Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    April 2024
    S M T W T F S
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘chicken hawks’

Trying to shut up the troops

Posted by Richard on February 2, 2007

The "chicken hawk" meme that’s long been popular with the left is bad enough. It’s the contemptible claim that only those who’ve been in combat are entitled to support the war, and that those of us who support the war and haven’t served either need to enlist or shut up. But now we have a new anti-war meme — courtesy of Bill Arkin, a journalist and "military analyst" for NBC News who blogs at The Washington Post — that’s stunningly vile and disgusting.

Apparently, Arkin noticed that the vast majority of military people do support the war (we Fighting Keyboardists pointed this out a long time ago). He’s sick of listening to them and thinks they should shut up. He cited a few examples —  soldiers in Iraq speaking out in a recent NBC Nightly News report — and responded with ill-concealed contempt and loathing (emphasis added):

These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President’s handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.

Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.

So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?

I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don’t get it, that they don’t understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren’t about the United States, I’d say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.

But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary – oops sorry, volunteer – force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.

First of all, only a postmodern leftist worshipping at the feet of Chomsky and Said would interpret a soldier’s simple criticism of his viewpoint as a demand that "we should roll over and play dead, and give up our rights …"

It’s clear that Arkin despises people in the military and suspects that many of them are bloodthirsty goons who enjoy murdering and raping civilians and would be happy to turn the U.S. into a military dictatorship. His hatred has become so intense that he can no longer heed the advice he gave himself when he began the blog (emphasis added):

My basic philosophy is that government is more incompetent than diabolical, that the military gets way too much of a free ride (memo to self: Don’t say anything bad about the troops), and that official secrecy is the greatest threat citizens actually face today.

Mind you, I think he was off to a bad start with that philosopy. It starts out all right, but "official secrecy" (whatever that means) is our biggest threat? Not the people who want to blow up our airplanes, trains, and buildings? Not the movement that wants to subjugate us all under its 7th-century laws, turn women into chattel, and stone homosexuals and adulterers to death? Interesting perspective you have there, Arkin.

So, according to Arkin and his leftist friends, who has moral standing to comment on the war? Those of us who haven’t served have no right to speak out because we’re chicken hawks, hypocritically asking others to do what we haven’t done ourselves. The troops have no right to speak out because they’re mercenaries lusting for blood and ready to institute a fascist dictatorship. The people who served in the past and support the war have no right to speak out because … well, I’m not sure, exactly, but I think it’s because they’re still mercenaries at heart, lusting for blood and dictatorship.

Apparently, Arkin and his friends think that only those who’ve served in the past, but who now oppose war, are entitled to voice their opinions — people like Jack Murtha and John Effin’ Kerry.

And he has the gall to worry about us silencing him?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

A dishonest and incoherent slur

Posted by Richard on July 25, 2006

Jeff Jacoby has had it with being called a chicken hawk. His latest column just demolished that tiresome ad hominem argument (emphasis added):

"Chicken hawk" isn’t an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don’t really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq — stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? — I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?

The cry of "chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of "chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of "chicken doves."

Outstanding — RTWT.

Captain Ed (to whom I tip my hat) noted that the 101st Fighting Keyboardists unit provides "the opportunity to annoy them by adopting their slurs as a fun way to highlight the hypocrisy." Great point! Attention Fighting Keyboardists — I think Jeff Jacoby deserves one of those cool FreedomDogs T-shirts. I assume Jacoby is in the Boston area. I’ll pledge $10 if someone from that area can find out what size and how to get it to him. Heck, if someone makes it dead simple for me –i.e., all I have to do is fill out a PayPal form — I’ll cover the whole thing. Anybody want to help make this happen?

Note to the publicity-minded: A Fighting Keyboardist spokesperson hand-delivering the T-shirt would make a great news story and photo op, doncha think? If you’re from the Massachusetts area and want to make this happen, add a comment or email me (see top right sidebar).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Chicken hawk shirts available

Posted by Richard on May 16, 2006

When I enlisted in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, I mentioned that Derek of Freedom Dogs might put the logo on a t-shirt. Well, the t-shirt is now available, at least in the initial "combat color" version. I’ve already ordered one. If you’re interested in a black on red version, go there and let Derek know in the comments.

I’d probably buy a black on red shirt, too. But I’d really like a version like the original logo at left. Yeah, I realize the logo contains at least 7 or 8 colors, which would be expensive; but I’m guessing you could get close with just four, depending on the shirt color.

For instance, on a red shirt, you could do it with light green, dark green, black, and yellow. A light green shirt would work, too, using dark green, black, yellow, and red inks.

And on a white or light shirt, can’t you do different intensity/saturation (or whatever it’s called) — like dark green and light green, or black and gray — by doing a screen?

I don’t know much about t-shirt printing, obviously. I just know that I like that logo and the way its colors look together. It would look good on a coffee mug, too, don’t you think?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

Proud to be a chicken hawk

Posted by Richard on May 2, 2006

Certain elements of the anti-war left — the 98% who can’t or won’t use rational argument and thus give the rest of them a bad name — like to sneer at people like me as "chicken hawks" and "fighting keyboardists."

Their point, apparently, is that the military, not elected civilians, should determine U.S. foreign policy.

Or maybe their point is that if you oppose crime, you’re morally obligated to join the police force.

Or maybe it’s just that calling people names is much easier and way more fun than critical thinking.

That’s a chicken hawk on the right. Pretty cool bird, actually. Not really much of an insult. [Yeah, I’ve heard of the urban slang term "chickenhawk" (one word); but that’s not this chicken hawk (two words). So there.]

Anyway, rather than object, complain, or argue against all the "chicken hawk" and "fighting keyboardist" nonsense, Frank J of IMAO, Derek Brigham of Freedom Dogs, and Captain Ed of Captain’s Quarters decided to have some fun with it. So, they created the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and adopted the chicken hawk as their mascot. Derek created the spiffy logo below.

In his inimitable, unmedicated fashion, Frank J answered every conceivable question (and some inconceivable ones) about chicken hawks and the 101st Fighting Keyboardists in his FAQ. Here’s a taste:

Q. So why do supporters of the war get called "chicken hawks" like its an insult?
A. Well, the short answer is some people are morons.

Q. What’s the long answer?
A. Back when man first started to learn to use tools, certain spears were made using…

Q. What’s the medium-length answer?
A. Many liberals, in their diminished mental capacities, like to have a word or phrase to shout over and over in lieu of the mental preparedness needed for an actual debate of issues. Fighting tyranny is a complicated issue, and, rather than admit they’re on the side of tyranny, many liberals will try to avoid debate altogether in any way possible.

Q. Liberals seem to use the phrase "chicken hawk" against people who aren’t in the military? Do liberals want a government where decisions are only made by those in the military?
A. No, they hate the military.

Q. But they say they support the troops!
A. And you can train a parrot to say the same thing. That doesn’t mean anything.

I’ve enlisted in the 101st Fighting Keyboardists and added their blogroll in the right sidebar. To keep the page from getting absurdly long, I "borrowed" some CSS from The Anti-PC League (tweaked it a bit) to put the blogrolls on the right into scroll boxes. What do you think?

Derek of Freedom Dogs is considering making this logo available on a T-shirt. If you’re interested, drop by this post and let him know.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »