Recycled Weapons

Everything old is new again; at least when it concerns rhetorical weapons used by the Left. The latest old-new weapon is the chickenhawk appellation, revived by the reported monthly shortfalls in Army recruiting (June was a success, however).

Many on the right have eloquently torched the silly chickenhawk concept. To believe in the logic that one must serve/have served in the military to legitimize his/her support for military action, one must also believe that, in order to support any endeavor, one has to be willing to do it himself.

Remember that logic the next time you’re eating anything that has to be picked or slaughtered.

Anyhow, here is some good commentary on the chickenhawk concept.

Blackfive:

I'm getting real tired of the whole "Chickenhawk" theme running through the left blogosphere. It's use by the left is to attempt to silence debate - i.e. you can't be for the War on Terror unless you or your children are enlisting in the war. Being a Soldier does not make my opinion about the war more valid than anyone else's opinion - even if they never served in the military, let alone combat.

Jeff Goldstein:

But what is unreasonable—and what is at the heart of the chickenhawk argument—is the suggestion that there is only a single way to “sacrifice” and “advocate”—namely, by picking up a rifle. Which is like saying the only way to fight homelessness is to let a few vagrants camp out in your rumpus room. Otherwise, you’re nothing more than a ChickenANTI-HOMELESSNESShawk.

Marc Danziger (Armed Liberal):

Think of it in terms of a 'community of interest groups,' rather than 'a community' and find the parallel arguments:
• No one who could be and isn't serving should speak out on Iraq;
• No one except women of child-bearing age should speak out on abortion;
• No one who isn't poor should speak out on welfare;
• No one who isn't in school should speak out on education;
• No one who isn't (I can't decide on this one between 'a criminal' and 'a victim of crime') should speak out on criminal justice.

Of course we know what the firing-up of the chickenhawk M-16 really is about: an attempt to shame war supporters into shutting up. It’s a weak attempt, but you have to admire the tenaciousness, no?

That other old weapon is far more dangerous: the calls for re-institution of the draft. As we know, last year the congressional Democrats drew up draft legislation and the Republicans shot it down like the rabid dog that it was. The reported Army recruiting shortfalls in recruiting have some anti-war types talking about it again, however.

It seems strange that some on the Left want to talk about the draft as an antidote to recruiting woes, doesn’t it? That is, until you realize that the re-institution of the draft would hasten the Vietnam narrative of the Iraq War that the anti-war Left so desperately wants to be true. The draft would make the victory two-pronged: both the military and civilians would hate the draft and be demoralized by it. So, the anti-war Left hopes that the results would flow there from: protests with more violence (as was so in the sixties and in the early seventies) and the dilution of military effectiveness (the result of having a large number of personnel who do not want to serve, but prefer it to going to Canada or to prison).

So when you hear calls of ‘chickenhawk’ or calls for the draft, recognize them for what they are: the brandishing of weapons aimed toward a singular target.

The anti-war Left wants America to lose.