Monologue with Josh Levy of Win-The-War.com
Here's the latest from Josh Levy at Win-The-War.com. [Please note that this site is extremely thin-skinned; even a polite request to a military-eligible war supporter at least to consider volunteering for military service is likely to lead to total banishment. 'So much for building a broad coalition of real Americans who want Our Country, led by Our President, to succeed, whether we support[ed] President Bush and his party in recent elections or not.]
AM I A CHICKEN HAWK? ARE YOU A CHICKEN DOVE?
You can do much better than to use the “chicken hawk” insult. First, you can surely come up with wittier, more original insults. Second, you’re probably more intelligent than to need to rely on insults. Finally, I assume you have good reasons to oppose the Iraq War. Why not share those reasons? We could engage in reasonable debate as fellow citizens who seek the good of the country.
OYE Comment: By our definition, Chickenhawks are too old to serve, so we don't focus on them. This blog does not use the term "Chickenhawk."
That's also why Our Founder, General J.C. Christian, Patriot, of Jesus' General, created the term "Yellow Elephant." Don't you think that Yellow Elephant is much "wittier, more original?"
As we all know, Yellow Elephants are eligible to serve in the conflict they publicly support, so it's quite consistent, if not our duty, to ask them whether they have at least considered volunteering for military service. Their response is relevant: If they only support the war if "other people" actually fight it, their audience is entitled to know the strength of their commitment. This is "reasonable debate." This blog has not taken a position on the war itself.
In any case, you do not really believe in the principle underlying the “chicken hawk” attack, and neither do I. As a commentator put it once,
the inescapable logic of chicken hawk calling is that only military men have standing to pronounce in any way on war – to advocate it or to advocate against it. The decision not to go to war involves exactly the same issues of experiential and moral authority as does the decision to go to war. If a past of soldiering is required for one, it is required for the other. Chicken doves have no more standing than chicken hawks. We must leave all the decisions to the generals and the veterans.
OYE Comment: Well, we disagree with you on at least some of this. We believe that anyone in American can express any opinion, or none at all. However, respect for one's own opinion is not a right; respect must be earned. One's own personal biography is relevant; potential personal conflicts of interest must be fully disclosed to ensure credibility. Let the audience, the American people, decide.
Additionally, it’s disingenuous for those Americans who are most critical of the military and least prone to join it themselves to insist now that military service is a pre-requisite to supporting war. Those who shout out “chicken hawk” the loudest are usually the same ones who want to transfer a good portion of the military budget to social and educational programs and who are quick to suggest that military training turns peaceful citizens into violent criminals. Who could believe, then, that you now accord our soldiers such high respect that you do not trust anyone else to make the decision to go to war?
OYE Comment: This blog has not taken a position on the war or the other political issues you mention. Furthermore, given substantial personnel changes at high levels in our government, debating the past does not seem to help move our country forward; our country should focus on the present and the future.
It’s a little too convenient, anyway, that those who wish to wage war must serve (and not just serve, but on the frontlines, of course) while those who oppose the war need not do anything except perhaps wave a protest sign now and then. The duty to help the country reach victory in wartime falls on the shoulders of every citizen. Nor is enlisting the only way to further the cause of victory. Indeed, as is clear to many, the Iraq War will be won or lost on the homefront. Sustaining the public’s will to prevail can be as crucial, sometimes more crucial, than fighting on the battlefield.
OYE Comment: It is through broad participation in military service of all sectors of society, to include high-income social circles that support the war but are not currently in uniform, who have the national leadership responsibility to set a good example for the rest of us, that public support will be enhanced. If those eligible to serve who support the war were lining up at military recruiting centers, they would have the credibility to join you in encouraging all Americans, even those not currently supporting the war, to do the same.
Furthermore, imagine the consequences if every war-supporter of military age who were obliged to enlist. A minimum of 20 million would have to abandon their jobs to sign up. This would throw the country into a recession (hardly desirable in wartime) while burdening the military with massive organizational and logistical problems. If you want to propose reinstating the draft, let’s discuss how that will advance the country’s welfare. (You won’t have to persuade me, though - I support a draft.) Insisting that tens of millions of young men and women volunteer tomorrow is illogical.
OYE Comment: You're very much missing the point. Our Army is facing major challenges in persuading a mere 80,000 healthy American heterosexuals [85% male, 41-and-under] to enlist by September 30. A much larger number of applicants will allow military recruiters to select those most likely to serve effectively in uniform; they won't have to consider taking just about everyone who applies. Not all volunteers are accepted, but all are appreciated. This blog has consistently thanked all such Real American Patriots for Stepping Forward.
Two final thoughts.
Please remember that the “chicken hawk” category includes such notables as Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.
Finally, please remember that using the “chicken hawk” insult on this site will get you banned immediately. This website is for debate, not personal attacks. We welcome serious dissent, but do not waste our time or your own with flippant ad hominems.
Thank you. Now let’s get back to learning from each other.
OYE Comment: You're welcome. In many respects, we're actually on the same side. However, if our polite encouragement to you at least to consider volunteering for military service yourself constitutes an insult or a personal attack, well, what do you think you're going to hear from real Americans themselves?
Here's Tata's experience. What about yours?
Hat tip to The Cavalier Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Virginia.