In response to some of the angry commentary to my post on the chickenhawk slur, Reader DebK offered a comment that I thought was so good I republish it on our front page (with her permission):
Please stop this ridiculous argument. I served for 8 years, my husband is currently active duty and if I didn’t have 2 kids under the age of 5 I would sign up today to serve again. This chickenhawk accusation is completely illogical. Let me just say this – I’ll denounce all those who support the war but haven’t signed up to serve when those who keep throwing out the chickenhawk accusation denounce all those who attack the war and the military (and YES they do attack the military …) and who have never served themselves. (What could they possibly know about war when they themselves have never served, right??) Guess that would mean denouncing Michael Moore, most of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the vast majority of anti-war activists, and perhaps some of the chickenhawk accusers on this blog!
If you accusers were genuinely concerned for the troops overseas, you’d spend some time learning how they think and what they think about this war. What you would find is that, though many in the military may have criticisms about specific aspects of how the actual operations on the ground have been run, the vast majority of them support what we are doing in Iraq, recognize the inherent morality of the mission, and would serve again. My husband is a perfect example. He served for 7 months and moved on to a different command. He has a lot of issues with specific items related to how the war has been run, but he will go back to Iraq in a heartbeat if the opportunity arises again. If people in the military don’t mind that people who haven’t served and aren’t planning on serving still support the war, why do you anti-war folks spend so much time and energy squawking about it! Get over it and start using your brains to really think about the issues at hand. If you don’t like the war, fine – come up with a better way to handle the foreign policy issues of the day. But spare all of us the sad chickenhawk accusations. Please.
In a private e-mail to me (& reproduced with her permission), she added:
The sad thing is that those folks [i.e., those who use the chickenhawk slur] (by the way, I truly believe it is just a vocal minority of the left) simply can’t believe that anyone would be willing to risk their life for their country, or for a cause greater than themselves. Cliché yes, but still the truth.
Here’s the deal. Plain and simple.
The liberals hate the military. HATE.
They know it. We know it.
But they don’t want you to know it. You’re not supposed to be smart enough to figure them out.
It’s inexcusable. It’s indefensible.
The only way they can deal is by throwing around the chickenhawk slur and as usual, facts and reason be damned.
Rule #1 when dealing with liberals:
If they start poining fingers and accusing Republicans/Conservatives of something, it’s wise to look in the opposite direction of where they’re pointing.
That’s all there is to it.
The majority of the chickenhawk slurs I’ve seen have been against these high profile GOP leaders and their media talking heads who themselves not only didn’t go to war, but went through ridiculous machinations to get out of it. We have Cheney with his serial degrees, marriage and a child, who said in retropsect that he didn’t go because he had better things to do. We can then go to Limbaugh with his butt boil that made it impossible to be drafted even into the air force apparently. The list really goes on and on. These are the people were not only rah rah about going to this war but were also just as outspoken, albeit with none of the stature they now have, about the U.S. staying in the same war they were fighting tooth and nail to get out of. That is a chickenhawk, plain and simple.
I’m sure you can find cases of lefties using the description on Republicans who are pro-war and who haven’t served in the military. As another article on this blog pointed out earlier, that is as silly as saying that someone is a fireman-chickenhawk because they advocate having a fire department but won’t join it. At the same time, I wonder why there isn’t as much commotion on the right when we find out that they are still having body armor problems to this day, or that the GOP budgets both from the White House and the Congressional leadership failed to fully fund the VA hospitals that are creaking under the strain of their new influx of soldiers. To extend our fireman analogy, that’s like saying you are supposedly pro fire department but then not putting a budget in for fire gear and telling them to suck it up and wear wet sweat suits.
In other words….
when the only “argument” presented is to call you names….
and you choose not to just ignore it….
the simplest, and most accurate, response is…
“I know you are, but what am I?“
“Moderate” by the standards of what party? Howard Dean’s?
Joe, I know it sounds so left wing of me to wonder why a person who so vocally supports staying in a war sought deferment after deferment when their numbr was called isn’t a hypocrite if not a “chickenhawk.” Similarly, my leftie bend is really showing when I insist to know why we don’t give the VA system the money they say they need to keep their hospitals at an acceptable level to deal with their new patients or why we spend more than the rest of the world combined on our military, yet we can’t make sure that all of our troops are in up-armored vehicles and have the proper body armor. Silly, leftie me…What, by chance, is the “rightie” position on those issues Joe, if you could so enlighten me?
I mean, I love deconstructing long blocks of text, so let’s deconstruct #3.
I *think* it translates as: “Rush Limbaugh and Vice President Cheney were nearly as eager to avoid military service as *Bill Clinton* in his day [not mentioned, but a useful real-world comparison]…and Republican defense procurement hasn’t been perfect, even though John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it…therefore I can be trusted to label myself ‘moderate’ and my rant somehow comes to a conclusion.”
As a non-Republican I wouldn’t know…..but I imagine it would have to do with making constructive and reality-based criticisms, seeing the big picture, and so forth.
Fund the hospitals better, if they’re under-funded, and don’t go with a bunch of petty-sounding sniping from Democrats who would have denied the troops much, much more than that. Something like that.
sniping from Democrats who would have denied the troops much, much more than that.
Would? Don’t you mean DID. The liberals stripped the military down to the point they couldn’t buy bullets and now they want to pretend to give a damn about their supply?
Mr. Moderate, have you talked to the many soldiers over there who don’t WANT up-armored HumVees because the weight would put them in more danger? Or does that not fit your agenda?
I thought you mentioned up-armor. Anyway…
I wonder why there isn’t as much commotion on the right when we find out that they are still having body armor problems to this day,
It’s not because Bush doesn’t care and the Pentagon isn’t doing anything about it.
Here’s excerpts from a story about that.
Troops’ Body Armor Being Replaced Again
*Defense officials acknowledge the replacement processes have been slowed in part by debates over what is best for the troops.
* Members of Congress have been briefed, and they have been fully supportive,” he said of the latest replacement effort.
*Maj. Gen. William D. Catto, head of the Marine Corps Systems Command, said he wasn’t happy about the yearlong delay to replace the armor, noting that if defense officials had the capability, they would upgrade the protective garb right away. But he blamed the delay partly on a shortage of the raw material that is needed to strengthen the plates.
*The heavier weight was one factor that hindered a quicker change, the official said, pointing to concerns that soldiers might not be able to move swiftly in the face of an attack.
But, I’m sure you were already aware of that story. Also, if you want to see how much the Pentagon doesn’t care about the soldiers, read this:
Army Scientists, Engineers develop Liquid Body Armor
Democrat Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran turned war critic who nearly snatched away a Republican House seat in a special election in Ohio last month. This, in a notoriously “safe” Republican seat! And without parity in funding. No one can call him a “chickenhawk.”
It’s not a “liberal” or a “conservative” issue, unless one means “righteous theocrat” as a synonym for “conservative.” Then Iraq can be understood as two extremist theocrats fighting for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. These enemies will always find a reason to impose their will on the unwilling. But even this is a consequent, not an antecedent.
It’s “commonsense” versus one person’s “vendetta” — GWB’s revenge of Hussein’s attempt to assasinate daddy. For this, and maybe the ancillary hope of raising worldwide oil prices to profit GWB’s Texas oil buddies, we’re are witness to an undeclared war against a soveriegn nation by a rogue nation with an under-prepared, under-armed (and mostly high-spirited) military, to fight the boogeymen in GWB’s immagination. The theocrats are only fighting for the war’s spoils.
The only chickenhawk in the above scenerio is the same GWB who fought for his country during Vietnam by showing up periodically for Guard duty. The same chickenhawk is willing to expend over 1800 lives, many more that number in the wounded and maimed, while retreating to Crawford for bush removal and chili roasts. Meanwhile, those who serve are mistreated to inadequate armour, suicide missions, lack of rest, appalling food — not to serve not some pie-in-the-sky motive of GWB, or even for love of country, but for mere Spartan love of a buddy for a buddy (bless them). They see a lose-lose proposition, but they don’t want to let their buddies down. I admire them to the hilt. Hackett says the same thing.
It’s not for love of country, much less for the righteousness of this illegal, undeclared war, but it’s the love of one buddy for another that makes our military personnel extraordinary, and their Commander a chickenhawk.
I *think* it translates as: “Rush Limbaugh and Vice President Cheney were nearly as eager to avoid military service as *Bill Clinton* in his day [not mentioned, but a useful real-world comparison]…
Last time I checked Bill Clinton wasn’t “rah rah” about the Vietnam war and actually vocally was against our involvement. His position therefore is consistent, whether you agree with it or not. The same can’t be said for Limbaugh, Cheney and several other Republican leaders. Now, I wouldn’t begrudge them if they didn’t volunteer, but these people actively sought and got deferments when their numbers were called up yet stayed loud and proud about why we needed to continue the war.
Stephen’s last paragraph is sweet leftist bullshit. What makes our military extraordinary is the willingness and dedication of our personnel to put themselves in service to a higher cause. What makes our military extraodinary is that they fight in service of preserving freedom. Yes, it’s great that our fighting personnel bond to each other on the battlefield, but so do the terrorists, so do the Taliban, so did the Nazis. It’s the values our soldiers fight for that makes them extraordinary.
Of course, I don’t expect a leftist soaking in moral equivalence to understand the fine distinction between fighting for liberty and fighting for oppression. To the left, having a law in place that allows law enforcement authorities with a judge’s permission to look at the library records of terrorists is the same as Kristallnacht. To the leftist, opposition to changing the definition of marriage is the same as the Taliban crushing gays to death under stone walls. To the leftist, one president’s National Guard’s service makes him a coward, while another’s draft dodging makes him a hero.
and Republican defense procurement hasn’t been perfect, even though John Kerry voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it…
Ah, I love the talking points. Kerry voted for the version of the bill that came out that funded the troops and made tens of billions of dollars of the rebuilding money a loan rather than a gift to the new Iraqi government. Remember back then we were told by Bush & Co. that not only would we be done in a year but the oil revenue would cover the costs…
The post by our new contributor DebK provides what is essentially a compilation of all the “Why I am NOT a Chickenhawk” arguments put forth here over the past 2 weeks.
While DebK’s story is a compelling one and while we ALL appreciate, admire, and SUPPORT people who serve our nation with such courage and dedication, those of us who thought the War On Iraq was bad idea in the first place (and who have observed people here strident in their support of the war but unwilling to participate in this “cause greater than themselves”) aren’t going to be silenced by emotional arguments based on fallacies.
Fallacy #1: People using the chickenhawk characterization are people who attack the military anyway. Question: DebK, just what do you mean by “attack the military”? Do you mean attack the troops” (I think that’s what you wanted to imply) or do you mean “attack the management of the military”? If you meant “attack the management of the military”, then you well know that even the troops DO THAT daily – you spent half of your entire post confirming this. If, however, you meant “attack the troops”, then you need to provide evidence – e.g., statements by me or others here using the chickenhawk characterization in which we “attacked the troops”. Since you won’t find any, then we’ll give you the leeway you deserve as a faithful servant to the country and allow in here ANY “attacks on the troops” you can find from ANYONE who’s USED the chickenhawk characterization – here or anywhere else. If you had actually done your research before making this particular argument, I’m sure that you – the loyal citizen-soldier, would have never made the argument in the first place.
Fallacy #2: People who use the chickenhawk characterization have never served themselves. Observation: You sure do like to generalize. Question: Do you know where the current use of the chickenhawk characterization came from? Answer: Primarily from a speech by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). Question: Do you know the service record of Sen. Lautenberg? Answer: Veteran – WWII. Again, DebK, a little research…
Fallacy #3: If you haven’t served, you cannot apply the chickenhawk characterization to anyone else. Question: And where in the Bill of Rights did you find that?
DebK, while the guys here will certainly appreciate your defense of them against the Chickenhawk characterization, they are by and large thinking folk who will quickly spot the above fallacies. So, don’t be surprised if your passionate post has far less of a desired effect than you’d hoped.
Mr. Moderate, have you talked to the many soldiers over there who don’t WANT up-armored HumVees because the weight would put them in more danger? Or does that not fit your agenda?
I guess I missed that when they were scouring for scraps to provide at least makeshift improvisions to their vehicles to provide some level of protection. I also guess those pesky body armor vests were also not wanted by some because they were trying to get tans or something…
But, I’m sure you were already aware of that story. Also, if you want to see how much the Pentagon doesn’t care about the soldiers, read this:
I’m aware that there is such a shortage that the families of military soldiers can somehow find vests and send them off with their soldiers, and the military actively encourages it, and thus that raw material shortage is just a lame excuse. The military is more than capable of redirecting the materials used in those supplies into the new vests. Hell, even if they just reimbursed the families for their personal expense so that their husbands, sons and daughters would at least have something.
Incidently, you somehow switched from the political leadership of our country to the pentagon. I don’t begrudge the pentagon of anything. I blame the politicians for our current problems with these sorts of issues. So please don’t play the trick of turning my lack of support for Bush & Co. into a lack of support for the military. If you use some critical thinking away from the GOP talking points you’ll see that they are not the same thing.
Instead of just bitching about the body armor problem, or using it as a club to beat on the other side with, or pose with it to show off your moral vanity, maybe you’d like to do something about it. Operation Helmet is accepting donations to help buy upgrade kits for Marine helmets, and there are other sites you can donate to as well.
I know people have been conditioned to expect politicians to solve every problem, but some of us like to do what we can ourselves to make things better ourselves.
Sigh, there is no end to the chickenhawk slur because the people who use it are the same ilk who stoop in the gutter to protest outside Reed Army Hospital with signs that say “You were maimed for Halliburton” etc. These people have no shame, nor honor.
For the slur to end, these political scumbags would have to find a conscience and some sense of decency. And please –don’t start the tired crap about “dissent is an American value”… it’s a shallow hole used inadequately to protect unpatriotic conduct ala the “I support the troops but…” line.
Matt-Michigan, you’re right of course. The chicken-hawk slur, the harassment of soldiers at Walter Reed, the boutique activism… it’s all part of the same leftoid narcissistic package. They don’t give a damn about the troops, they don’t give a damn about helping the Iraqis, they just want to whine and show off.
And if you (not you Matt, the generic you) are concerned that “Operation Helmet” is a scam, or you just don’t want to donate, than at least write your congresscritter about doing more for the troops. Just do something other than whine on a blog about how awful “Rethuglicans” or “DemonRats” are.
Oh, and Stephen… just for the record on the “Hackett-nearly-snatched-away” a safe GOP seat in Ohio… wrong.
In the lowest voter turnout in a special election for an Ohio Congressional seat since 1874, the GOP candidate won almost 7% more votes than did her Democrat opponent, you’re enshrinable Mr Hackett.
This, despite the fact that WeScream4HowieDean’s team sent 47 PROFESSIONAL Washington-based political operatives into the district to aid Hackett in his failed bid. Dude, that’s a bigger campaign staff than most industrial state governor’s use in conventional races! A huge staff, tons of bucks, the perfect candidate for the DOOM-ocrats and they still lost by a margin of 7% –7% more votes for the GOP candidate than for the poster-boi DOOM-ocrat.
“Nearly snatched away”, my ass.
But hey, don’t facts get in the way, dude.
It’s true the left is exaggerrating the significance of Paul Hackett’s relatively narrow loss, but the GOP is whistling past the graveyard if they don’t recognize that they have problems in Ohio. I note that the Ohio GOP’s problems are primarily caused by RINO’s like Mike “Sell-Out” DeWine, George “Crybaby” Voinovich, and a corrupt, tax-hiking governor.
OT: Rich Lowry at NRO Takes on the Chickenhawk Canard
DebK, thanks for your service. I’m proud to serve alongside many selfless people such as yourself and your husband.
Now, I surely can’t speak for all of my brothers-in-arms, but what I can say is that I am much more appreciative of someone who didn’t serve (yes, even if they bent over backwards not to serve) who has respect for us and our mission, than someone who doesn’t. Prior military service is neither a prerequisite for nor a guarantee of sound strategic policy (to wit, Wes Clark wanting to “start WWIII” a while back with the Russians).
I couldn’t care less whether or not someone has served in this debate. Do you know why? Becuase Cheney and Bush, neither of whom saw combat, one of whom didn’t serve at all, have (and more importantly TRUST) an entire five-sided building filled with people who have just across the river.
As much as those who want to make this personal about people they clearly don’t like, and probably don’t even know (W, Cheney…and how did Rush even get involved in all this?!), call me a romantic, but I have a pretty good feeling that the decision-makers in the White House rely on and have great respect for the suggestions and ideas of their top brass.
Could this be said of those who are constantly criticizing the war?
#17 – Yeah, do something! V, thanks for Thanks for operation-helmet.org. Just to collect a few more: Bruce (I think) mentioned soldiersangels.org; I donate at AnySoldier.com; there’s also AdoptASniper.com.
#18 / 19 – They picket Walter Reed? trying to insult the ideals and service of these fine women and men? I did not know that. How low will they go???
#23 – Major, thank YOU for your service.
They picket Walter Reed? trying to insult the ideals and service of these fine women and men? I did not know that. How low will they go???
There is a reason, Joe.
When people suffer a loss or incapacitating injury, there is a point of vulnerability in dealing with it (the “anger” stage, as described by Kubler-Ross) that the Left has become a master of exploiting. Their whole point is to shift the person’s thoughts away from coming to grips with and dealing with the injury by projecting the anger onto someone else, i.e. “Bush is to blame”, regardless of the fact that this prolongs the grieving process and has severe psychological implications, so that they can use the person’s misguided anger and their status to advance their political agenda.
How effective they are is shown by the letter I blogged about in which a mother blamed Bush for killing her son — who died in a one-vehicle accident, off military property, off-duty, caused by what she admits were his poor decisions.
Major, your vocal support for the Pentagon’s top brass will serve you well in your military career. And if your goal is “full-funding” of the military and its private contractors, I appreciate your appreciation of those patriots that support the mission but don’t serve. In fact I’m sure that more than a handful will want to set up non-profits to handle and channel their generosity of spirit.
As a civilian outside the system, I read of severe and effective punishment dealt to dissenters amongst the leadership. Is there any truth to this? I also read about outside manipulation (like neo-con think tanks) of the military? Is this something we should be concerned with? Do you worry that the public will lose trust in the military?
Remember back then we were told by Bush & Co. that not only would we be done in a year
Nope. You’re the only one.
anon:
Your questions, in order:
“…severe and effective punishment dealt to dissenters amongst the leadership. Is there any truth to this?”
Not sure of your examples, but I’ve never seen anthing such as this, and as a field-grade officer, I work alongside those who would feel this. Just because I don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t occur, but methinks that’s probably just people building a strawman. If you want to talk about retribution, we may well look to men like Tony Shaffer, who’s being pilloried by politicos who don’t want dirty laundry exposed about what may have been incompetence of the 9/11 Commission.
If you do have examples, let me know.
“outside manipulation…Is this something we should be concerned with?”
Not sure, again, what you mean by “manipulation”, but we certainly do have civilian (sometimes from think-tanks) input into policy. Some who aren’t familiar with how the military works would be very surprised by how innovative and interested in different ideas the military is as an institution. Kind of like Caesar, the US likes to have the best and brightest, whether they be active duty, civilian employees, or even non-military contractors and yes, thinktanks. Although I imagine you’re attempting to pose a leading question. If these “think tanks” agree with you, they’re probably trusted advisors, if they don’t, they’re “manipulative”…am I getting warm?
“Do you worry that the public will lose trust in the military?”
What I fear is people paying lip-service to the military and not understanding that the “Supporting The Troops” platitude only has meaning to me (and literally every one of my troops and fellow officers with whom I’ve ever discussed the issue) if the speaker supports the mission. Keep in mind: We’re putting our lives and the lives of our troops on the line for the mission. Some of my troops are over there right now. Their lives are at risk. They believe in the mission. To say you “support” them, but not their reason for being there sends mixed signals. And that ain’t political claptrap, it’s the truth.
Again, I don’t speak for all troops and it’d be unfair for me to attempt to do so. But these are the sentiments of all the military members I’ve spoken to.
I know this isn’t what you want to hear, but it’s how it works: Lack of support for our mission at home translates into a feeling of lack of support for the troops themselves.
This should make sense if you can appreciate what they’re doing on a day-to-day basis there: Risking their lives for that mission.
The only examples I would have would be what I read in the press. The recent speculation that the four-star general fired for adultry was really payback for not supporting Bush or the evengelical “take-over”of the Air Force academy. I worry that our military is becoming too insular. I guess we should all try to make sure the general public has a more acurate picture. Or maybe we need more oversight. So many people these days have no family members in the military.
“Lack of support for our mission at home translates into a feeling of lack of support for the troops themselves.” Duh. Why would you assume it’s something I wouldn’t want to hear. I think it’s really important to support the mission. I think that’s how you truly support our troops. Certainly not by putting stickers on your SUV or thanking them for their service but telling them you oppose their mission. I don’t like not supporting the mission.
I worry that for PR (and revenue?) purposes the military is trying to sell itself as a humanitarian nation-building enterprise. I prefer to think of it as the best and most effective killing machine the wolrd has ever known. (rarely used, but WATCH OUT).
Anon: manipulation of the military by the neo-cons? A neo-con think tank?
WTF is that all about?
Are you channeling Ollie Stone and his co-conspirator script writers from Hollywood or what??? Or do you believe the fundraising letters WeScream4HowieDean’s team is sending you?
I literally laughed out loud at that one –I’ll put that little tidbit of lunacy right next to the others from the LibLeft… like we went into Iraq to control the oil (oh yeah, that works as plausible) or we went into Iraq to avenge a plot by Saddam’s kids to kill Bush 41 (even less plausible) or because Israel told us to or they’d unleash Holy War against the House of Saud (sheer baloney land now).
Really, the military is being maipulated by neo-con think tanks? Do you have any idea how hard it is to manipulate even a small segment of a disjointed unit in society let alone the “military”? Good God to blazes Anon you win a crack pot scenario with that gem.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Do you guys never tire of talking about being Chickenhawks???!!!??
Hey, TGC, look — you were right!
He does only accuse us of things that are true of him!
“Do you guys never tire of talking about being Chickenhawks???!!!?? ”
I’m not sure why that even matters. Many of us who feel the same way Bruce and other so-called “chickenhawks” have served our Country in the military. Does that change your opinion? Is my opinion valid because I’ve served?
Of course, for someone as yourself who so respects military service, it must have broken your heart when two highly decorated WWII veterans (one who was shot down, another who still has a handicap due to his injuries) lost to that guy who “loathed” the military–who also, by the way, went on to become the CinC who deployed us more than any in the history of our Nation.
Oh, I mean, unless it’s just politics.
Seriously guys: Argue the policy, argue the facts, argue the war. Just leave the personalities out of it. If someone from your side were in office now, doing the exact same stuff, he’d be a genius to you. This reminds me of stupid sports fans who just love a player until he goes to play for the other team…suddenly he sucks. It’s all about personalities with these morons.
Takes on the Chickenhawk Canard.
Comment by V the K
=======================
Lord how I LOVE a mixed metaphore.
Now would that mean a Lameduck Chickenhawk?
&
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Do you guys never tire of talking about being Chickenhawks???!!!??
Comment by Reader
=============================
Again the mixed metaphore. Actually they can’t tire of being accused of being chickenhawks. Actually Hawkish Chickens is more correct for this most repellet of right winged slurs. Vapors, some of them have the vapors. Here chick-chick-chick.
(ok, I forgot to spell check, get over it, and I love the silent e no matter how repellet it is to some.)
” But these are the sentiments of all the military members I’ve spoken to.”
Ditto what Major said. That’s been (and is) my experience also.
Kalroy
In #33: Aside from the comment about Clinton beating two WWII veterans (which has zero to do with chickenhawkedness), njz actually made a great point about how we ALL forgive our political own.
And to #34: (Grinning) Chandler — cut it out. As you can tell from the amount of time we’ve all spent on the issue, chickenhawkedness is a serious issue here.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Do you guys never tire of talking about being Chickenhawks???!!!??
Well, maybe we could move on to something else that used to be considered shameful: war profiteering.
Re: “War Profiteering”
Good enough, so long as you understand that making a profit isn’t what’s shameful. Nor is profitting from war. “War Profiteering” was always understood to be wrong when the profits came at the expense of the troops — through providing shoddy merchandise, for example.
With that understanding — fire away.
Cute, Clint. You prepare for a debate with Anon over “war profiteering” by inaccurately describing what it means and in a way that will deny Anon any debating points.
Clint, profiting from war has always been shameful. Taints the money. Families and corporations have always tried to hide it or play it down. Can you imagine living in a society where it’s something to brag about.
But hey, that so 9/10.
Actually, if we are not waging war, but nation-building I guess that removes the taint. The more noble the purpose, the bigger the profit.
anon-
“Clint, profiting from war has always been shameful. Taints the money.”
I guess we’ll just have to agree that we have very different conceptions of honor, then.
Perhaps you are starting from the judgement that fighting a war is always wrong?
Making money helping people will always be honorable. Making money hurting people will always be dishonorable.
Bragging about money has always been gauche, and always will be. That’s not because making money is shameful, it’s because gloating is.
Whether a war is considered just or not, some will profit. But war profiteers don’t like to anounce where they got their money from. They wisely understand how society at large feels about that. Their behavoir has nothing to with whether you, Clint, or I find their particular war a just cause.
No matter how many teenagers read Ayn Rand, I think this will always be true.
anon-
The same people feel that any source of money that required any of your grandfathers to actually work is shameful. What exactly was your point, anyway? What moral principles do you derive from the observation that some among the ultra-rich make up polite lies at the country club to explain where their family fortunes came from?
My point was that they just don’t do for their own self-image. “They wisely understand how society at large feels about” war profiteering.
I think you will start to see more and more taint being applied to anyone that profits from this war. Hence the wild increase in “nation-building” rhetoric.
One of the reasons I wish the Iraqis would find their own freedom: it costs us too much to constantly bribe them to be nice.
Anon-
You’re simply wrong on this. At the end of WWII, not only soldiers were proud to have served, but everyone who stepped up to help make the planes and bombs and guns and ships that helped us win the war was proud of what they did.
I do expect to see the left trying to tar everyone involved in freeing the middle east with the same brush — but I don’t expect it to stick, any more than “Bush is a Nazi!!!” sticks.
There was stigma attached to males who were able but avoided service. Placing stickers on vehicles, posting letters of support in the public square, or setting up non-profits were not seen as acceptable substitutes.
The majority of Americans do not believe in the current mission in Iraq. Telling these people that they are animated by hate for their own country will backfire. They, this same majority that recoils at chickenhawkendess, will not look kindly on their fellow citizens or foreigners that profit from this war. I doubt that they will be swayed by your arguments.
Opposition to a foreign policy designed by former Trotskyites is not left wing or un-American.
Anon-
??
We seem to have moved on to another topic.
I don’t see anyone suggesting that all or even most opponents of the war hate America. However, some of the most vocal opponents of the war clearly do.
Unsupported assertions that most Americans despise profit and the military as much as you do will be convincing only to those who already agree with you.
I don’t understand your last remark about Trotskyites — is that the latest anti-semitic slur against the neocons? Are you suggesting that neo-cons are evil because they oppose the world-wide Communist Revolution? Huh?
Opposition to the war is not limited to the extreme left or right. Distrusting or disagreeing with neo-cons is not limited to anti-semites.
Here’s a good article about an important one.
George Soros’s Right-Wing Twin
Multibillionaire commodities king Bruce Kovner is the patron saint of the neoconservatives, the new Lincoln Center’s crucial Medici, owner of a vast Fifth Avenue mansion—and the most powerful New Yorker you’ve never heard of.
By Philip Weiss, New York Magazine, 8/8/05
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/features/12353/
I wonder what the estimable Mr. Kovner (who by the way never came close to ruining the Bank of England) would think about being compared to George Soros.
Reader –
Sorry it has taken me so long to reply. Perhaps you won’t see this, but here are the answers to your ‘questions’.
(1) You ask about “attacking the troops”. Well, here are some things that some on the left who are against the war are doing, supposedly to show their anti-war feelings: a) They are picketing recruiting locations attempting to prevent young men and women who want to serve from entering or to intimidate them from investigating their options, b) They are encouraging enlisted to frag their officers (do a google search Churchill and fragging) c) They are attempting to stymie the military’s ability to recruit (recruit mind you, not draft or drag people away against their will, simply make a pitch and see if people are interested) both at high schools where some law suits have been filed attempting to prevent the military from having access that is provided to other potential employers, and on college campuses where, under the guise of an objection to the DADT policy they are fighting against the Solomon Amendment, a case that will be considered by the Supreme Court in the next session. d) For years many of the elite liberal institutions like Yale, Columbia, and Harvard have not allowed their own students to participate in ROTC on campus – they have to travel to other college campuses simply because they don’t like the military. By the way, Columbia’s faculty just voted to continue this blatant anti-militarism) e) they have been staging a protest outside of Walter Reed Army Medical Center every Friday with caring slogans like “Maimed for a Lie” and “Enlist here and die for Halliburton”….etc, etc, etc, Here is a recent article in NRO about how a couple of war veterans were treated by anti-war leftists on their campuses :http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hall_schweizer200508290810.asp Is that enought to convince you? Notice that I did NOT say that everyone making the Chickenhawk argument is saying and doing things that are anti-military like I listed above. What I said is that I want to see people who make the chickenhawk argument, wanting people who haven’t served in the military to not support the war, to then equally oppose those on the left who have attacked the military, despite the fact that many of them have not served in it either.
(2) Your next complaint was that I suggested that people who make the Chickenhawk argument never served themselves. Actually – I didn’t recall saying that anywhere in my comment, and in fact, I didn’t. I clearly said that if you condemned all the people on the left who had never served in the military yet still were vocal in their attacks on the war and the military, it would include Michael Moore, et al, “and perhaps some of the chickenhawk accusers on this blog”. “Perhaps some” is a long way away from “all”. So your accusation here is inaccurate. I respect the fact that some people who have served or are serving in the military are against the war. I still would not approve of them using the term “chickenhawks”.
(3) Thirdly you imply that I state “If you haven’t served, then you can’t apply the chicken hawk characterization to anyone else” Again, Reader, where is this in my post? You can do whatever the heck you want to do, I don’t imply otherwise. I simply point out the hypocrisy of your argument and the fact that throwing around slurs does little to advance the debate.
Finally, READER, your name is ironic, since it seems pretty clear that you didn’t really read my post. Spare me your condescension…I didn’t write this “passionate” post with the desire for any effect other than to move people like you on to real, mature discussion of issues instead of adolescent name-calling. And I agree the ‘thinking’ people on this blog will be well aware of that.
Debk
Sorry, DebK, but it’s not enough to simply say “it seems pretty clear that you didn’t really read my post”. I read it or I would never have responded to it. And despite your sudden revision of what you said, you really did write, “Guess that would mean denouncing Michael Moore, most of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, the VAST MAJORITY of anti-war activists, and perhaps SOME of the chickenhawk accusers on this blog!” The all-caps are mine, but the words are still right up there for all to read. And you added this, “If you accusers were genuinely concerned for the troops overseas…” – as your ultimate slam to Americans opposed to this war.
In my reply to your original post, I pointed some fallacies in your arguments and reviewing them here this morning, I don’t see how your more recent comments correct these fallacies; instead your new comments only twist things about a bit:
Fallacy #1: People using the chickenhawk characterization are people who attack the military anyway. And I specifically challenged you to “provide evidence – e.g., statements by me or others here using the chickenhawk characterization in which we “attacked the troops”.
–But you didn’t. Instead, you came back with: “Notice that I did NOT say that everyone making the Chickenhawk argument is saying and doing things that are anti-military like I listed above.” This after having noted incidences of anti-military bias by extremists – trying to tar everyone who disagrees with you as “anti-military”. Although your original post was not about “condemning radicals taunting good soldiers”, if you want to make it that, then I’ll join you in condemning those radicals (of course). And then I’d ask YOU to join me in condemning radical (neo-con) policies that have led to the deaths of 1,800+ of our compatriots, the maiming of 13,000+ of our compatriots, and the additional deaths (beyond Saddam’s horrors) of what is estimated to be anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000+ Iraqis. I doubt you will.
Fallacy #2: People who use the chickenhawk characterization have never served themselves.
–To which you now reply: “(2) Your next complaint was that I suggested that people who make the Chickenhawk argument never served themselves. Actually – I didn’t recall saying that anywhere in my comment, and in fact, I didn’t.” No? Then, what the hell did you mean in the original post by this? “those who keep throwing out the chickenhawk accusation…and who have never served themselves. (What could they possibly know about war when they themselves have never served, right??)” Can’t believe you’re so bold as to try to deny you said something that is in such clear print right over there in the side frame or that you would go for the old hedge, “I never said ‘all’, just ‘some’”. Look, there are two-three people on this site who have actually used the “chickenhawk” characterization here. I’m one of them. So maybe you want to clarify which one, two, three were the “some” you aimed at?
Fallacy #3: If you haven’t served, you cannot apply the chickenhawk characterization to anyone else. Question: And where in the Bill of Rights did you find that?
–To this, you go again to, “(3) Thirdly you imply that I state “If you haven’t served, then you can’t apply the chicken hawk characterization to anyone else”. Again, Reader, where is this in my post?” And where did I get that? Well, hate to repeat you, but this is where that fallacy was born: “those who keep throwing out the chickenhawk accusation denounce all those who attack the war and the military (and YES they do attack the military …) and who have never served themselves. (What could they possibly know about war when they themselves have never served, right??)” You want to go to a game of putting quotes around the statement of fallacy, but that won’t work – I never used quotes around the statement.
Finally, since you’re concerned about my reading skills, let me assure you that your original post was easy enough to read DebK; it just wasn’t easy to take – for your intent was clear: to focus on the few of us offering a contrarian view of the War On Iraq on this site and to: 1) tar us with the radical actions of extremists; 2) to claim we never served, thus should have no voice in the issue; and 3) and worst of all, to imply that we don’t really care about the people who fight on our behalf. Over half of the American people now oppose this war and it looks like that may be headed into the 60%+ range.
With ALL due respect for you and your family’s service, we in that majority consider ourselves good Americans too, and have a right to take offense at the nasty generalizations in your original post – no matter who makes them.
Reader-
“And then I’d ask YOU to join me in condemning radical (neo-con) policies that have led to the deaths of 1,800+ of our compatriots, the maiming of 13,000+ of our compatriots, and the additional deaths (beyond Saddam’s horrors) of what is estimated to be anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000+ Iraqis.”
This is a gross lie, and renders the rest of your post undeserving of response.
Perhaps next you will tell us that the so-called “Holocaust” in Europe really only involved three dozen people, two of whom might have been Jewish.
You take the total Iraqi civilian death toll and label it “additional deaths (beyond Saddam’s horrors)“.
This is an implicit assertion that Saddam’s mass graves were fakes and amounts to spitting on the graves of all the Iraqis who were killed by the Baathists and their policies in the years between the wars.
Until you can reasonably estimate the humanitarian costs of the pre-war “status quo” you are in no position to question anyone about the war.
Shame on you.
And that’s not all.
Reader ignores the facts that (1) the 100,000-figure from the British journal was a fake – long since debunked by statisticians; (2) whether the real figure may be 2,000, 10,000, or whatever – because it’s all bad; every such death is regrettable – we should assign blame where it is due. The largest causes of Iraqi civilian deaths, by far, have been direct and intentional attacks on Iraqi civilians by the Baathist and jihadist “insurgents”. That’s WHY we are fighting them and WHY they should be eliminated, and will be.
And while we’re “joining Reader in condemning radical (neo-con) policies that have led to the deaths of…[X thousand]…” Why don’t we also join Reader in condemning the identical radical (neo-con) policies that lead to the deaths of 400,000 U.S. soldiers in World War? Because obviously, none of those should ever have happened, right?
Jeez, this is all so easy when one’s opponent has no firm grip on reality or how to assign moral responsibility.
Typo – above should read “World War 2”
Reader – I am going to try to explain this one more time, then I will post in this thread no longer. First, I noted in the irony in your name, not because I thought you didn’t read the original post, but because you did not read the original post WELL. You make all kinds of assumptions and respond defensively to items I did not bring up.
First – The statement, which you accurately replicate in your reply, about “The VAST MAJORITY of anti-war activists, and perhaps SOME of the chickenhawk accusers on this blog” was preceded by this statement: “Let me say this -I’ll denounce all those who support the war but haven’t signed up to serve WHEN those who keep throwing out the chickenhawk accusation denounce all those who attack the war and the military and who have never served themselves. … Guess that would mean denouncing Michael Moore, most of Hollywood and the entertainment industry, and vast majority of anti-war activists, and perhaps some of the chickenhawk accusers on this blog” Please read my statement again. I am NOT saying that ALL people who accuse others of being chickenhawks or who are anti-war are anti-military. I am saying that the “vast majority” of anti-war activists and “perhaps some” of the chicken hawk accusers on this blog have NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY, just like the accused chickenhawks. Therefore, if those people who accuse others of being “chickenhawks” want to be consistent in their logic, they should not only condemn people who SUPPORT the war but haven’t served in the military, but also those on THEIR SIDE, AGAINST the war, who ALSO have never served in the military.
As to the statement that starts “If you accusers were genuinely concerned for the troops overseas…” The ‘accusers’ I am talking about are not all people who are anti-war – I would never suggest that everyone who is anti-war is anti-military and if you read my statement you will realize that in fact I never say that. The ‘accusers’ are those who slur others with the name ‘chickenhawk’. People who use that slur usually defend it as being because of their concern for the troops that they point out the “hypocrisy” of people like Dick Cheney, and others for supporting the war, but not serving. I am simply pointing out that “If you accusers [people who throw chickenhawk around] are genuinely concerned for the troops,” you would not waste your time throwing slurs around – you would as I then point out “spend some time learning how [the troops] think and WHAT they think about this war.” So don’t be so defensive – I am not saying that you aren’t concerned for the troops, I am saying that your concern is being manifest in a very misguided way – by accusing others of being chickenhawks rather than taking time to see what the actual soldiers in the field are saying about the war and their role in it.
Second – I did not answer your challenge to “provide evidence -e.g. statements by me or others here using the chickenhawk characterization in which we “attack the troops” because the premise of your challenge is WRONG. As I never accused all those who use the chickenhawk argument of attacking the troops, there is no need for me to “provide evidence” of a claim I never made!! What I pointed out, and provided examples in detail was that SOME of the radical anti-war people in this country ARE attacking the troops, picketing recruiting stations, promoting fragging of troops, fighting any recruiting on high school or college campuses and conducting anti-war protests outside military medical facilities. I think you recognize those actions as anti-military, as I do, and they should be condemned in NO UNCERTAIN terms by all who are against this war but support the military. I did not TAR anyone I simply stated the facts as they exist in this country.
In number Two and three you do a very clever job of trying to make it look like I said things that I didn’t. Nice try -You put a little … between two parts of a statement I made to try to twist the meaning. Very clever, but very disingenuous, and if you need to resort to those kinds of tactics to make your arguments then your arguments aren’t very strong to begin with.
Here, once again, is what I actually said ” I’ll denounce all those who support the war but haven’t signed up to serve when THOSE WHO KEEP THROWING OUT THE CHICKENHAWK ACCUSATION DENOUNCE ALL THOSE WHO ATTACK THE WAR AND THE MILITARY AND WHO HAVE NEVER SERVED THEMSELVES” This is very different from what you accuse me of saying “Those who keep throwing out the chickenhawk accusation…and who have never served themselves”. Please read again and note the difference between the two statements. I am telling people who use the term chickenhawk to equally denounce “those who attack the war and the military and who have never served themselves.” I don’t see how anyone can read that and see -” all chickenhawk accusers have never served” – or “if you are haven’t served you can’t be a chickenhawk accuser” I never said either of those things, and no matter how hard you try to twist my words the evidence in the form of my original post backs me up.
Unfortunately you seem too defensive to read my post for what it is and was, and not read INTO it what you THINK I am trying to say.
Finally as to your challenge to condemn “radical neo-con” policies that have resulted in the deaths and wounding of many thousands of soldiers and Iraqi civilians. You are right, I won’t condemn those policies, but at least here we are getting into the crux of the real argument. Every single one of those deaths – whether of our soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen or of Iraqi civilians or military is most definitely a tragic loss. Every single one of those who have been wounded are equally to be sympathized with and should be helped in any way that we can to return them to normal life in our society. But I make my decisions on whether to support a policy by looking at both the pros and the cons, by weighing the actual and potential positive effects against the inevitable negatives that come with them. I supported and I still support the war effort in Iraq for many reasons. Prior to this war, the situation with Iraq was untenable. Under a ceasefire signed after the 1991 Gulf war Iraq was supposed to have proven it had no more WMDs, to have stopped making long-range missiles, and to have allowed UNFETTERED access for UN inspectors all throughout Iraq. It had done none of those three things. We had gone to the UN over 13 times to try to use diplomacy to resolve the situation, and in fact went back again 2 times after the “radical neo-cons” took office, but to no avail. Iraq was still not allowing inspectors unfettered access, had still not proved it did not have WMD, and still was making long-range missiles (remember the Al-Samouds?) against the terms of the ceasefire. In addition our military and the Brits had for YEARS sustained the no-fly zones in the North and in the South to protect the Shia and the Kurds from being anhilated by Saddam and those aircraft were regularly being shot at by Saddam’s surface-air-missile sites. In addition, the UN had imposed sanctions in another attempt to force Saddam’s compliance, but even those sanctions had not affected his attitude, they had only succeeded in decimating the Iraqi people. All these things we knew before the war, and all of these things were untenable. The sanctions could not remain forever, the no-fly zones could not exist forever, and diplomacy had been spectacularly ineffective for over a decade! Add to this scenario that there were many ties between Saddam and terrorism (assassination attempt on George Bush the father, monetary rewards to Palestinian suicide bomber’s families, harboring Abu Nidal and the man responsible for mixing the chemicals in the first World Trade Center bombing, allowing Zarqawi safe refuge after running a training camp in Afghanistan, hosting annual radical Islamist conferences in Baghdad, etc, etc, etc) it was clear to me that after 9/11 we could not allow the Iraq situation to remain in the status quo.
There is a legitimate argument to be made that perhaps we could have waited to invade, could have tried for one more resolution or allowed the inspectors just a little more time to resolve the unanswered questions. But France and Germany were pushing to lift the sanctions on Iraq. This was certainly one possible way to change the situation, but as we have learned after the war from both the Kay and the Duelfer reports, Saddam planned to use a lifting of sanctions to reconstitute any WMD programs that it turned out he had not sustained in the latter part of the ’90s and early 2000-2001. Considering his ties to various terrorist organizations this was a risk I believe we could not take. If the sanctions were lifted, we would have also been forced most likely to remove the no-fly zones…what would have happened then to the Kurds and to the Shi’a? How many innocent lives would have been lost by the wrath of Saddam in that case? And if Saddam reconstituted his weapons programs with sanctions lifted and with his ties to terrorism wouldn’t we potentially have to fight him in an even more dangerous and deadly war in the future?
No, the only way to get Saddam to comply (or even to get him to allow inspectors in the country) was the threat of force. The only possible way that I could see that we could have avoided war was if the entire UN Security Council showed a united and aggressive front in a final attempt to force Saddam to come clean with the evidence that he had destroyed his WMDs, to stop building long-range missiles and to truly allow inspectors unfettered access. But unfortunately France and Russia refused to come with us in that united front – France pronounced it would veto any additional UNSC resolutions that threatened force thus emaciating any influence the UNSC had to put pressure on Saddam. Again the Kay and Duelfer reports point out that Saddam, in fact, believed that France would stop the U.S. from invading and now we know that there was a great deal of corruption in the oil-for-food sanctions that also makes the motives of many in the UN hierarchy towards Iraq and the US quite questionable.
Every decision that a president has to make has consequences and he (or she =-)) must weigh the good against the bad. FDR had to weigh the potential good of going into the war in Europe against the bad – hundreds of thousands on all sides died including thousands of civilians – but does that in and of itself mean that U.S. support for the Allies in WWII was wrong? Pres. Clinton had to weigh the good against the bad when he was deciding about sending troops into Bosnia or Kosovo or Somalia or Haiti – or NOT into Rwanda. Does the fact that some military and some civilians died in Bosnia/Kosovo/Somalia/Haiti mean that those missions were inherently wrong? NO. Is it fair to make an argument that even though some of our military might have been killed had we gone into Rwanda it still might have been worth it to stop the genocide that occurred without that intervention? I think that is a reasonable argument.
I think that the potential good in this war outweighs the significant costs. I believe that it was necessary to protect the United States in the long run and to help win the battle against growing Islamic extremism. I believe that one must weigh the deaths that are sadly a day to day occurrence in Iraq right now, both against the deaths, rapes, injustice and other “horrors” as you point out that were conducted under Saddam and the potential good in having an Iraq in the Middle East that is a pluralistic representative government that is not hostile to the US and is an example for other Middle Eastern countries. That is what I believe. So no, I do not condemn the neo-cons and many non-neo-cons who support this war. Nor do I condemn you for not supporting the war. I respect your right and the right of anyone in this country to be against the war. What I do not respect is your insulting, derogatory terms used to describe people who have likely made similar thoughtful calculations in their decisions to support the war but happen not to have served.
Debk
Thankfully, we have always been wary of using American blood and treasure to end atrocities outside our borders. Let’s keep it that way.
Humans love to wage war. Let’s keep the justification for indulging in mankind’s favorite pastime to self-defense. There was broad support for the invasion of Iraq when it was presented as self-defense. The case can be made that democracy in Iraq will make us safer in America. That case is best made by people that tell the truth. Before we can hear that case, we need to know why the people that were previously making this case were lying or misinformed of the facts.
Once we have those answers we will be in a much better position to fight global terrorism. We can’t effectively fight the enemy until we have those answers. Or to put it another way, those answers will bring great insight into who is really threatening our national security.
Anon, we’d all be better off leaving your #58 as the last word on this, but I can’t help myself; there’s just an avalanche of political garbage here to clean up here this morning…
Starting with Clint, who quotes me and then writes in #53: “’And then I’d ask YOU to join me in condemning radical (neo-con) policies that have led to the deaths of 1,800+ of our compatriots, the maiming of 13,000+ of our compatriots, and the additional deaths (beyond Saddam’s horrors) of what is estimated to be anywhere from 25,000 to 100,000+ Iraqis.’ This is a gross lie, and renders the rest of your post undeserving of response. Perhaps next you will tell us that the so-called “Holocaust” in Europe really only involved three dozen people, two of whom might have been Jewish.”
—“Gross lie”? Surely you’re not in such denial that you would call any of the following a “gross lie”: 1) that the War On Iraq is the result of radical Neo-Con policies; 2) that 1,800+ of our troops are dead; 3) that 13,000+ of our troops are maimed; or 4) that all of the conventionally drawn estimates of the number of Iraqi dead range between 25,000 and 100,000. Perhaps your Holocaust crack was more revealing than any of us here would like to know.
Continuing with Clint in #53 when he wrote: “You take the total Iraqi civilian death toll and label it “additional deaths (beyond Saddam’s horrors). This is an implicit assertion that Saddam’s mass graves were fakes and amounts to spitting on the graves of all the Iraqis who were killed by the Baathists and their policies in the years between the wars. Until you can reasonably estimate the humanitarian costs of the pre-war “status quo” you are in no position to question anyone about the war.”
—Only you (and a couple of others here), with your feigned interest in the pre-war lives of the Iraqi people, would look for an opening to attack in an honest acknowledgement that Saddam’s reign was indeed horrific.
Then Clint closes by joining the crowd in the back casting the last stone of “Shame on you.”
—No, Clint, the shame doesn’t rest here – you and yours on this site and elsewhere will own ALL of the shame left when all is said and done in Iraq (apparently still years away): when the final body counts are known here and there; when the costs are toted up; when we sit here someday and talk about your role in either the demarcation of Iraq, its civil war(s), or at best, the creation of yet one more Islamic state.
BTW, Clint, go tell the other one there in your pairing (the one who never reads Reader) that, to avoid looking even sillier (after his idiotic linkage to WWII), perhaps he might want to stay out of this one. He’s not up to it.
DebK: first, thank you for the long and thoughtful response and for the scope of your argument. (In that respect, and in your use of language, you remind me an awful lot of someone else on your side here who I disagree with but [sometimes] admire.).
Still, I find that with each subsequent post, you circle around (without paragraph breaks, around and around and around…) the fallacies in your original post, even adding a new one here:
“Therefore, if those people who accuse others of being “chickenhawks” want to be consistent in their logic, they should not only condemn people who SUPPORT the war but haven’t served in the military, but also those on THEIR SIDE, AGAINST the war, who ALSO have never served in the military.” DebK
—What?!? Talk about a false comparison. I’ll see if Clint wants to take up your banner on this; he’s into that false logic stuff.
Look, since you stated that this would be your last post, I’d ask you not to leave with some of those angry thoughts I believe you have about all people who are anti-Iraq War. I don’t deny there are some wacky elements out there (just as there are in here), but the vast majority are taking time out their lives (with no credit for military or any other type of service) and are trying to let leadership know that what they’ve done is wrongly conceived and wrongly executed. That’s not criticism of you, your husband, or any of the troops. That’s criticism of the government – and that’s a right; no that’s a DUTY. I regret that you take criticism of the war as an attack on the troops or that you’ve apparently not even noticed that a large swath of the anti-war movement are equally concerned about post-war rehabilitation, veteran’s benefits, etc.
As you take your leave though, let me assure you that your POV has been and will be ably stated by others (often using precisely the same language – especially the language of your sweeping final paragraph – your “crux”).
Yes, like Reader, I’m sorry you won’t be posting here anymore. But as Reader points, we can rest assured that others will provide your point of view.