Times: Whole Nation "Chickenhawks"

This ridiculous editorial (via Anger Management) reminded me of this satirical post because both revolve around the same stupid argument certain anti-war types give to those of us who support the war without actually fighting in it.

Since the argument is always presented with a sneer, I thought it might be fun, for a change, to let the Gaijin Biker present the argument instead. From "Warblogger enlists in Army, wins argument":

"I wrote this really long essay about why I support the war in Iraq," Kulundzic said. "I thought I had covered every angle, including the need to be absolutely sure that Saddam had no WMD's, the moral case for liberating the Iraqi people, and the long-term strategic importance of spreading democracy throughout the volatile Middle East."

"But then ihatebush209 just tore my arguments to shreds," he said.

ihatebush209's comment read, "Hey, mister Keyboard Kommando, if you like the war so much, why don't you go and fight it [bold added], you little chickenhawk?"

Kulundzic remembers feeling dejected at seeing his efforts so easily dismissed.

"I felt terrible," he said. "That guy had me beat, fair and square. All my well-researched opinions on Iraq were worthless so long as I wasn’t personally fighting there. And those fake chicken noises made his counter-argument all the more effective."

But later that evening, Kulundzic recalls, he realized how he could win the debate. The next day, he enlisted in the Army, announcing his decision on his blog.

"ihatebush209 posted another comment almost immediately," Kulundzic said. “He says that now, since I’ve joined the Army, he realizes I was right about Iraq all along. My own individual decision to enlist completely undermined his entire argument against the war."

This is funny because it is not an example of a man winning an argument.

The novelty introduced by David Kennedy of the New York Times is that he may be the first to apply this argument to an entire country!

Leaving questions of equity aside, it cannot be wise for a democracy to let such an important function grow so far removed from popular participation and accountability. It makes some supremely important things too easy - like dealing out death and destruction to others, and seeking military solutions on the assumption they will be swifter and more cheaply bought than what could be accomplished by the more vexatious business of diplomacy.

The life of a robust democratic society should be strenuous; it should make demands on its citizens when they are asked to engage with issues of life and death [bold added: In other words, citizens must personally risk their lives should they decide to fight a war. -- ed]. ... War is too important to be left either to the generals or the politicians. It must be the people's business.

Both are saying the same thing. But what do they mean? Let's explore the implications of this argument.

Consider the various anti-American groups who constantly oppose America's war efforts at every opportunity and in every way possible.

For the sake of argument, suppose Bush were doing everything right in this war. And suppose further that an Islamic group hoping to hasten America's military defeat by sapping her resolve at home conducted a massive media campaign that successfully persuaded enough of the public to stop fighting the war that politicians had to listen to them. We'd end up not fighting the war.

Would that not be a victory for the enemy? Indeed, such "fighting" would almost inarguably be more effective for this group than picking up guns and heading over to Iraq. But this is precisely what Kennedy claims to be unhappy about: involvement in a war at zero personal risk.

If the enemy can conduct such a campaign, why can't American civilians conduct a counter-campaign? Either intellectual activism is okay or it isn't. Which side one supports in a war is irrelevant.

Conversely, by this premise, anyone who thinks we have wrongfully invaded Iraq should either go there and join the terrorist insurgency or start a rebellion against the federal government. And if one merely disagrees with attacking Iraq instead of, say, Iran or Saudi Arabia, one's only recourse would be to start an armed revolt against the United States.

Surely David Kennedy doesn't mean that Americans alone are not entitled to support a war without risking life and limb! So which army has he joined?

Given what he believes about how a "robust democratic society" ought to conduct a war and the fact that we are fighting a war now, David Kennedy is revealed to be a hypocrite by his failure to be in the thick of the action somewhere. If he supports the war effort and really believes that his society should make demands on him when he deals in "issues of life and death", then by his own premises, he should enlist for our armed forces. Otherwise, he should either start an armed rebellion against the federal government or renounce his American citizenship, and join the valiant, brave, woman-ambushing "insurgency" over in Iraq to protect the innocents being slaughtered by the "Great Satan."

Supporting (or opposing) a war is not merely a physical act. It is also intellectual. David Kennedy knows this, as evidenced by the fact that he is not fighting, but writing editorials.

The real question is this: Why does he hope you don't notice this? I have a feeling the answer has something to do with what country the paper is published in.

-- CAV