Temptation of the chickenhawks

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

OK. Let me put it this way.

If my dad says that my neighbor threatens him, and he tells me to go over and take care of the guy because he’s never been in a fight, and I volunteer to go over to take care of the situation because I believe it’s the right thing to do, does it really matter that my dad has never fought? Should that alter my judgment in any way?

You seem to think that having avoided fighting means that your ability to decide whether a fight is necessary is negated. You also seem to forget that people were doing everything they possibly could to avoid Vietnam. Frankly, who can blame them? War is ugly. It’s messy. People get hurt, maybe killed.

Sure, you can call them a bunch of big pussies who ignored their duty and ran as far away from it as possible, but why? My opinion, shaped by the fact that the military is now all volunteer, is that back then it would have sucked monkey balls being around people who didn’t believe in what they were doing. It’s probably better that they didn’t go.

I don’t begrudge any of them their decisions, and by volunteering I committed myself to obey their orders whether I like them or not. It’s much easier to do since I believe in what we’re doing.

My point is this: The fact that they are “chickenhawks” doesn’t mean that they don’t understand what war is. On the contrary, the fact that they went out of their way to avoid it proves that they knew exactly what war was about. So do I, but I’m willing to take that risk.

Just as you have a viewpoint, I wish that you would at least try to understand others a little bit instead of basing your entire argument on name calling and sarcasm. I’m not trying to be an ass here, but that’s all your OP is composed of, sarcasm and derision followed by an irrelevant question.

CyberPundit, my assertion is anecdotal, to be honest, but I didn’t say “everyone”. I said “almost everyone”. There’s always exceptions.

[CyberPundit]

“There’s always exceptions”
Sure but many of the exceptions are concentrated in the top echelons of the military who know the most about the situation. Like I said there were several articles about their views during 2002 and the overall impression was they were generally unenthusiastic. It was the civilian ideologues at the Pentagon who were really pushing for war.

[Scylla]

Elvislives said:

Scylla is another example, sadly, of someone so unprone to intellectual self-examination as to be hostile about the very subject. Hint, pal - glibness is not a substitute for reason, and you cannot fool everyone all the time with it. If you think you knowwhat war is vicariously, try taking it up with those who know it first-hand - like Carroll and Teilhard, for instance. But you don’t have any more experience with it than any of the millions of us who also have veterans in our families, despite your pathetic attempt to wrap someone else’s cloak of glory around yourself.

I want to examine this in detail, but first a general comment. I think pretty much the worst thing you can do on a message board is to make things up about other people. Not only are you spreading ignorance when you lie like this, you are also impugning the character of people falsy. More importantly the person who resorts to making up ad hominem’s about their opponent reveals themself to be intellectually lazy.

Scylla is another example, sadly, of someone so unprone to intellectual self-examination as to be hostile about the very subject. Hint, pal - glibness is not a substitute for reason, and you cannot fool everyone all the time with it.

There’s an interesting psychological phenomenom called projection. It applies to the above quote in the following way. When a lazy and intellectually dishonest person wishes to make things up about somebody so that others will think badly about that person they want to find the worst most contemptible thing that they can. Inevitably they look within themselves and produce the attribute of their own character of which they are most ashamed.

Indeed, glibness is not a substitute for reason. The fact that you have chosen to post glib trash instead of using reason to reply to me confirms in fact that you are projecting.

If you think you know what war is vicariously, try taking it up with those who know it first-hand - like Carroll and Teilhard, for instance.

But I don’t. I don’t know you think I have made this claim. False attribution seems to be a habit for you, doesn’t it? BTW I have read Teilhard. I would read Carroll if you were to provide a working link. Your penchant for false attribution doesn’t exactly give me a lot of confidence concerning your interpretation of their ideas. Based on my having read and read about Teilhard quite a bit over the years I feel pretty confident that in my understanding of his attitudes towards. Your entire OP on the other hand is based on a two word quote.

But you don’t have any more experience with it than any of the millions of us who also have veterans in our families, despite your pathetic attempt to wrap someone else’s cloak of glory around yourself.

Do you have another trick? Are you capable of any form of rhetorical device other than the strawman? Can you do anything other than ad hominem false attribution?

Stop lying and attributing to me attitudes that I don’t have.

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Airman Doors, USAF *
You seem to think that having avoided fighting means that your ability to decide whether a fight is necessary is negated.

No, it’s not negated, but more skepticism is certainly required. This is not an either/or situation; rather the OP is a commentary on the mindset that is attracted to either/or situations and the need to understand it. It certainly can’t hurt to understand why you’re getting the orders you’re getting, and why you’ve agreed to be subject to them, can it? Again, no offense is intended.

You also seem to forget that people were doing everything they possibly could to avoid Vietnam

Where the hell do you get that idea about what I think? I was alive and conscious then, although far too young to go. The term “chickenhawk” as used by me or anyone else doesn’t apply like a blanket to everyone who did try to get out, and certainly not to those for whom it was a carefully-considered act of conscience. Don’t lump them together; I’m not. The term only applies to those whose motivations at the time were personally-based and immature, and whose judgment should similarly be considered suspect now, freed from personal danger but not from attraction to the simplicity and “moral clarity” of war.

[ElvisL1ves]

Scylla, if you don’t like what you see in the mirror, it isn’t the mirror’s fault. Got it?

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
**Scylla, if you don’t like what you see in the mirror, it isn’t the mirror’s fault. Got it? **

Absolutely, but what I’m looking at is the bottom of my shoe, and I’m blaming the dog that crapped on the sidewalk.

[elucidator]

Personally, I reject the notion that being a combat veteran somehow bestows a special privilege, due to a direct personal involvement. It implies that “war” is an entity, a definable thing, a discrete phenomenon. If that were true, the invasion of Grenada would be fundamentally identical to WWII.

It is like saying “poverty” is a discrete experience. Some people experience poverty and it makes them humble and generous. Others, it makes bitter and grasping. It is not the experience, but the nature of the person experiencing it. For reasons I don’t understand, and would prefer not to, some men find something glorious in war, something transcendent, even holy. Geo. Patton was an example. Regardless of his experience in the matter of combat, and my innocence, I see no good reason to defer to his judgement. Being a victim of cancer does not make one an oncologist.

For this reason, I dislike the use of “chickenhawk” as a pejorative for men who urge war and have not directly experienced it. It is based on a false premise, a premise of expertise, or a premise of “deserving” some special deference to one’s judgement. This is no less false than the notion that a man becomes somehow more “manly” by the fact of war. It is the ethos of schoolyard fisticuffs magnified to monstrosity.

Note to Scylla - latest on T. de Ch. and Piltdown: he didn’t do it. Evidence points to a amatuer English paeleontologist who was eager to represent the notion that humanity first evolved in England.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**
Note to Scylla - latest on T. de Ch. and Piltdown: he didn’t do it. Evidence points to a amatuer English paeleontologist who was eager to represent the notion that humanity first evolved in England. **

Really? Gould’s argument is pretty strong that Teilhard would have had to have been in on it, but it does seem out of character.

I’d be eager for a link with more details. I’d already forgiven Teilhard a youthful indiscretion, and I’d be more than happy to hear a scenario that cleared him

[Scylla]

oh, and as for the experience of war, I dunno either. I would guess that like anything else it affects different people differently. Some people may come through it with thoughts and experiences that are well worth considering, others not.

As always, I guess you have to decide for yourself if the individual circumstance and person’s conveyance of their experience carries weight.

I guess I would look at it the same way I would look at somebody that had experience tearing down an engine that was trying to tell me what it was like. The weight and athority that I gave that person’s words would not be automatic, but I would listen carefully to see what I could get out of it.

[elucidator]

Can’t remember much more. Read the originial Gould essay years and years ago, and this other thing a few years ago. Don’t think it was Gould, but can’t recall perzacktly.

But, hey, you got my word on it. What more proof do you need?

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
I dislike the use of “chickenhawk” as a pejorative for men who urge war and have not directly experienced it.

So would I, if that were what it were intended to mean. But I think the term, in common usage as well as in my own, isn’t intended to denigrate those who didn’t participate in it themselves for whatever reason, but those who wouldn’t in whatever circumstances… It’s for people who are willing to risk others’ lives and fortunes for a goal, but don’t or wouldn’t think the goal important enough to risk their own. It is possible to be a hawk without being a chicken, and to be a dove and courageous. Note especially, though, that the strongest cautions for restraint in this “debate” have come from those who have been there and done that, but that the decision-makers almost uniformly have hemmed and hawed about their own student deferments and National Guard billets - yet they’re the most bellicose.

It is facile and essentially useless to simply decry them as hypocrites, although they are; it helps more to give them credit for a little more complexity of thought and emotion, as Teilhard described, contemptible though their views may still be. But those attitudes are still drawing us into a war, and we had better understand why they are doing so without waiting for future historians, hadn’t we? I’ve heard it aptly observed that it’s like we’re now living through the doctoral thesis of some future history grad student.
Scylla, considering the source, everything you’ve said about me is a compliment, for which I thank you.