I don't think that's exactly what he's saying. He is remarking that for the lot of them, he isn't finding any veterans.

I'm not reading it that way. What I see is that there is a difference between supporting a war, and being a cheerleader for death and destruction. Too many of the latter have never been in combat and have never learned that rooting for war, even a "good" war, is not something you should ever do.

Yeah, it's like a Robert Heinlein novel, where only people who have been in the military are citizens, and only they are allowed to vote.

Thing is -- of all the military people currently in Iraq (add in the "contractors" too, while you're at it), don't the overwhelming majority of them support the continued occupation? Don't they want it to be even more bloody?

I wish it were otherwise.

We are not against anyone who did not serve having an opinion. It is only those who were IN FAVOR of the Vietnam and Iraq wars, were of the right age, had the ability to serve, and did not. They want someone else to take the ultimate risk that they were unwilling to accept. That's what makes my blood boil!

I think that the current situation is qualitatively different from the general scenario.

Here we have a bunch of pundits who blindly supported a war for which the decisions were made by the administration on flimsiest of grounds. At least now the pundits know that such was the case, and, despite this knowledge, their continued insistence, that we should stay the course or, worse, send even more troops, is sufficiently pernicious that it justifies O'Donnel's outrage and anger.

Agreed. It's a little too convenient when your opposition has to make a sacrifice to hold his position honestly, but you don't have to make a sacrifice to hold yours. Perhaps we should ask war opponents who demand that hawks enlist in the army to refuse to pay their taxes, and if necessary, go to jail for it. That at least would do something to end the war, and it would be an equivalent sacrifice to going to Iraq.

Disagree, Kevin. The essential point is that those with some "skin in the game," either their own or that of a loved one, are more apt to treat military ventures with respect rather than as a cool video game in which Other People die. Rangel is asking the war's remaining supporters (you know, all two of them) to put up--by showing up.

Sorry Kevin,

I think the acid-test for whether a war is justified and should be fough, is whether you are willing for you and your family to put thier lives on the line for a war. If not, then you should not advocate it.

War is not like anything else. People will die. Good people will die on both sides.

I'm with yep.

It's a little too convenient when your opposition has to make a sacrifice to hold his position honestly, but you don't have to make a sacrifice to hold yours.

That's a stupid argument. There is no equivalence between those who were right in the first place, and those who were wrong to begin with and yet continue to pontificate on the necessity for more of the same.

Kevin,

You have it right when you say:

"...But if non-veterans, by virtue of having never served, are denied the moral authority to advocate in favor of war, their views will quite rightfully be entirely marginalized. After all, why should anyone care what they think"

Which is why I didn't listen to you when you avocated for the Iraq war...get it...you don't crud on the subject...so keep quiet.

I think you are missing the point. The point isn't about not that veterans have a better say on these matters than non-veterans. He is saying that far too few people have "skin in the game." whether is be direct military service or a relative or a close personal friend who has had to endure the possibility of losing someone close to them. Far too many of the pundits and spinmeisters continue to shovel garbage to the public because they've never thought about the personal consequences. What Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Rangel are trying to do is ask, "What are you willing to sacrifice for this war?" You brother? a cousin? your neighbor down the street? People haven't been asking these questions.

You would have more of a point, Kev, if people who were in combat (Kerry, Murtha) were not actively denigrated as delusional because they disagreed with the chickenhawks.

In the current climate, somehow you are only allowed to have an opinion on this war if you didn't serve in any previous ones. That's the problem.

"Thing is -- of all the military people currently in Iraq (add in the "contractors" too, while you're at it), don't the overwhelming majority of them support the continued occupation? Don't they want it to be even more bloody?"

Huh? Evidence please. As a vet and the mom of a soldier in Iraq now, I can't say that is the case. Military people do what they're told, as long as we're talking about legal orders, what they feel in their hearts can be, well anything.

I'm with yep.

What Mr. O'Donnell and Mr. Rangel are trying to do is ask, "What are you willing to sacrifice for this war?" You brother? a cousin? your neighbor down the street?

Please draft my neighbor down the street. Not only does he refuse to return my lawn mower, but I would like the chance to screw his wife while he is in Iraq.

Kevin, you're seeing the point too narrowly.

The point is: Anything so profound as war should not be undertaken lightly.

And citizens will think about this hugely significant undertaking only if the entire nation has loved ones potentially at risk.

Just think how casually the US entered into this pre-emptive war. Would we have done that if there was a draft?

Well said, Kevin.

I cringe when I read "skin in the game" as my skin is a much loved 20 year old son. Yet it is so true. I live with a constant knot in my stomach and will continue to until the day he comes home. Chickenhawks disgust me.

O'Donnell's point is particularly valid because one of the main remaining arguments for us being in Iraq is a projected masculinity: "we have to stay because if we withdraw, we'll look weak, and the terrorists will have won". Well, Mr. Conservative Pundit, if you're so worried about "us" looking weak, get your sorry over to Iraq ASAP. This is the type of thinking that O'Donnell's words address specifically. More generally, his sentiment comes out of the frustration that there is no honest discussion of, let alone an answer to, the question "Why the hell are we in Iraq?" No one asked "Why the hell are we in Normandy?"

Even more than O'Donnell's point, I'd like to see someone give voice to this question: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

There's certainly a danger of a Heinlein-like situtation as described above: Only veterans can comment on foreign policy.

OTOH, specifically with regard to this situation, whether it's the Bush argument--We'll win if we stay the course--the McCain argument--we only need twenty thousand more troops--or the Freidman-Beltway consensus--we need to stay six more months and then make a decision--the logical response at this point to all three of these positions is: "Who's 'we'?" Or to paraphrase John Kerry back when he had, it seems, a better control of his own public speech:
Are you willing to be or have your son or daughter be the last American to die for George Bush's mistake?

The issue is one of sacrifice - if the ruling class is not going to sacrifice its children, it should be sacrificing some of its economic privileges.

Instead, we have a pundit class that both advocates a war that kills and maims a disproportional number of economically disadvantaged Americans AND advocates maintaining economic policies that reward the wealthiest.

This whole argument, beyond it's useful snark, is a reminder that in the contract between classes in capitalism, the poor are getting screwed both ways.

In my observation, most Democrat activists "reached the breaking point" long ago.

Tune in to Air America, listen to angry pundits like Lawrence O'Donnell, read the comments on this blog. These people are angry, intolerant, bitter.

Why have so many Democrats gone over the edge?

I understand your concern about putting soldiers too much on a pedestal and letting them dictate military policy. But I don't think that's at all the point of O'Donnell's piece. I believe O'Donnell's angry at the chickenhawks who are so determined to avoid paying the political price for blundering into Iraq that they don't care how many lives are lost or ruined in the process. O'Donnell may not be expressing it ideally, but I understand how he feels. This war seems to have largely been driven by people who wanted to talk and act tough, but who have generally avoided taking any physical risks themselves. I don't think serving in combat provides one with a special insight into whether we should go to war nor do I think avoiding war precludes one from knowing when to fight. But I do think recognizing the risks of war and the price one has to pay in a war is an important if not essential trait, and I don't think one has to have seen combat to have it. FDR and Lincoln, neither of whom served in combat, both seem to have had it while Bush and most of his chickenhawk allies don't seem to have it. If the pro-war advocates had understand the sacrifices better, they might have realized that Iraq wasn't worth it. Even now, they seem more interested in avoiding embarrassing themselves or tweaking their worldview than they are in the costs both our troops and the Iraqi citizens are paying.

Kevin: I'm not willing to leave decisions on the use of military force solely to combat veterans

That is not where this attitude leaves us. However, like anything else, putting your money where your mouth is adds to authenticity. People who actually take risks to stand for something, whether it is peace marches, or in the old days refusing to ride in the back of the bus and getting arrested, or getting hounded by dogs, gives force to the views you stand for in a way sitting in the stands does not.
This is particularly true if you are in favor of war when there is a need for soldiers. If you feel this war is the equivalent of fighting the nazis, by all means join up, my father did. If you feel it's like fighting communists in Vietnam, join up, I did.
This is especially true of someone who is so aggressive with other people lives as Bush. Our "Bring em on, stay the course, it's a test of wills" president had his on test of wills moment in his youth, and he decided to stay home and guard Texas. Sorry, Kev, but that counts against him. Especially since he so fervently displays his belief, even now, that the reason we lost Vietnam was lack of support at home.

Maybe I'm reading too much into O'Donnell's passage- isn't the point that if you have some 'skin in the game' you take things a bit more seriously and don't let dumbasses blow wind up your skirt about non existent WMD etc. Isn't his whole point that folks should take things like war a bit more seriously and it helps if a) you've actually seen combat, or b) you have a least a stitch of empathy and can imagine that war might not be the greatest thing evar! Maybe Kevin's being a tad obtuse (never!) and missing O'Donnell's point that if you're going to advocate war you should have some experience at a) combat or b) critical thinking.

I understand your concern about putting soldiers too much on a pedestal and letting them dictate military policy. But I don't think that's at all the point of O'Donnell's piece. I believe O'Donnell's angry at the chickenhawks who are so determined to avoid paying the political price for blundering into Iraq that they don't care how many lives are lost or ruined in the process. O'Donnell may not be expressing it ideally, but I understand how he feels. This war seems to have largely been driven by people who wanted to talk and act tough, but who have generally avoided taking any physical risks themselves. I don't think serving in combat provides one with a special insight into whether we should go to war nor do I think avoiding war precludes one from knowing when to fight. But I do think recognizing the risks of war and the price one has to pay in a war is an important if not essential trait, and I don't think one has to have seen combat to have it. FDR and Lincoln, neither of whom served in combat, both seem to have had it while Bush and most of his chickenhawk allies don't seem to have it. If the pro-war advocates had understand the sacrifices better, they might have realized that Iraq wasn't worth it. Even now, they seem more interested in avoiding embarrassing themselves or tweaking their worldview than they are in the costs both our troops and the Iraqi citizens are paying.

To follow on craigie, the question people don't ask is "what type of credibility do you have to have to advocate for peace, or at least against war?"

Clearly it is much manlier to be for war when you haven't served than it is to advocate peace ('cause then you are a non-veteran smelly hippy, so what could you know about war?).

Upshot is, no one, verterans or not, are taken seriously when they don't go all gaga about the newest way to have fun with our armed forces. This isn't about advocating war, it is about the absolute dearth of anyone who will be listened to when counseling against war.

The idea that advocating force in Iraq took some kind of mental or emotional toll on those who cheerleaded for it, regardless of their veteran status, is laughable.

Why have so many Democrats gone over the edge?

Most feeble troll of the day. You folks really aren't getting paid anymore, are you?

Seriously, if Kevin's interpretation of O'Donnell's writing is correct, O'Donnell is saying that he (O'Donnell) shouldn't have any say in matters of war. I don't think that's what he's saying.

The Return of the Son of the Sensible Liberal!

Just can't keep him under wraps for long, can ya, Kevin?

> Yeah, it's like a Robert Heinlein novel,
> where only people who have been in the
> military are citizens, and only they are
> allowed to vote.

I hate having to defend Heinlein, since I don't think he was a very good writer overall, but if you read that novel carefully you will realize that he wasn't _advocating_ that type of society, he was describing/analyzing it, and that even its inhabitants and proponents realized that it had some significant downsides. At that point in his life Heinlein was a professional writer of speculative fiction, and he was capable of (and did) arguing through ideas that he didn't necessarily believe in or advocate. In other words, he was more imaginative and reflective than any member of the Bush Administration I can think of. Later in his career was a different story...

Cranky

What pisses me off about the sacrifice meme is that if Bush would had the moral courage to have ASKED US, we Americans would have gladly sacrificed for this "war" - especially right after 911 - but he didn't - he told us to go shopping - oh and here's another tax cut you really don't need. It's shameful. World War II may have had the Greatest Generation - he have the most Craven one.

Only the service members and their families are making any sacrifice in this "war".

Anyway, back to the actual topic: the problem for me is that the chickenhawks don't just advocate (continuing) the war in Iraq. They also call anyone who disagrees with them a traitor (cf Joe Lieberman). I don't quite see how that line of arguement contributes to a civil democratic society; accusing others of "treason" while avoiding all military service oneself seems a bit problematic.

Cranky

Kevin, I understand and respect your point. FDR was one of our greatest wartime leaders without ever having served in combat. But the underlying problem is that our miliary is now as unrepresentative of our general population as it may ever have been. This is the core issue, really here.

This is an issue even the ancient Greeks grappled with. Thucydides put it this way: "A nation that continues to make distinctions between its fighting man and its thinking man will have its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."

And we certainly see the latter in our current government.

I am contibuting to the war effort in other more significant ways. Why do I have to put my life on the line?

Kevin, you are right—theoretically. But in practice we have a whole class of hypocrites preaching to the uninformed (and not even the uniformed). And I read O'Donnell as asking if we shouldn't demand more authenticity when the stakes are too high. Not a law about, but a rule of common sense.

For me I think the point of this argument is that too few of us have any stake in the Iraq war -- I'm not in the military, my son is not of military age, my taxes haven't been raised, I won't notice the national debt until our country goes belly up, we won't "lose" the war in the sense that our country will be invaded, the odds of terrorists killing me or my family are tiny, and there is no draft.

I don't want to cede debate about military affairs only to those who have served in the military. I want a say. But it sure is easy to advocate for a longer war when you have no real dog in the fight.

Agree wholeheartedly, Kevin! Based on the feedback you're receiving, I think you should be the next recipient of the Matt Yglesias award.

Many commenters here seem to be saying that unless you have a personal stake in the war ("direct military service or a relative or a close personal friend who has had to endure the possibility of losing someone close to them") you shouldn't advocate for it. So, by that logic, one shouldn't advocate for law enforcement unless one has a policeman for a relative or friend.

A few other commenters seem to be mindreaders of some sort who can determine that various pundits haven't thought things through. Buy a clue folks - don't read them and don't listen. Sheesh! When you don't like what's on TV do you change the channel or do you keep watching and cursing all night at the boob tube like a moron? Are your readers suggesting that these pundits have no right to free speech?

Still other commenters (still) don't seem to grasp the concept of a volunteer. They ask "what are these pundits willing to sacrifice - their brother, father, mother?" No guys, those are all volunteers, adults with the right to decide for themselves whether to serve. A pundit can't 'sacrifice' someone who has volunteered for military service by advocating for war. If I advocate for jailing murderers is it my fault when a policeman is killed by a fleeing suspect?

The chickenhawk charge has never been more pertinent than when it's levelled at Iraq war advocates. Maybe if it had been employed a little more frequently and strenuously, we wouldn't be mired in the Big Sandy. As it is, the only reason most of the chickenhawks are expressing regrets, now, is that their reputations are (justifiably) in the toilet, because it's no longer possible to divert attention from the scale of the disaster that they midwifed. Even so, lots of them still urge us on to further, bigger, more tragic adventures. Mr. Drum is flat wrong in this.

Oh, but then there's McCain, whose own personal convictions are expediently tucked away somewhere in a duffel bag in a bus-station locker. Still, if more veterans called him on it, he might be able to fish out the key.

I think one idea which should be considered is that the Rich have had tax breaks during the war, so it seems pretty reasonable to me that when the war has ended they should pay back those tax breaks to pay for the war. That might make them a little more thoughtful about going to war in the future.

A man has got to know his limitations.

how about a constitutional amendment that makes it a criminal activity to advocate for war until after you have enlisted.

SunBeltJerry,

The volunteer force is the frontline force, the first to go…we (the nation’s citizens) should be ready to go back them up…you know, because we are at war (if it’s "real")

A volunteer army is not supposed to be the private militia of America’s elite.

"It leads us to a place where [doctors] are put on a pedestal and anyone who hasn't [gone to medical school] is ipso facto less qualified to hold an opinion on issues of [medical treatment] than someone who has. Let's not go there."

Um, there is still such a thing as "subject matter expertise." Sure, regular people have unchallenged expertise in questions of how much they want their personal moral values compromised by their nation's actions, how much taxes they want to pay or how much they don't want their family members to be drafted as anyone else. No question.

That doesn't change the fact that soldiers will tend to have superior expertise over non-soldiers in most questions relating to their direct military experience, and one should always feel free to challenge the credentials of someone offering straight-up military advice who has not served.

In his appearance on Scarborough, LO explains that by having a draft, it makes the decision to go to war PERSONAL for every American, because then everyone is likely to have a family member who might go, and their connection to the war be more direct, and that this may give them pause to advocate ill-advised military ventures like the Iraqi invasion. He even notes that just having a draft number can color one's outlook.

It is his attempt to explain Charles Rangel's draft bill to folks who wish to oversimplify its meaning.

LO never said that non-veterans cannot make military decisions (and clearly stated such), and to represent so is strange perversion of his statements.

Thou dost protest too much, methinks.

The whole problem could be solved if a draft was required as a part of war preparation. Let's see how brave the chest beating, faux warrior class is if their numbers go into a bowl on the day war is declared.

There's a slightly different way to look at this point than the chickenhawk argument: We've got a President and his hordes of supporters saying that this is not only a war on terrorism but a war in which the stakes are civilization itself. How can anyone who really believes that not take part in the effort? It's like someone thinking, "If I don't finish this project, my boss will have my ass fired. . .eh, maybe I'll cut my three-hour lunch breaks down to two hours." I don't necessarily see Republican behavior as general hypocrisy, but it certainly is in this case, from the top all the way down.

> Still other commenters (still) don't seem
> to grasp the concept of a volunteer. They
> ask "what are these pundits willing to
> sacrifice - their brother, father, mother?"
> No guys, those are all volunteers, adults
> with the right to decide for themselves
> whether to serve.

Three words: "stop loss order".

Four more: "Uniform Code of Military Justice".

The "volunteers" argument was perhaps defensible for the 1st and 2nd tours. The military is now sending stop-lossed vets back for their **4th** tours. That is a horse of an entirely different hue.

Cranky

everyone in a democracy is entitled to a view and everyone is entitled to be taken seriously.

No. Not everybody in a democracy is entitled to be taken seriously. Just a vote, which will be taken seriously.

If you don't think about the people whom you're sending to their deaths, because nobody you know will be sent, there is no reason for America to take you seriously. You are not a serious person.

Nicely put, Drum. But you left out this gem in the passage you cited... "...say we can't leave even if we went there for the wrong reasons."

We either can or cannot leave now. Leaving now (as opposed to later) is either going to lead to good or bad results, compared with leaving later. But what does this decision have to do with the quality of the reasons for going in? Of course, nothing.

Dolberman is just about as empty as empty suits come, even by made-up-talking-head standards.

Kevin,

We hold holidays to honor and give credence to our ancestors who made a sacrifice. I see no holiday on my calendar for people who made no sacrifice.

You are in essence talking about equating the weight of opinion and quality of judgment. In this argumentation you offer, one considers the quality of judgement of pansy-*ss chickenhawks equal to that of veterans. I disagree.

One side has made a sacrifice and via that sacrifice likely has gained wisdom. The other side has made no sacrifice and thus has little or no widsom, IMHO.

Best,

D

SunBeltJerry handily spews out the Yellow Elephant talking points. You know the ones. The squishy white college republicans who think they serve their country better by going into middle management. They say stupid things like you don't have to be a cop to be for law enforcement, or you don't have to be Barry Bonds to root for a baseball team. All straw men arguments that they create and then argue against.

The whole issue is that they're a bunch of cowards who think war is like a game of XBox. And Jerry, YES, you DO have to be willing to risk your life in a war if you expect other people to risk theirs defending your sorry pathetic ass.

Also, re:

"FDR was one of our greatest wartime leaders without ever having served in combat."

I think even the most diehard soldiers I know give you a bye from the chickenhawk epithet if, you know, you previously happened to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy during a world war. Also if all four of your sons volunteered for and were decorated for bravery in World War Two. Sorry, but the current American civilian leadership simply isn't comparable to the man.

There's a difference between simply being a nonveteran and being someone who ran and hid from war. If I were O'Donnell, I'd qualify the statement by saying that anyone who ran and hid from Vietnam WHILE SUPPORTING THE WAR has no right to ever publicly advocate for any war. That said, I think it's perfectly okay to avoid a war you didn't support and then advocate for a different war. However, a dodger of any war should never be impugn an opponent's courage or patriotism for opposing a war.

There is a valid discussion of the sacrifice of Americans in the time of war - particularly at this time - that needs to be had. Having said that, the idea that a discussion of a draft - the involuntary taking of lifetime by the state of individuals based solely on a rather random age - is going to help that discussion is pretty ridiculous. There's a lot of freedom and liberty issues tied up into this that are kinda the point of the nation we are living in.

We shouldn't be involved in political gambits on this issue. We want to talk about fairness and sacrifice, fine. But let's quit talking about bringing up the draft. People in the 60s and the 70s fought long and hard to get rid of the draft because it fed the war-machine and churned out corpses. They succeed, and this is how we respond 40 years later... that's freakin' sad.

Kevin,

I'm with you on this one. Well said. One of the burdens of national leadership is that you have to be able to take an unemotional approach to the questions and decide what is best for the country, not your family, your financial interests, or anything else. I know it is very hard to do - that is why were supposed to elect highly qualified people of sterling character, not people who would be used car salesmen in Midland if their name wasn't Bush. There - I just offended all the used car salesmen in Midland.

If defending the country militarily is what is best, I don't want the president or congresspeople deciding against it because they have 'skin in the game', any more than I want them deciding for it because they have no 'skin in the game'.

I say that as someone who was for Afghanistan and against Iraq from the beginning. Can't we decide things on the merits, please?

From RSA:

There's a slightly different way to look at this point than the chickenhawk argument: We've got a President and his hordes of supporters saying that this is not only a war on terrorism but a war in which the stakes are civilization itself. How can anyone who really believes that not take part in the effort? It's like someone thinking, "If I don't finish this project, my boss will have my ass fired. . .eh, maybe I'll cut my three-hour lunch breaks down to two hours." I don't necessarily see Republican behavior as general hypocrisy, but it certainly is in this case, from the top all the way down.

- Exactly. These are the same type of folks who protest at Planned Parenthood, but only on Saturdays. Their actions show this belief: I want to stop the wholesale slaughter of babies, as long as it doesn't interfere with my career.

Nice point RSA.

Bruce R - I couldn't agree with you more on your points, but you misrepresent my points. While FDR was indeed Ass't Sec. Navy, he never served in combat - yet was still one of our greatest, and IMHO, the greatest statesman of the century. (He did witness the ravages of WWI in his position at Navy.) And, yes, all four of his sons served in WWII (in stark contrast to GHWB's sons), and none of Roosevelt's sons could even make it to his funeral. And think of Bush as the "anti-FDR" on just about every level. My concern is to label someone who did not serve in combat as unqualified on military affairs is a bad thing.

Look, fools. We already HAD a draft in this country. It didn't work all that well in the 60s and 70s, and it would work even less well today.

Draft militaries worked in WWI and II and earlier eras where there was much less technology involved in war fighting. Draft armies, today, are for countries that never ever expect to fight. When countries that DO have draft armies today send soldiers out, they only select elite "rangers" style forces that are NOT draftees. Draftees are good for "home guard" type duties and as cannon fodder, NOT for serious use in a modern war.

To scrap our best-of-breed military today for an inferior version just to score a silly political point against Iraq war supporters would be monumentally stupid.

People who advocate such things are frivolous people and should not be taken seriously.

Kevin: It leads to a place where military veterans are put on a pedestal and anyone who hasn't served is ipso facto less qualified to hold an opinion on isssues of war and peace than someone who has.

As Zandru pointed out, this is reminiscent of Heinlein's suggestion in Starship Troopers that only military veterans should vote.

Cranky Observer: but if you read that novel carefully you will realize that he wasn't _advocating_ that type of society, he was describing/analyzing it, and that even its inhabitants and proponents realized that it had some significant downsides. ...Later in his career was a different story...

Yes, later he suggested that voting machines make people solve a random quadratic equation before allowing them to vote.

People who advocate such things are frivolous people and should not be taken seriously.

Posted by: reina on November 22, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

S/he wrote frivolously.

Fuckwillie: "The whole issue is that they're a bunch of cowards who think war is like a game of XBox. And Jerry, YES, you DO have to be willing to risk your life in a war if you expect other people to risk theirs defending your sorry pathetic ass."

Actually, dumbshit, you don't. You just have to pay them.

I know it's hard for you to understand, but try to wrap your head around it.

Reina:

Draftees are good for "home guard" type duties and as cannon fodder, NOT for serious use in a modern war.

Tell me how this is different from the current staus of our ground troops in Iraq. Caught in the midst of a Civil War, they have become little more than "home guards" and "cannon fodder" thanks to the Chickenhawks (Bush, et al.)

SunBeltJerry,

Well said.

Kevin is right - the "chickenhawk" argument is moronic. So is O'donnell.

Wait a freaking minute. Are O'Donnell and Rangel of drafting age? They're not? And advocating something that will not be directly affecting them? CHICKENDRAFTERS!!!!!!

Look, fools. We already HAD a draft in this country. It didn't work all that well in the 60s and 70s, and it would work even less well today.

Forget a draft. How many kids of our policy elites and their neighbors have enlisted as volunteers? If this policy is so goddamned important to those elites, why isn't the answer "all of them"?

During Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow, when you are sitting with family and friends, survey support for Bush's War and challenge anyone who thinks the US needs to stay in Iraq to enlist or encourage their children or grandchildren to enlist.

Anyone who wants the US to stay in Iraq also wants your children or grandchildren to serve in Bush's War.

Note to Nikkolai:

Rangel served. Classic tactic of chickenhawks smearing those who fought. Way to support the troops!!

Nice try jo-duh but no. People who support a war have a duty to enlist to fight in them.

I should think that a decent human being, having never served in the armed forces (and thus having never risked himself/herself in war), would have to think very hard about asking others to make that sacrifice. As a vet I once spoke to said, setting out to use violence against other human beings is one of the most serious things anyone can ever do.

What I find disgusting in the chickenhawks is a lack of any such seriousness or hard thought in supporting wars. Instead they act as if the decision to support the war is so easy and self-evident that they ridicule anyone who doesn't agree with it. People who would start a war with so little thought are the last people to ask an opinion of about war in general.

Remember the image of Bush pumping his fist when the troops went in? A sign of how utterly unqualified he was to make the decisions he made. And a portent of the fiasco to come.

I'm not saying that only a military veteran is qualified to have an opinion on war. But I am saying that non-veterans who advocate for wars ought to demonstrate they have some grasp of the enormity of what they are doing. And non-veterans who've never met a war they didn't want someone else to fight for them (cough William Kristol cough) ought to have no credibility at all.

When rich Republican men and women start acting on their beliefs instead of leeching off the work and dead bodies of everyone else in the this country, we will shut up about Yellow Elephants and the like.

It's not likely to happen. The Example-in-Chief is the king of the draft dodgers. He managed the unlikely feat of being BOTH a draft dodger AND a deserter. That sort of talent sets the standard of irresponsibility pretty high. It's no wonder that young Republicans run from service so eagerly.

It ain't that complicated. It's about duty.

Why have so many Democrats gone over the edge?

Hmm. Let's see. Could it be that smug, arrogant fuckwads without a trace of compassion or conscience have been driving our country into a ditch? And the mainstream sources of communication in the country are dominated by the same sick sociopaths? Just a suggestion, dickhead.

I agree with everyone who disagrees with Kevin.

I served, in Iraq and returned last September.

All, excellent, cogent arguments.

The chickenhawks disgust me because--and this a "minor" disagreement, Katherine--is they are jingoists who REFUSED to serve, not simply didn't." Cheney(5 deferments), Ashcroft (7 "deferments!) Bill O'Reilly, Steve Hadley, Paul Wolfowitz, Feith, Scooter Libby, Hastert, Ellito Abrams, Ken Adelman, Bill Kristol, Lott, DeLay, George Allen, Britt Hume--the list is long.

Ken Adelman for instance, called for invading Syria next. Max Boot, who thinks the U.S. should embrace it imperial imperatives, (he probably too young for 'nam, but the "Evil Empire" still existed when he was draft age, why didn't he enlist? hell, Boot was born in the Soviet Union! Are they suiting up or getting their kids ready for that invasion? (BTW, Boot is sooo wa of on that imperial b.s. Though the U.S. could argubaly be called a former colonial power, colonialism is not, generally speaking, in the American character. Keeping possesions after the Spanish-American War was a hotly debated topic. Second, isolationist sentiment has been broadly supported since our founding. When you see or read interviews of American service members "do the job and go home" is a common sentiment.)

Why should real men and women have to die or be maimed and disfigured so these chicken shit pussies can feel like men? Don't those pussies feel it is the least bit immoral to support an aggresive war policy, yet assidously shield themselve from risk of harm.

They couldn't care less for the troops, despite the peans they sing to them. Not only hasn't the country been asked to sacrifice (oh, yeah--Dubya's advice: go shopping; wait, that was for the legitimate war and hunt for Bin Laden, a 6'8" Arab, hooked up to a dialysis machine; maybe we can't find him because we deployed FEWER troops to Afhganistan than are in the NYPD--but Dubya had to save troops for his oedipal, vendetta, revenge war aginst Saddam). Even the Pentagon isn't on a war footing. Don't expect the companines that are "up armoring" Humvees to do it around the clock, because Rumsfeld won't approve funds for the overtime costs.

He saying that if you are able bodied and so goddamned scared, then you should pick up a gun or stfu.

I have no problem with that point of view.

We know a guy who really loves to eat meat. But he never worked at a slaughterhouse. So now we taunt him with chants of CHICKENCARNIVORE!!! when he orders a cheeseburger.

People who advocate such things are frivolous people and should not be taken seriously.

Reina, I suggest you should join the military to help out the noble cause in Iraq. No, seriously. You are clearly an unfrivolous person who should be taken seriously, and, that being the case, you should be in Iraq putting your goddamn life where your mouth is.

No, Nikkolai, the analogy would be if your carnivore friend advocated other people turning into chickens in a slaughterhouse. How far did you get in school? No reason. Just askin'.

Such venom! Such rage!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

There are lots of ways for these chickenhawks to serve in which they would never see the front line. But they are willing to take NO sacrifices, not personal injury, nor personal wealth.

For the pundits, serving in Iraq would take away from their on-air time.

They incite the country on to a failing losing war. They profit in the meantime. That is cowardice and war profiteering. It's borderline treason.

“The volunteer force is the frontline force, the first to go…we (the nation’s citizens) should be ready to go back them up…you know, because we are at war (if it’s "real"). A volunteer army is not supposed to be the private militia of America’s elite."

Okay, and your point is … ? You don’t want pundits to advocate for war because sometimes the President and Congress screw up? Did that make sense when you wrote it in that other dimension you live in?

“The "volunteers" argument was perhaps defensible for the 1st and 2nd tours. The military is now sending stop-lossed vets back for their **4th** tours. That is a horse of an entirely different hue.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but my understanding is that all volunteers are required to be ready to serve (stop loss orders) for a certain period of time after their active duty is complete. They agree to this voluntarily when they sign up.

“The whole issue is that they're a bunch of cowards who think war is like a game of XBox. And Jerry, YES, you DO have to be willing to risk your life in a war if you expect other people to risk theirs defending your sorry pathetic ass.”

No you don’t. Did I miss something in Civics class?

I guess you think that American citizens who are Quakers, Jehovah’s witnesses, draft dodgers, or other conscientious objectors don’t deserve to be defended because they aren’t willing to fight for moral reasons.

Your logic is -- what's the word? -- astounding. What you are suggesting above is that if the draft is reinstated that anyone who dodges the draft doesn't deserve the protections guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

The funny thing about liberals and pacifists arguing that only veterans or people who are actually in the military should get to decide questions of war or peace is that it would almost certainly lead to more wars. People who are in the military tend to be just a tad more hawkish on matters of war than the average "Political Animal" poster.

In any case, the poster above who pointed out that draftees do not belong in a modern war was completely correct. It's a function of the equipment involved, the technology, the skills required. Our soldiers have years of training and a very high degree of skill for a reason. Their jobs require training and experience that would be impossible to provide to a draftee army (impossible or hopelessly uneconomical). That's why a professional army is the only possible choice for us.

And anyone advocating a draftee army is just not serious.

The reason the draft didn't work in the 60s but did in the 40s was fairness: That 2S deferrment (college) made the Vietnam War possible. That did not exist during WWII - Joe Kennedy's sons served (with Joe Jr being killed), all of FDR's sons served, etc. So a draft once worked extremely well - couldn't have won WWII without it.

nikkolai touches on the other aspect of it too. By most counts, the Army, Guard and Reserve need MORE people. Right now the US Treasury is being spent on contractors doing the same job as our soldiers but for many many more times the cost. There are concerns amongst the top generals that the army is breaking and cannot sustain this level of effort.

We are at war and don't have the luxury of having able bodied pundits such as yourself shooting only their mouth off. Pick up a gun, nikkolai. http://goarmy.com

We have another friend who truly is a fan of crime-fighting. He appreciates the efforts of law enforcement individuals and supports their goals. Yet he never was a law officer. So, Friday nights around the keg he must endure taunts of CHICKENCOP!!!!!

so tell us kevin, if you had a health problem, would you get an opinion from an accountant?

Maybe when it comes to committing people to ventures that entail very high risk to their health and safety, and a very high likelihood that they and innicent civilians may be killed or severely maimed, maybe, just maybe we SHOULD GO THERE, deferring to those who have actually been in that situation before venturing in. Actually have a seat at the head of the table for people who know what the costs in suffering and destruction are, and what the potential is for acheiving the objectives - YOU TRIVIALIZING TWIT!

We use experts in every other thing we do, but when it comes to war...WAR, the ultimate man-made catastrophe in death and destruction, any old shitbob gets a say, and everyone can be an expert, not for any particular reason other than they have an opinion. Cive someone a microphone or space in an opinion page and suddenly they're experts, qualified to send people to their death.

And what defines an expert? Certainly advanced studies is one thing. But in all other cases, experience is also a NECESSARY ingredient for being declared an "expert". So tell us why it is kevin, that we "shouldn't go there', requiring the same criteria when it comes to fucking people over and destroying their societal institutions?

Nikkolai is 0 for 2:

We know a guy who really loves to eat meat. But he never worked at a slaughterhouse. So now we taunt him with chants of CHICKENCARNIVORE!!! when he orders a cheeseburger

This analogy is so inept it can't even be corrected. It does, however, manifest Nikkolai's desire to trivialize war and combat as if it were all a simple rask. Another classic chickenhawk strategy.

I don't recall seeing too many Quakers, Jehovah’s witnesses, draft dodgers, or other conscientious objectors on Hardball advocating for this war.

There's a phrase that describes warhawks that won't pick up a gun, but it's not conscientious objector.

If you are a CO, then fine. If you are an able bodied war hawk, then yeah, pick up a gun.

Kevin, you're just trying to make excuses for your own support of the war. I'm surprised you're not doing a puff piece about Richard Cohen's column along the same lines.

Any intelligent, informed person should have easily figured out that the invasion was a mistake from the time it was first being planned. It was perfectly obvious to me, and you are rightly ashamed of the fact that you're one of the "centrists" who didn't see it.

Let us extend the point still further. Only those who would actually pay higher taxes can advocate any tax rise. Only those who drive can vote on highway bills. Only those who are manufacturers can vote on tariffs.

Cecee:

The funny thing about liberals and pacifists arguing that only veterans or people who are actually in the military should get to decide questions of war or peace...

Nobody, not even LO is advocating this. This is the type of straw-man oversimplification that keeps your comment from having any serious weight or meaning.

Agreed with Cecee. If you're seriously arguing that military adventures should be determined by the military, you're going to get a lot of "oh, by the way, we're now at war, send supplies so we can hold down the territory we just conquered! Thanks!" messages from the territory of formerly peaceful neighbors. Just look at Japanese pre-war history!

Kudos to Kevin. I'll second the Yglesias award nomination. ;p

And anyone advocating a draftee army is just not serious.

I can only say to you what I said to your predecessor. You, as a serious person who says serious things, should act seriously on those statements. Translation: Go join the Corps. Get serious. Or STFU.

Try again SunBelt. It's a shame you're not willing to work your "logic" a little closer to the Tigris. But you already put a yellow ribbon magnet on your car, and type 40 words per minute, so I guess you think your "patriotism" is covered.

Never mind the freedom of speach thing, then. Right? The Stalinists have spoken. Those opposed will be purged.

Nikkolai: 0 for 4 and missing the mark farther each time.

Never mind the freedom of speach (sic) thing, then. Right? The Stalinists have spoken. Those opposed will be purged.

No one, even in this thread, has advocated repealing the first amendment. That argument's reserved for the chickenhawks who call their detractors "terrorists" and should have their rights suspended. Ahhh, Foley-esque projection. Gotta love it.

"I guess you think that American citizens who are Quakers. . ."

I don't have any problems defending Quakers or others who are pacificst from moral or religous reasons. But Cheney ("other priorities) and DeLay (went doen to the draft board and all the spots were taken by minorities; do you really believe that?), Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Britt Hume, etc., supported the Vietnam war and martial service generally. So what was stopping them?

Christopher Shays was a "conscientious objector" during Vietnam, but supports the Bush war of choice policy. Shays was also short on criticism until he was in danger of losing his house seat. Did Shays thinking "evolve" after the coast was clear? Would you want to DIE, or risk your childrn's lives for someone who was against war only to save his ass. I respect the views of conscientious objectors. Some even served in WWII (usally as unarmed, medics or corpsmen), and I think a few served in Korea and Vietnam. One should think Shays has never met a justification for war that he supports. But like the jingoist draft-dodger/combat avoiders, he's all for it as long as someone else will make the sacrafices.

If Al Gore, Ralph Nader (yes. Ralph Nader!), Victor Navasky (of the lefty "The Nation" magazine). Mike Dukakis, Ted Kennedy, Mike Dukakais, Sandy Berger, Herik Hertzberg ("The New Yorker"), George McGovertn (WWII) and a host of moderate and left, left, left, liberals served on active duty or in the gaurd and reserve, is it too much to expect Wolfowitz, Hadley, Feith, Andy Card, Bill O'Reilly, Britt Hume, Ken Adelman, john fraking Wayne (in contrast to McGovern)et al, NOT to have obtained draft deferments?

Kevin, an old sf reader like yourself should recognize this from Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie). There, Heinlein creates a world where only veterans have the right to vote. And they only obtain the franchise after completing their service and a return to civilian life; those currently serving or careerists do not get to vote.

I am not positive I advocate this type of society but there are appealing aspects to it. You restrict the right to vote to those who are willing to risk their lives for the society. You guarantee civil rights to all, but restrict the franchise to those willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. And by restricting the franchise to those who have returned to civilian life, you safeguard against the current military taking power.

DaveL,

It's typical, that warmongering chicken hawks compare war to traffic violations and tax evasion.

Our soldiers have years of training and a very high degree of skill for a reason.

What the frig are you talking about girlie?

The people they are sending, since it isn't themselves or their relatives, are getting to be, shall we say, less than qualified. We've heard of the guys who didn't complete high school being helped to forge docs and such. Here's a new one.

A guy I know of joined the National Guard some time ago. A year ago he was rejected for service in Iraq because he has a heart murmur. Recently, with just a week to go before final discharge from the Guard, he was informed that he going to be sent over after all. Another 2 years of service.

Increasing desperation by the DoD. Hey, war supporters, sign up so guys with a heart murmur won't have to go and try to survive in 130F heat.

I served. But so what? What extra weight does that give my opinons here? FWIW, I think that when Nancy Pelosi told Rangel, in not very veiled terms, to shut the fuck up about the draft, that that was a very good call. It's just a dumb idea. And the fact that Rangel served in the military doesn't make it any less dumb.

Normally, I don't even say that I served (Navy) on discussion-boards like this because why bother? Even for real-live politicians to claim or even infer that their opinions carry more weight "because they served" is stupid. But for a blog poster? [Like "Allen" above who claims that he served and is ranting about "chickenhawks" -- oh yea? Prove it.] For an anonymous poster on some internet board to claim he served and merits special consideration because of it is the pinnacle of dumb.

I'm not willing to leave decisions on the use of military force solely to combat veterans, but that's where this sentiment leads us. It leads to a place where military veterans are put on a pedestal and anyone who hasn't served is ipso facto less qualified to hold an opinion on isssues of war and peace than someone who has. Let's not go there.

The ultimate conclusion you propose is not plausible, Kevin. With such a tiny percentage of politicians being combat veterans now (about 1 in 4, down from 80% in the mid-Sixties), there's no way the combat veterans' opinions will preclude all others.

However, we've come incredibly close to the opposite, where the never-seen-combats have made terrible decisions, over the objections of military commanders from the outset.

Unlike you, I'd be willing to go to the opposite extreme. I'd be willing to marginalize MOST of the so-called chickenhawks and weigh the results.

You may be right. And at my core, I advocate everyone having a say. But I'd be willing to try both ends and the middle, to see where the smartest foreign policy results.

Effectiveness should be our pursuit, not theories based on our beliefs. So long as hundreds of thousands can be killed and millions displaced, for dubious reasons and consequences that resound with failure, then the current way our government functions is disastrous instead of effective.

And I'd be willing to try any route, short of surrendering democracy, to figure out how to weight opinions more effectively. I should think our basic humanity should always favor innovation when the present results are so bloody and potentially perilous for years to come.

A guy I know of joined the National Guard some time ago. A year ago he was rejected for service in Iraq because he has a heart murmur. Recently, with just a week to go before final discharge from the Guard, he was informed that he going to be sent over after all. Another 2 years of service.

Good thing they can't reverse your 4F if you got an ass pimple.

The all volunteer army was another tragedy of the commons given to us by Milton Fuckman, the SOB that hated government but greatly respected individuals to do the right thing.

And we see where that has led us. A government and media of rich, corrupt bastards.

Senator McCain knows about the consequences of war, yet he still not only advocates for it in Iraq, he wants to send more of our children and grandchildren to fight in Bush's War.

Veterans are just as capable of being as wrong as chickenhawks.

But this attitude is still pernicious. When nations decide whether to go to war — or whether to continue an existing war — everyone in a democracy is entitled to a view and everyone is entitled to be taken seriously. But if non-veterans, by virtue of having never served, are denied the moral authority to advocate in favor of war, their views will quite rightfully be entirely marginalized.

He isn't saying that people who aren't veterans don't have a right to an opinion, he is saying that it is especially cowardly for people who have themselves actively avoided service in a time of national need to advocate for a continuation of conflict while admitting that combat was engaged in for the wrong reasons.

That being said, going beyond O'Donnell's argument to one more related to the comment you make that somewhat misses the point of O'Donnell's argument, while I agree, of course, that everyone has a right to an opinion in a democracy, I also believe that there is a certain dangerously insulating disconnect created by the modern design of the US military, specifically, its design to fight wars relying on professional soldiers without mobilizing the universal militia. Under the kind of system that the US had in practice from its founding through about the Korean War, a citizen advocating war knew that he was likely to be called upon to support that war in some way. Under the modern system, the average citizen is likely to believe that war will not touch them, which makes it much easier to advocate for war without considering whether the cause really necessitates war, as it there is little personal risk and those that take the risk are, after all, in the risk-taking profession. So its easier to get into ill-conceived wars this way.

This is not an easy problem, because simply requiring a universal draft won't change that modern war demands professionals. We're going to have to learn to make things work with this reality, but it is a dangerous reality that cannot be ignored safely.

MaxGowan, my point is that someone who did not serve in combat (or at least served in a military) is ipso facto "unqualified on military affairs", unless they have demonstrable and commensurate knowledge and experience. FDR's eight years as AsstSec counts as commensurate.

FDR's support for his sons' military endeavours (and they for his) shows his personal commitment to the cause, which should be rightly a separate issue. Some pundits and leaders lack a personal commitment to soldiers' lives, some lack relevant experience to understand them, and the very worst (of which there are alarmingly many, these days) lack both.

toles: Thanks for your service to our country, and your very reasoned opinion here.

Definition of Irony: Chickenhawk Nikkolai only respects the opinion of someone who mentioned that they served.

Kevin misses the point of origin for O'Donnel's remarks. This argument originated on a Sacrborough show where a panel was trying to trash Rangel for discussing why a draft is a moral obligation

Hey, I got it. Let's talk about invading IRAN instead? Iraq is getting boring. Let's start bombing Iran. We can't wait for their nukes to be ready. I say we just bomb them to pieces now, before it's too late. If we do it right, there might not even BE an Iran after we're done, just a tiny Persian rump-state and lots of little 'stans as breakaway republics. How cool would that be?

The truly great thing about this plan, though, is that it doesn't require us to worry about who served or who didn't when deciding on its merits. From the air there is, like, zero risk to our pilots anyway. So we can just bomb away.

I think this is a very reasonable proposal.

RSA's point above is important and worth reiterating.

To me a "chickenhawk" is not merely someone who advocates military action but refuses to serve. More precisely - and this distinction is important - it is someone who insists that the very survival of his society depends on the outcome of the conflict, but who still rationalizes away his own need to sign up.

In a "war of choice," so to speak, one can advocate military action and not personally serve, without being a hypocrite. But in the "War on Terror," the true chickenhawks are those who argue that the very survival of Western civilization is at stake, and who are themselves physically capable of serving, but still do not. Those are the people who deserve scorn. And those are the people truly deserving of the label chickenhawk.

"No one, even in this thread, has advocated repealing the first amendment."

They probably just didn't realize that when you tell a whole set of people that they should just shut up that you are, in effect, advocating for the repeal of the first amendment.

In fact, here's one who expressly did:

“How about a constitutional amendment that makes it a criminal activity to advocate for war until after you have enlisted.”

Many others are merely advocating censorship:

“Too many of the latter have never been in combat and have never learned that rooting for war, even a "good" war, is not something you should ever do.”

“I think the acid-test for whether a war is justified and should be fough, is whether you are willing for you and your family to put thier lives on the line for a war. If not, then you should not advocate it.”

“How about a constitutional amendment that makes it a criminal activity to advocate for war until after you have enlisted.” (That one is just too good - had to reprint)

“However, a dodger of any war should never be impugn an opponent's courage or patriotism for opposing a war.”