Yes, Navy is correct. But you left out an “i”. 
Supporting military action that you are able but not willing to participate in is extremely cowardly
What goal does it serve to include the argumentum ad hominem?
[ul][li]The people who already think the war is unjust don’t need to hear it, and do not necessarily agree with you.[/li][li]People on the fence about the justification for war will not be swayed by your calling the advocate a coward* because logically your accusation is baseless unless the war is actually unjustified. They might not even agree with you if the war was unjustified, and your name-calling might harm your own credibility.[/li][li]People who already think the war is justified will think your character attack is low. Either the rest of society propogates a chilling effect despite not having convinced the advocate otherwise (eg: death threats), the advocate takes this as a sign that he is right and you have run out of valid arguments, or both.[/ul][/li]*unless you make the argument that the public is swayed by attacks on personal character and cannot be trusted to follow logic. But be prepared to defend yourself against a “holier than thou” character attack.
~Max
I’m not sure I agree with your list above, but I think this particular rhetorical tool can be effective because of the special power words like “coward” and “gutless” hold in American culture (and especially the jingoistic parts of American culture).
I’m sure some of it comes from my own personal experience. I like this tactic because I’ve seen, up close and personal, how effective it can be. Of course no one should be swayed by my own anecdotes, but that’s a big part of the answer to the question of why I like this particular ad hominem tactic (in this scenario and few, if any, others).
Perhaps you don’t agree with the list I made, but the question still stands. Who are you trying to convince? The hawk? The public?
Adding a character attack to your argument could make someone back down and reconsider their position. But the blade is double-edged: it can easily incite threats or boycotts or other chilling effects; it can backfire and enrage your opponent; it can annoy those members of the public on both sides who want an open debate on a contentious issue.
~Max
All of these things are possible, and thus I would use this tactic when I think it had a better chance to be effective than to backfire.
The CA Assembly is considering a law to raise the standard for police shootings from “reasonable” to “necessary”. There is obviously concern that this will raise the risk for police officers. Do the CA Assembly members need to join the police before they can support the law? Can we call them gutless cowards if they don’t?
Regards,
Shodan
You can call them anything you like, but I don’t think this is relevant to the thread. This appears totally uncomparable to advocating for dumb wars.
What’s your position on the US Navy suppression of piracy off the coast of Somalia? I’d presume that a strong majority of Americans support that military action. If you don’t support that action, are you willing to personally and publicly state that every American who does support that action is disgusting, and if they aren’t in the military, cowardly? And when you receive the inevitable torrent of vitriolic negative feedback, that’s perfectly acceptable right? Nothing wrong with a bit of naming and shaming. Alternatively, if you do support that action, are you happy to be shamed by someone more pacific than you declaring that you are disgusting and cowardly?
In my understanding and in my opinion, this fell into the rare case of actually being reasonably appropriate use of military force.
I am happy to hear anyone’s opinion, including those who think I’m disgusting and cowardly. I want to know all of my possible flaws. If I’m disgusting or cowardly, please let me know so I can re-evaluate my positions! I want to improve myself and become a better person, and criticism can be very helpful in that process.
Maybe I should have elaborated. Adding a character attack to your argument could make someone back down and reconsider their position, if you could convince them that advocating a justified war without enlisting is cowardly. I don’t know any personality types that would be swayed to one side of a debate because you say, ‘if your belief is wrong you are a coward’. At most you move the hawk-by-default to a skeptical position, while simultaneously risking a breakdown in honest public debate. You don’t win anybody over with a character attack, and you risk the liberty of public debate in doing so.
You might keep the country out of war, but not by convincing the country that the war is unjustified. Instead you did it by injecting vitriol into public debate, by chilling free speech and shaming your opponents. Is it worth it? What if you are wrong?
~Max
If it’s a dumb war, then yes, it’s worth it (in your hypothetical). If I’m wrong, then I’m wrong and deserve criticism.
That is a rather narrow view of the principle of free speech.
Very well, then that is where we disagree. I don’t think it’s worth it - even if my life were one of the ones thrown away in a dumb war, it wouldn’t be worth the cost. I can’t declare every war beyond the pale, and I’m not comfortable declaring young, fit citizens cowards for weighing in on that debate without enlisting.
ETA: Draft dodging is another thing entirely.
~Max
I am comfortable with doing those things, at least in certain circumstances. So at least we have the point of disagreement.
There are varying degrees of responsibility for wars. The highest degree of responsibility lies with those shooting bullets and pushing bomb buttons. A step removed would be the direct support for the killers. A step removed from that is the executive and/or legislative personnel that direct funds to the killing operations. Next step would be the academics and professions policy analysts. A step removed from that would be indirect support through manufacturing and service providers. After that, we should hold the voters responsible. Lastly, Joe on the street who supports war by rhetoric only.
There is much overlap in these. All of us are Joes on the street in a certain respect. Some Joes just talk about support for war. Some level up and vote for warmongers. Some bear more responsibility and provide support for the killers and military capabilities.
This hierarchy of responsibility may have some wiggle room in the middle levels, but undeniably certain is the fact that the killers bear the most responsibility for the wars. This is clear because if they lay down their arms, there would be no war. If their funding was cut by govt, and they wanted to wage war, they would loot, conquer, and exact tribute. This has been the course of history. It is plain as day. If Joe on the street ceased his rhetorical support for war, and the higher levels of the hierarchy still want war, Joe would have no effect. If the bottom part of the hierarchy up to the soldier pushed for war, but the soldier lay down his arms, there would be no war.
Take the stupid and unnecessary war in Afghanistan. Everyday Joes have no effect on this war. The soldiers continue the war year after year, neglecting moral obligations to lay down arms and shifting blame to the funders of the wars. That is a cowardice that has real impact. An important cowardice. The fact that Joe Schmo says he wants war but doesn’t go to war is an everyday cowardice. A humble cowardice.
Now the intent of the OP was to gather support for shunning Joe Schmo in the belief that doing so will cut down on “unnecessary” wars. That is not controversial. Everybody can see this type of cowardice and besides being a humble cowardice, it is in fact already shun-worthy in our society. Completely shunnable.
What is not shunnable is military killing. Look at Trump’s recent nonsense. He want to pardon war criminals. A big chunk of society is probably in support of this. We should of course imprison war criminals. But we should also at the very least shun and shame military killing. The public always blames the third or fourth tier in the hierarchy of war guilt. This is the real problem. Shunning Joe Schmo is a big commonplace nothing. It will not stop wars. Shunning soldiers will stop wars.
Never in our history have soldiers been so coddled and above reproach. This is why we have interminable and unnecessary wars. The little boys grow up and see the artificial respect accorded to military service, as if it took great courage to take no responsibility for your actions.
Interesting turnabout for an OP that served in the Navy.
Well I’m late to the party but I’m going to tentatively agree with the OP. For one, I agree that war is a unique case, and citizens who advocate for specific foreign action should be willing to make a personal sacrifice if they’re able. Maybe not “dying on the front lines” level of sacrifice, but as a 17 year veteran who’s never really served outside of the confines of a comfortably air conditioned office, I’ve still had to sacrifice opportunities, comfort, and convenience to serve my country. I will not advocate for a foreign conflict that I also wouldn’t be willing to personally volunteer to deploy for, because I’m not willing to send my fellow servicemen into harm’s way if I’m not willing to myself. I don’t think that’s a high bar for citizens to meet.
As far as comparing it to other jobs – who are these people saying they wouldn’t want to be miners or IRS agents or border patrol? We’re not saying you have to make a career out of it, or be the first in line to volunteer. If I felt that our country needed miners or IRS agents or border patrol guards and nobody else was willing to step up, I would absolutely raise my hand to do any of those jobs. How can you advocate for a job to exist if you’re not willing to do it yourself? Makes no sense to me.
As for being unfit due to not meeting the physical standards, or a criminal background, or not being psychologically strong enough to deploy, I don’t find that to be an excuse. If you’re going to advocate for a foreign conflict, maybe you should be willing to do what it takes to get into shape, not have a criminal record, don’t do drugs, and generally be ready to follow through.
I know how this sounds and it doesn’t seem to be terribly popular here, but I share Andy’s frustration with people bandying about ideas of foreign conflict like it’s no big deal because they don’t have any skin in the game.
I want a whole lot of job openings to be filled: for example, logger and teacher and doctor and Border Patrol agent and yes, soldier. I benefit, sometimes directly and sometimes only tangentially, from people doing those jobs. That amounts to, if not outright advocacy, then at least a tacit sort of support for those jobs.
Each of those jobs require different sorts of sacrifices. Sometimes, that sacrifice means the death of some of the people doing the job. That’s unfortunate, but not, in my eyes, a very good argument for eliminating the job or ending my tacit support for those jobs.
Obviously I can’t do all of those jobs at once. Choosing one of them (or another job) and not the one under particular focus in this thread, effectively amounts to not being willing to do it myself (or at least, one’s “willingness” didn’t amount to much if they made a different career choice). Does that mean loggers should be publicly shaming us and calling people at the hardware store ‘gutless cowards’ for being unwilling to harvest their own lumber? No, of course not. That would just be dumb, and as Max S. has eloquently pointed out, needlessly raises the temperature of public discourse for no gain at all.
Is it cowardly to say “____ an amount of money should be spent on such and such a cause” but not want to personally donate money towards it?
I consider it the duty of the state to provide for the common defense. This is part of the reason I pay my taxes. If I were to advocate for some war, I would be arguing that the war is necessary for the survival of the state and the people it represents. While I might not actively volunteer for duty, if my name came up in the draft you bet I would answer the call. And if I argued for the war, I have no right to complain about being drafted.
~Max