CJR's McLeary Responds

Yesterday, I received a response from Columbia Journalism Review's Paul McLeary who opined Friday that the milblog community "isn't brave enough to volunteer to serve in the military" like TNR's Scott Beauchamp.

Juliette,

I'm getting slammed with emails about this, but I want to answer
every one, because I think that it's important. Here's the email
that I sent to the Mudville Gazette milblog, who posted part of it
Sunday afternoon.:

I really walked into this one.

I actually spend a lot of time on milblogs. I was careless in my
choice of wording when I wrote the piece. What I meant was the
whole community of blogs that have sprung up in the same universe
as milblogs -- Hugh Hewitt, etc., who act tough about the war, but
have never served, and have never left the comforts of their
air-conditioned offices to see what might be going on in Iraq or
Afghanistan.

I've written a lot about milblogs, actually: Interviewed Matthew
Currier Burden for CJR, as well as a couple soldiers who were
blogging for the New York Times. I've also spoken to, and exchanged
emails with Yon and Bill Roggio and such, and I blogged the whole
time I was in Iraq back in '06, which doesn't make me a milblogger,
but hey, it's something, I guess.

Like I said, I really stepped in it because I didn't take the time
to clearly define what I was talking about.

Stepped in it? That's for sure.

It's nice that McLeary is taking the time to clean up his mess, but he might also want to take the time to read what many of us milbloggers think about using the "chickenhawk" epithet--as should a few commenters in the last post who responded to my use of the word.

UPDATE: McLeary may also want to note that Michelle Malkin--the main target of his original ire--and Bryan Preston have both "left the comforts of their
air-conditioned offices to see what might be going on in Iraq," as have many conservative/moderate civilian bloggers like Bill INDC and Michael Totten. Michael is there right now.

Comments

[Memomachine]

Hmmmm.

Frankly I'm not mollified.

To me something similar to Godwin's Law should apply to anyone using the "chickenhawk" meme. Especially journalists who often opine on subjects over which they have no adequate qualification.

[jaed]

I didn't take the time to clearly define what I was talking about.

He still hasn't clearly defined what he's talking about. This time, he seems to be saying that in "the whole universe" of blogs that discuss the war, not all the bloggers have actually fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and that therefore...

...well, that there's something illegitimate about discussing a war you yourself haven't fought in, or that you shouldn't support a war unless you're a veteran, or that you can't "act tough" until you've filed in a hard-hitting story from the bar of the Palestine Hotel. Or something.

He can't possibly be demanding that Hewitt enlist to show his bona fides, can he? Has he heard of eligibility requirements for the military?

[David]

I have never served but I have been under prolonged fire. I support the troops AND their mission. Am I a chickenhawk?

I have several friends in the navy that have never seen fire (even a 20 year Vet). Are they chickenhawks?

[baldilocks]

David: There's no such thing as a "chickenhawk" wrt to military service, which is why I use the word with sneer quotes. BTW, 21 years in the USAF/USAFR here and no fire.