Squawk-back at the Chickenhawks II

Here are more of my responses to this blog. Here's what Dave P. posted Dec. 9 1017:

Karl: If YOU have not served in the war, then by your own logic YOU have no right at all to speak out AGAINST the war as only someone who has served can understand the issue . . . right?

What makes you think I'm speaking out against the war? Operation Yellow Elephant, and my initial comment, focus exclusively on those who are eligible to serve and support the war, but refuse to consider [repeat: consider] actually serving themselves. If the war is indeed worth supporting, and if you are eligible to serve, why won't you even consider [repeat: consider] volunteering? There's a real credibility problem here.

And if fighting in Iraq is so unpopular with the soldiers (who, by your logic, have the ONLY right to speak out for or against the war) . . . how do you explain the very high levels of reenlistment among the combat arms?

In my humble opinion, there are several reasons for the healthy reenlistment rate among the combat arms, including unit cohesion, belief in the mission [especially at the tactical level], good leadership [especially at the tactical and operational levels] and the significant incentives being offered, as well as the threat of stop-loss (without a bonus) for those who choose not to reenlist. But the new recruits at the bottom of the pyramid are not joining up in the numbers needed to sustain this effort. And the future leaders of our governing party are conspicuous by their absence.

Or the fact that the military as a whole and the combat arms in specific [sic] voted Republican (i.e., 'pro-war') by a three-to-one margin, higher in absentee ballots from Iraq?

Well, I don't believe the preceding sentence, since in America - and Iraq - how citizens (including soldiers) vote is supposed to be secret. But let's assume you are correct. While the sum of servicemembers' personal choices tends to favor our governing party over the loyal opposition, so what? The war was not the only issue in the campaign; what about abortion, taxes, gay marriage, Terri Schiavo, etc.?

Don't forget: The fact that military servicemembers have voted Republican does not mean that a significant proportion of Republicans are military servicemembers or veterans.

The serving men and women have spoken, Karl . . . and they told you and your ilk to shut up and stop undercutting them. Will you obey your own principles and follow their wishes? Or prove yourself a hypocrite by continuing to undermine them?

'Sorry, but I fail to see how an effort to boost recruiting among well qualified, motivated patriots, such as College Republicans and Young Republicans, can ever constitute "undercutting" our troops. But if you really want me to believe that, let's get some quotes from real combat arms troops in Iraq fully approving of Jenna's boyfriend Henry Hager working in an office at the Commerce Department instead of Supporting The Troops by serving in Iraq.

Comment: Wow! They really get into it. 'Almost like combat, I guess, for the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.

Update: Here's the link in Jack's comment (scroll down to the third one).