November 13, 2003

Chickenhawks

How do I address Oliver's pretty flimsy argument? His attempt at satire fell flat here in TAM land. Then his point falls short. He writes, "[T]he people who are supporting and encouraging a war of first-strike aggression are the same people who didn't/aren't serving." The first thought that came to mind was, "So what?" That's an ad hominem attack. But in the next sentence, Oliver trips over himself. "Do you have to have been in the military to support or oppose war? No." If it doesn't matter, then why did he bring it up?

What Oliver doesn't understand is pro-war webloggers don't get some glee from Americans sacrificing their lives. What we have realized is after September 11, the world changed. After that date, we knew we weren't safe from terrorist attacks. A city could burn up in nuclear hellfire. A deadly plague could ravage whole states. The scales fell from our eyes. Unless America's enemies are stopped ("eradicated" as Oliver put it), all of us are vulnerable.

Here's an example from Glenn Reynolds. On 8.28.01, Reynolds wrote:

To paraphrase Clint Eastwood, a nation's got to know its limitations. We were established as an anti-imperial nation. Playing a quasi-imperial role during the Cold War strained our nation's institutions, and its soul, almost to the breaking point. Playing the role of global hegemon, without any struggle against an Evil Empire to give it a moral center, would surely destroy us.

A few weeks later, three jets were turned into cruise missiles aimed at our financial and governmental centers. When events change one's worldview changes along with it. Glenn became a "warblogger."

We've supported invading both Afghanistan and Iraq because they were threats to the U.S. Afghanistan because it was home to al-Qaeda while under Taliban rule; Iraq because of their WMD. Oliver and others may disagree with this opinion.

Let's turn on the way-back machine to find out what Oliver was thinking in the days after the Sep. 11 attacks. There's this post:

It is good to see England, Germany, France and the rest of Europe stand with us, as well as NATO's willingness to treat this as an attack on all the member nations. But, this is not the time to build international coalitions like we did in the Gulf War. America fights now. If those other countries want to help, more power to them - but this is our battle.

Then here's a portion of this one:

The enemy must be eradicated. Not attacked, or bombed, but eradicated. One by one we must expunge the world of these terrorists. When that is accomplished, we will work with the countries of the world to set things right - as we did after World War II.

So for now, I am a hawk. But a temporary hawk, in search of becoming a dove again.

Oliver was pretty upset and justifiably so. But was he a "chickenhawk" then because he didn't immediately march to the local recruiting office and enlist? No.

Finally, after the attacks Oliver wasn't so keen on coalition building:

As I saw on a British comedy: "Weak as water". This is why coalition building is useless. The rest of the world continually hems and haws, wrings its hands, issues "condemnations" from the UN. They talk diplomacy when the enemy kills innocents. It seems only England truly understands the situation. They stand with us. If the rest of the world doesn't stand with us, where do they stand? Think about it.

To be up-front, my pro-war views have hardened since Sep. 11. On 9.26.01, I wrote:

A war on global terrorism is impractical. There are so many groups out there and only one or a handful took part on the 9.11 attacks. An open-ended quest to rid the world of terrorism would be a bigger failure than the War on Drugs. Terrorists would still exist and would attempt counterstrikes.

The U.S. response must be focused on the groups behind the recent attacks, the nations that harbored or supported them, and any terror groups or nations that pose a direct, immediate threat to national security. Much of this will be done through covert operations, but the occasional blatant military strike will be called for (think Libya).

I supported the Iraq War even if Saddam wasn't a "direct, immediate threat." I went from that to this position:

Iraq can never move forward as long as Saddam remains in power. Recent history shows that internal opposition won't topple him. Maybe U.S. military might can? Liberating Afghanistan is step one in the War on Terrorism. Liberating Iraq would be a good step two.

As I put it in a post last year, "At its core, invading Iraq is a war to save lives."
Neither Oliver then nor I now are chickenhawks. We're just two people who disagree about means to the same end--wiping out the Islamist terrorist threat to the U.S. Tom Tomorrow, who started this whole debate, has no idea how pro-war webloggers' thoughts evolved. He just went for the quick insult.

I'll let Lt. Citizen Smash have the final word:

Do I believe that my decision to serve my country somehow makes my opinion more relevant than those who chose not to join up? While I do feel that my experiences in the military, and especially my time in the Gulf, give me a unique perspective on some issues of national security, I don’t believe that it somehow makes me morally superior to those who have never worn wear a uniform. After all, serving in the US military is all about protecting the freedoms that we ALL cherish – including the right to free speech.

"Chickenhawk Debate"