Friday, January 12, 2007

Destroying the Chickenhawk Argument

Laura Ingraham went ballistic this morning over Barbara Boxer's insinuation that Condi Rice has no standing to send troops to war because she doesn't have a husband or kids at risk. Laura is understandably incensed on behalf of a fellow spinster, who, like myself, did not necessarily choose to be either single or childless. Converting the personal into the political is a hallmark of the Left, and in this case it was an extremely low blow.

But that's not the primary issue. The issue is the chickenhawk argument, which for some reason the Left thinks is legitimate. Unfortunately, too many on the right miss the point of the chickenhawk argument and retort that "you don't have to be a teacher to support education or a cop to support law and order."

But that's a good counter-argument only if the Left is arguing for authenticity, which, in a wholly uncharacteristic move for them, they are not. They are instead arguing about who stands to lose the most by going to war. The core of the chickenhawk argument is that if you don't stand to lose your own life or that of someone you love, you can rightfully be accused of being careless with other people's lives.

There are two ways to answer this argument, as follows:

Fine, I don't have actual skin in the game. So let's talk to those who do: the soldiers themselves and their families.

Here's the fact: 75% of those who have served in Iraq sign up for at least one more tour, and some sign up for more. Not because they're desperately poor (please, do we have to go over this again? they're totally not) but because they believe in the mission. They think it's worth it to risk their lives to save Iraq.

Furthermore, when you talk to the soldiers in the VA hospitals, the ones who have lost arms and legs and the power to walk and who knows what else, the vast majority of them will tell you that it was worth it, and that given the chance to do it over again they would. In a heartbeat.

The soldiers in Iraq have also gotten to know the Iraqi people on a one-to-one basis, and you know what the Iraqis say? They say, "Don't leave us to the mercy of the monsters among us! Stay and help us like you did with Japan and Germany! Don't give up on us, please!"

Which leads me to my second argument against the chickenhawk accusation: it's not YOUR country that will fall into genocidal chaos if we leave.

That being the case, how can you, you Spoiled American, sit there in your warm, secure home and demand that Iraq be left to twist in the wind, just because you're squeamish or bored or afflicted with BDS? Who are you to tell the Iraqis to go to hell and provide the means for them to get there?

President Bush may not have skin in the game, but he does have to look in the faces of the families who lost loved ones and tell them that their sacrifice isn't in vain. As soon as you, Mr. Dove, have looked into the faces of these angels and told them that they're not worth it, then and only then will YOU have standing to call for withdrawal.

Get it? Good. Now until you have a solution to the problem, sit down and shut up.

1 comment:

Jimmy J. said...

Well said!

I watched that hearing on C-SPAN and was, as usual, completely revolted by the way the loyal opposition beat on Condi. Boxer is beyond belief, but many of the men are almost as bad.

Joe Biden's threat to provoke a constitutional crisis was bloviational grandstanding of the worst kind.