Part of what's refreshing about Steve Gilliard's political commentaries is his no-nonsense style, which he combines with generally being well-informed on the issues he discusses.
But in a post called Stop Endorsing Failure (05/27/05), he takes Matt Yglesias of the American Prospect to task for styling himself as a "hawkish" Democrat in the following way:
Matt, if you are "hawkish", I think there are recruiting station[s] in Boston Common, Times Square and off the Mall in DC. Any one will accept your enlistment. Because if you are going to support interventions, you need to get your [expletive deleted] in the Army and support it as an 11B. This is real life. You can sit on your [expletive deleted] and proclaim policy and not be taken seriously, or you can get a commission, lead a platoon for a couple of years and have real world experience. Because, otherwise, you are pretty much a chickenhawk suggesting poor people die for your ideas. And I think you're smarter and better than that.
I think this sort of reproach is not only wrong-headed, it's a downright militarist idea. Every citizen has not only the right but the affirmative duty to take issues of war and peace very seriously and responsibly. That goes for veterans and non-veterans alike. If a war is a necessary one, it would be wrong for citizens who thought so to just keep their mouths shut because they never did a stint in the armed services. Most members of Congress have never served in the military. Should they not vote or take positions on issues related to the military?
Serving in the military may give some people a perspective that they use to understand military and foreign policy issues better. But prior to the Iraq War, for many people serving in the military meant drills and training. That imparts specific skills. But in itself, it doesn't give anyone special insight into foreign policy or military strategy.
For that matter, neither does serving in combat. Obviously, that does give people first-hand experience of what combat is like. It's often said that people who have been in combat are less likely to glorify war or take issues of war and peace lightly.
But I don't know if even that's valid as a generalization. Certainly, some combat veterans respond to the experience in that way. But I've also seen combat veterans who were just as thoughtless and gung-ho in cheering for wars as any of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders without combat experience. Does combat experience make that any more valid? Mindless warmongering is just bad. It's not any better if it's a veteran or a combat veteran or a general doing it. And normally not any worse if it's a non-veteran doing it.
That's why I think that war critics of the present day often use the "chickenhawk" insult carelessly. The term generally refers to people that have never served in the armed forces but who are all enthusiastic for war. But, again, should non-veterans just keep their mouths shut if they do support a particular military action? That's just an undemocratic notion.There are extreme cases where it does make a difference. When now-Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who ducked the Vietnam War-era draft with a football injury, campaigned in 2002 against the encumbent Senator Max Cleland, who left three of his limbs in Vietnam, by attacking his patriotism, that was a special kind of contemptible. The label of "chickenhawk" seems especially appropriate for a situation like that.
But even then, if Chambliss were a veteran, would that have made his attack on Cleland's patriotism any more virtuous? Were the Swift Boats Liars for Bush any more honorable in dishonestly smearing John Kerry's service record because they were veterans?
When I hear about someone like Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle or other neoconservative zealots talking loosely about the cleansing and liberating effects of military violence, I often wonder if military service might have at least given them a less romantic notion of the purging power of violence and war. But their notions of foreign and military policy are destructive and dangerous, whether they've personally served in the military or not.
The bottom line of this for me is that every citizen and every voter has some responsibility to take issues of war and peace very seriously and not be casual or reckless in cheering to send soldiers off to kill and die in wars. And that goes regardless of whether they are veterans or not.
As the old saying goes, war is too important to be left to the generals. It's also too important to everybody to assume that veterans are the only citizens who have a citizen's responsibility when it comes to war and peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment