut up.

(snip…)

Representative democracy requires people to vote on foreign policy, whether or not they have served in the military, just as it requires people to vote on police policy whether or not they have served on the police force. The Constitution grants the president power as commander in chief, whether or not he has served in the military, and grants Congress power over the purse strings, whether or not any member has served in the military. Our system is built on the foundational idea that all Americans have a common stake in defining foreign policy — foreign policy isn’t the exclusive domain of military members.

Funny how moonbats were OK with Clinton, who actively avoided military service and whose avoidance of said service elicited giggles from moonbats akin to teenage girls at a Justin Timberlake concert, being the Commander-in-Chief. Actually, how does the left really see the military, and vice versa?

Of course, despite their multitudinous statements about how military men and women know the costs of war best, the last thing in the world the left wants is for the military to control foreign policy. Despite the left’s implicit assumption that any soldier who sees live fire immediately transforms into Mahatma Gandhi, military members, by and large, are hawks. A Military Times poll in late 2003 showed that 57 percent of those surveyed considered themselves Republicans, and only 13 percent considered themselves Democrats. Among officers, the numbers were even more disparate: 66 percent Republican, and 9 percent Democrat. Certain Democrats in 2000 attempted to block the votes of thousands of military members in Florida. Despite all of John Kerry’s posturing, military members and their families trusted President Bush by a 69-24 margin, according to an October 2004 poll by National Annenberg Election Survey.

In truth, the left would regard military control of foreign policy as an unmitigated disaster. In the view of those like Michael Moore, the only good American soldiers are those who are unemployed or dead. … Dead American soldiers are good since they can be used as pawns by foreign policy doves: body bag pictures and grieving mothers — all of it undermines American morale and support for strong foreign policy. … The leftist claim that soldiers are victims means that they are boobs and ignoramuses, incapable of choosing a lifestyle that risks death in defense of American freedoms.

Implicitly, then, the “chickenhawk” argument rejects all options aside from civilian pacifist control of American foreign policy. If all soldiers are victims, too stupid or ignorant to make up their own minds about joining the military, how can we trust them with foreign policy? And according to the “chickenhawk” argument, civilian hawks cannot control foreign policy. The only ones left are complete pacifist loons like Michael Moore and Arianna Huffington. How convenient!

Part I of Shapiro’s “chickenhawk un-American” column is here. Best quote: “If they [American soldiers] fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.”

I guess I should stop cheering for the Jacksonville Jaguars. After all, I’ve never played for them.

August 24, 2005 - Posted by crushliberalism | Uncategorized