Thursday, July 26, 2007

Monologue with Josh Levy of

Here's the latest from Josh Levy at [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.]


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.


At 26 July, 2007 14:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sigh, another arrogant young man lecturing his older and wiser fellow citizens.

~Foo Fighter~

At 26 July, 2007 16:09, Blogger Grung_e_Gene said...

I've been banned from posting but I was able to ask these points of Mr. Levy:

Since you have expunged my previous comment let us focus on these salient points:

Do you feel the 500 billion spent in Iraq has been well allocted? What about the other 2.5 TRILLION spent by the DoD in the last 6 years? Could this money have been better spent?

Do you feel agencies such as Blackwater, triple Canopy, and DynCorp add to the security of Americans in Iraq or hinder them? Do you feel it is proper for men working for those agencies to make 150K to 180K during their deployment while a US soldier makes 1/5th to 1/6th that amount?

Do you feel the spending of that money on Los Angeles class attack subs and DDX destroyers is the best way to fight the generational War on Terror?

Do you feel taking M1A1 Abrams Main Battle tanks down the streets of Fallujah and placing a Sabot round into each building is a good idea?

Do you feel increasing airstrikes "In the first 4 1/2 months of 2007, American aircraft dropped 237 bombs and missiles in support of ground forces in Iraq, already surpassing the 229 expended in all of 2006, according to Air Force figures obtained by The Associated Press." is going to gain us allies amongst the Iraqi populace?

Do you think it is fair that marines and soldiers hould have multiple deployments into Iraq? Is this just the price of serving one's country?

Do you think military operations can eliminate guerilla presence in the next 5 years in Iraq? If yes to this one, what historical guerilla war do you base this upon? The Boer Wars, the Malaysia insurrection the Spanish Guerilla War against Napoleon, the war in Sri Lanka, The Philippine Insurrection, Vietnam?

What tactics would you adopt or promote to help the men on the ground win the war on terror?

To whom does the decision to leave Iraq rest? The President, Congress, the American People, none of the above?

At 26 July, 2007 16:52, Anonymous blogenfreude said...

It's very simple. War cheerleaders - whether rooting for us to get in or rooting for us to stay - should pitch in if eligible. You wanted this war. It's a volunteer army. You can say anything you want about the war - you have that right - but you're doing nothing speaks volumes. Joining the 101st Fighting Keyboarders is the modern equivalent of the pilonidal cyst.

At 26 July, 2007 16:55, Blogger Wek said...

Does Mr. Levy realize that our Founding Fathers, like T. Jefferson, are far from being chickenhawks? Had the British won The War he and the others that signed the Dec of Independence would have likely been convicted of treason and killed. Although he wasn't on the front lines, Jefferson's ass still was on the line.

At 26 July, 2007 17:40, Anonymous tata said...

I too encouraged him to consider a career in defending me, since I am a little old lady. I too am banned from his site.

If I get my hands on this little schnorrer he is SO GROUNDED.

At 26 July, 2007 21:15, Anonymous J M K said...

I think I'm banned from the site too. I asked him what made him better than a recruit fresh out of high school.

At 26 July, 2007 21:29, Anonymous Mr. Stagger Lee said...

I wouldn't mind these pukes voiding the war, if they actually did things like demanding that the Bush Administration quit under-funding the VA, exposed the scandal at Walter Reed much earlier. Demanded that PTSD funding must be increased, you know really supporting the troops instead of posting dumb-ass stickers(made in China) on their trust-fund mobiles.

At 26 July, 2007 21:53, Blogger OYE said...


Thanks very much for sharing with us your entire experience with Mr. Josh Levy, especially this key question:

Do you think it is fair that marines and soldiers should have multiple deployments into Iraq? Is this just the price of serving one's country?

From what I can recall of his blog [I'm banned, of course], he actually claims to be quite concerned about this.

But he's certainly not going about it in a way likely to broaden his support among real Americans.

At 29 July, 2007 10:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lincoln was not a chickenhawk. He served in the Black Hawk War in Illinois, and was elected captain of his company.


Post a Comment

<< Home