Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« There Is No Second Place | Main | Election Day Thoughts »

The Cardboard Submarine

Bill Whittle has a new essay up. It's (as usual) a long one, but worth reading. I've only gotten started, but this bit appealed immediately, given how many moron trolls have repeatedly made the argument over the past few weeks in comments:

CHICKENHAWKS

Let’s shag a few easy fly balls to warm up, shall we?

The Chickenhawk argument goes something like this: anyone who favors military action should not be taken seriously unless they themselves are willing to go and do the actual fighting. This particular piece of work is an anti-war crowd attempt to silence the debate by ruling that the other side is out of bounds for the duration. Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender. The person who employs an ad hominem attack is admitting they cannot win the debate on merit, and hope to chuck the entire thing out the window by attacking the messenger. This is a logical fallacy of the first order, because the messenger is not the message.

The messenger is not the message. That’s all you need to throw away the entire Chickenhawk response. But why stop there when this one is so much fun?

If you are ever see this charge again, you may want to reflect that person’s own logical reasoning in the following fashion: You may not talk about education unless you are willing to become a teacher. You may not discuss poverty unless you yourself are willing to go and form a homeless shelter. How dare you criticize Congress unless you are willing to go out and get elected yourself? Your opinion on a National Health Care System is negated out of hand since you are unwilling to get a medical degree and open a clinic. And as far as your opinions regarding the Democratic Underground or The Huffington Post are concerned, well, you can just keep them to yourself, mister, unless you can produce an advanced degree in Abnormal Psychology and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Using the internal reasoning behind the Chickenhawk argument means you cannot comment on, speak about or even hold an opinion on any subject that is not part of your paying day job. It is simple-minded and profoundly anti-democratic, which is why it so deeply appeals to those who sling it around the most.

On the eve of a very important election in our nation's history, enjoy.

[Update, on further reading]

Ooooohhh, another nice bit:

People like Michael Moore and Bill Maher and Keith Olberman would not be able to figure out how to close the canopy on an F-102. These people would be weeping with fear when those afterburners light up and you barrel down that runway hoping that engine doesn’t flame out and roll you inverted into the asphalt, or when you’re rocketing through the soup at 300mph watching two little needles chase each other, praying the next thing you see out the window is a runway and not a mountain goat.

George W. Bush is not stupid. It’s not possible to be a moron and fly a supersonic jet fighter, and everyone knows it.

What George W. Bush is, however, is inarticulate. English is his second language. From what I can see he does not have a first language. Abraham Lincoln spoke in simple frontier language in an age of rhetorical flourish. Like Bush, he was considered a bumpkin and an idiot, and like Bush, he realized that there were times when having people misunderestimate you repeatedly was a real advantage. That’s goal-oriented. That’s playing the deep game. That’s cunning.

I personally have gotten to the point where Bush’s malapropisms cause me to look at the floor and shake my head with an affectionate smile, in much the same way supporters of his predecessor used to do with every new revelation of coerced sex from former employees. He is what he is. But he is a damn sight more intelligent than the graphic designer in the Mini Cooper with the Village Idiot sticker. Me, personally, I look at the man’s entire catalog of flaws in the same way Lincoln looked at Grant and his drinking: I can’t spare this man. He fights.

So to me, anyway, given the above information I feel that anyone calling President Bush a moron and an idiot comes off sounding like…well…a moron and an idiot.

Yes, that's always been my impression. Just like John Kerry calling the troops idiots and underachievers.

[Update about 10 PM EST]

One more bit:

I cannot think of a single example of where appeasement – giving in to an aggressive adversary in the hope that it will convince them to become peaceful themselves – has provided any lasting peace or security. I can say in complete honesty that I look forward to hearing of any historical example that shows it does.

What I do see are barbarian forces closing in and sacking Rome because the Romans no longer had the will to defend themselves. Payments of tribute to the barbarian hordes only funded the creation of larger and better-armed hordes. The depredations of Viking Raiders throughout Northern Europe produced much in the way of ransom payments. The more ransom that was paid, the more aggressive and warlike the Vikings became. Why? Because it was working, that’s why. And why not? Bluster costs nothing. If you can scare a person into giving you his hard-earned wealth, and suffer no loss in return, well then you my friend have hit the Vandal Jackpot. On the other hand, if you are, say, the Barbary Pirates, raiding and looting and having a grand time of it all, and across the world sits a Jefferson – you know, Mr. Liberty and Restraint – who has decided he has had enough and sends out an actual Navy to track these bastards down and sink them all… well, suddenly raiding and piracy is not such a lucrative occupation. So, contrary to doomsayers throughout history, the destruction of the Barbary Pirates did not result in the recruitment of more Pirates. The destruction of the Barbary Pirates resulted in the destruction of the Barbary Pirates.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 06, 2006 06:16 PM

Comments

Actually according to the Manchester gazette, which
is the keeper of the chickenhawk database,
Chicken Hawk is a term for those who are quite
vociferous in encouraging war who when the opportunity
to have served their country came found themselves with
other priorities"

"Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth."

I can discuss education, but, if i really want some credibility
it sure helps to have worked in the system or be close to
the system. I can discuss Law Enforcement, and my
credibility is enhanced by having been to the
citizen's police academy and on Ride along's.
Givent hat war requires the ultimate sacrifice, it
sure helps to know what you are talking about.

Posted by anonymous at November 6, 2006 06:48 PM

"Givent hat war requires the ultimate sacrifice, it sure helps to know what you are talking about."

So does this mean you are going to quit posting on this subject then?

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 6, 2006 06:57 PM

I have a DD214 puckett, as do you.
I haven't ever seen leland or the other yobs
chime in on their service records

Posted by anonymous at November 6, 2006 07:02 PM

I'm guessing that Anonymous Moron is lying. Someone with a service record wouldn't be afraid to use her real name here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 07:05 PM

"those who are quite vociferous in encouraging war who when the opportunity to have served their country came found themselves with other priorities"

I guess someone forgot to schedule a war when I graduated from high school. Are the Dems promising a constant state of war so that everyone gets a chance to "serve their country"?

Posted by BDavis at November 6, 2006 07:06 PM

Rand, would it be too forward to enquire about your history of military service?

Posted by Chris Mann at November 6, 2006 07:35 PM

There is an entire generation of us (thanks to Ronald Reagan) who did not have to taste the bile of war. I was too young for Vietnam and too old for Desert storm. There are several million like me.

I did join when I was 17 (the last 42 days of Vietnam era veterans benefits) but an unfortunate encounter with a 4400 volt power line when I was 16 made that path untenable.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at November 6, 2006 07:37 PM

Rand, would it be too forward to enquire about your history of military service?

Yes, it would be too forward, because the question itself is a form of the discredited Chickenhawk argument. What would be the purpose of such an inquiry?

What, indeed, are your qualifications to ask such a question, and implicitly criticize me, seeing as you are not a blogger?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 6, 2006 07:39 PM

Despite posting all of this some people just refuse to let certain lines of logic enter their brain. Perhaps to re-emphasize: "Like all ad hominem attacks, (argumentum ad hominem means “argument against the person”) it is an act of intellectual surrender." The fact that certain individuals then turn around to take the opportunity to hound someone on the same logical fallacy just goes to show you that they continue to turn the wheel of the hurdy-gurdy even though the monkey doesn't dance. They just like the sound the box makes.

Posted by Josh Reiter at November 6, 2006 08:05 PM

> "Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it;
> particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war;

Not to be confused with Democrats who dodged the draft, betrayed their country to the Soviet Union, then sent others to wage war on Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, and various aspirin factories.

The "Chickenhawk" argument must only be used when we're at war with those who actually threaten the United States.

Posted by Bill Clinton at November 6, 2006 08:53 PM

"Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth."

Then there's another category of people who refused to serve but feel free to demean the service of those who did (like Bush). I call them "chickensh*t."

My service ranged from Army Private (Airborne Infantry - paratrooper) to Air Force Captain (Satellite Operations)

Posted by Larry J at November 7, 2006 05:52 AM

Hmm - regarding "appeasement" (warning: long essay, but quite interesting if anyone wants to slog throught this): it's actually subject to interpretive defining, unfortunately. A wise leader chooses the battles, chooses the methodologies, and the degree of force or restraint depending on he situation. Hand-in-hand with appeasement is "avoidance" - i.e., isolationism.

The poster-child for appeasement is, of course, Neville Chamberlain. The U.S. practiced avoidance during the bulk of the First World War and the early part of WW2 (although FDR was moving the country against significant internal resistance toward participation). Churchill, a decorated veteran and military history buff and author, was a vociferous opponent to Chamberlain's Munich Agreement. On the other hand, particularly Americans may not quite understand the impact of the First World War on Europe, and particularly on France and Britain. This map is a visual illustration of the casualties incurred during the war, recalling that it had been going on for over 3 years before the AEF under Pershing landed in France - including the 1916 Battle of the Somme which resulted in about 310,000 dead and up to a million wounded, almost 60,000 casualties by the British on the first day of the battle alone, a scale that's pretty hard to wrap one's head around even by America's own Civil War standards (sidenote: Here's a listing I just ran across that summarizes some of the most bloody battles in history, in case anyone is interested).

With all that in context, it's easy to understand that there was a great deal of reluctance within Britain and France to rehash conflicts with Germany. Still, I agree with Churchill on that one.

There was a great deal of give-and-take throughout the Cold War, with both sides electing to exercise compromise and constraint rather than outright direct conflict. Notable examples would be the various wars by proxy such as the Greek Civil War, Korea (although the U.S. did end up in direct military action against Chinese forces), and Vietnam. Likewise, Cuba served as a pawn by the Soviets, and both sides fully compromised with the U.S. winning the spin-war of public relations (from the Wikipedia entry:

the Soviets had delivered two different deals to the United States government. On October 26, they offered to withdraw the missiles in return for a U.S. guarantee not to invade Cuba or support any invasion. The second deal was broadcast on public radio on October 27, calling for the withdrawal of U.S. missiles from Turkey in addition to the demands of the 26th... Kennedy responded by publicly accepting the first deal and sending Robert F. Kennedy to the Soviet embassy to privately accept the second that the fifteen Jupiter missiles near İzmir, Turkey would be removed six months later. Kennedy also requested that Khrushchev keep this second compromise out of the public domain so that he did not appear weak before the upcoming elections. This had ramifications for Khrushchev later...The compromise satisfied no one, though it was a particularly sharp embarrassment for Khrushchev and the Soviet Union because the withdrawal of American missiles from Turkey was not made public. It was a secret dealing between Kennedy and Khrushchev. They were seen as retreating from circumstances that they had started — though if played well, it could have looked like just the opposite: the USSR gallantly saving the world from nuclear holocaust by not insisting on restoring the nuclear equilibrium.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is widely considered to be a great American success. As Wikipedia notes, at least one noted war hawk in the U.S. military considered it to be appeasement: U.S. military commanders were not happy with the result either. General LeMay told the President that it was "the greatest defeat in our history" and that the U.S. should invade immediately.

The Soviet actions in various places like Hungary, Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan were decried by the U.S., but as they fell within the Soviet zone of influence, there wasn't much the U.S. was willing to do directly in the form of military action. Likewise, the erection of the Berlin Wall resulted in a peaceful solution by the U.S. - the Berlin Airlift.

The Soviet deployment of SS-20 missiles eventually led to Reagan's deployment of the Pershing 2 - a kind of reversed lead-in to the template of the Cuban Missile Crisis, complete with PR-spin that again was better accomplished by the U.S. While the SS-20 was undeniably a strategic missile, the Pershing 2 fell far closer to a tactical missile, and actually useful as a first-strike weapon. Nuclear missiles have different characterisics, but among these are the "CEP" (circular error probable) which is accuracy and the other is yield. The SS-20 had a fairly high CEP - about 450 meters - and usually had 2 250-kiloton warheads. The Pershing 2 was the most accurate nuclear missile developed, with a CEP of only 30 meters (I've read that it was unofficially actually even less) and a single warhead of up to 50-kilotons. While the SS-20 was designed around a deterrent capability, the Pershing 2 - whether intended or not - carried a considerable first-strike decapitation capability. This is precisely why the Soviets did not consider it to be tit-for-tat and were very anxious to strike a deal, which ultimately resulted in the INF Treaty being signed.

What's the lesson in all this - including Chamberlain's own "peace for our time" negotiations? Sometimes military action works, and more often, when two relatively equally matched military forces confront one another, they may or may not successfully engage in negotiations that forestall direct conflict or at least let a little air out of a tense situation. When the negotiations fail and result in war, they're called appeasement. When they fail for one side or the other in the realm of public-relations spin, they're also called appeasement. when they succeed they're called diplomacy.

Now I understand that people who want to split hairs will call the Munich Agreement something other than a compromise, because "Hitler got what he wanted and the Allies let him have it." Sure, it didn't involve the Allies getting to occupy some other piece of real estate that required an approval by Hitler, but the general point is that each side walked away from a compromise negotiation believing it got what it wanted. As it turned out (just like it turned out for Krushchev in his matchup wit JFK), one side was wrong.

One thing to remember is that the U.S. excels in PR-spin, with a few notable exceptions (Vietnam was about impossible to spin by the time we withdrew). Otherwise, no one calls Reagan a coward for pulling out of Beirut, and likewise, although Bush 41 had critics of his decision not to roll into Iraq, the majority believed the first Gulf War was a success.

Posted by Matthew at November 7, 2006 06:25 AM

"The "Chickenhawk" argument must only be used when we're at war with those who actually threaten the United States."

No, it's only used when Republicans are in the majority...

And if anybody wants to question my service, have at it. I graduated from a military college and spent five years in the Marines, including Gulf War One. Not that it's really anyone's business but apparently we still have to qualify our arguments in that manner.

It was widely stated that Clinton only had one vet in his circle of advisers, and that person didn't exceed the rank of E-4. Well, more would've been better but in the end, so what? It was still HIS JOB to decide when to use force.

So what are we supposed to do when confronted with a direct threat? Wait until we can throw the bums out and elect someone who promises to only appoint Vets to the cabinet?

It wouldn't surprise me if Dubya did get into the Air Guard by political connections. It happens all the time. However, those connections would only have gotten him in the door. They wouldn't have gotten him through flight school and into an F-102. That has to be *earned* no matter who your Daddy is. Bill Whittle is right on: the F-102 is reputed to have been one of the more dangerous fighters to strap on back in the '60s. Makes no difference if he was Guard or Regular AF, they didn't hand those airplanes over to dummies.

For that matter, you could say the same for a Harvard MBA.

There is only one valid point to the Chickenhawk slur: you cannot truly understand military life unless you've served. But that *is not* the same thing as knowing when to use it, and should not be a condition to use force.

I fail to see how anyone can justify the Chickenhawk argument against our Constitution's provision for civilian control of the military. The military are the experts at *how* to use force. We trust our civilian leaders to know *when*. And if you don't like the current leadership, then provide a better alternative, make your case, and let the best man win.

Posted by Pat C at November 7, 2006 08:21 AM

Anyonmous: No link to the Gazette? And who gave them authority to define the term? That's not how I see the term used by people on the interwebs. (People like you, to be clear about it.)

Redefining the term so it makes those you apply it to sound worse, and so that it sounds better when people use the term as a cheap attack... doesn't make it anything more than a cheap attack, and doesn't prevent the tactic of redefinition less obvious.

Chickenhawk, as the term is commonly used, does not mean "especially" that. It means what Whittle says it means. (Which isn't hard to manage, since he's just reflecting its actual use, rather than manufacturing a convenient slur for his enemies, like the Gazette's alleged definition.

And I say alleged because even though this is the internet, and you're posting on a weblog, you couldn't be bothered to provide a link. And that the Gazette has supposedly taken it upon itself to form a "database" of thought-criminals who it calls "chickenhawks" gives them no authority at all to change the definition of the term. Zero.)

Posted by Sigivald at November 7, 2006 09:59 AM

Sigvald

Google is an amazing tool.

Search for chicken hawk database and you will find it,
right up near the entry for Simberg.

Posted by anonymous at November 7, 2006 12:45 PM

Google for "anonymous" and you'll find "Alcoholics Anonymous".

How appropriate. Except I think anonymoron has fell off the wagon, big time.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 7, 2006 01:06 PM

The interestin thing about 12 step programs is how many
GOP heroes are there.

Rush Limbaugh,(Narc-anon)

Bill bennett (Gamblers anonymous)

Mark Foley (Sex-aholics)

GW Bush (Alcoholics Anonymous)

Jenna and Barbara (Adult Children of Alcoholics)

So lot's of good company there.

Posted by anonymous at November 7, 2006 06:39 PM

sigvald

try this

http://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/

They need to add the blogger roll to this.

Posted by anonymous at November 7, 2006 06:40 PM

Simberg misses something when he quotes

glorious comparisonsbetween Lincoln and Bush, Jr.

Abe Lincoln was a poor kid, who was self taught in the classics
and law.

George Bush jr was a rich kid who despite all the tutoring in the world was still having trouble readinging 6th grade.

Abe Lincoln when presented with war,was quite willing to tour
the battlefields with the enemy present on the field.

George Junior, when presented with danger has run from
the enemy and hiddenbehind walls or in holes until it passed.

AbeLincoln had been quite a successful lawyer in Springfield,IL

George Junior failed at everything he ever tried in commerce.

Posted by anonymous at November 7, 2006 09:45 PM

still having trouble readinging 6th grade.

How's that MBA program working out for you, oh anonymous coward?

Posted by John Irving at November 8, 2006 03:34 AM

I have a DD214 puckett, as do you.
I haven't ever seen leland or the other yobs
chime in on their service records

I don't need affirmation from people afraid to pen their own name to their beliefs.

I will admit I do not have a DD-214 form. Neither do my buddies currently serving in the military. However, our status doesn't not give greater truth to our beliefs. Our thoughts and ideas, if we choose to utter them, are expected to stand on their own merits.

Apparently your thoughts, unable to stand on their own, require the backing of a piece of paper. They certainly won't get the backing of your own name.

Posted by Leland at November 8, 2006 08:29 AM

www.thewarofthewords.net

Posted by anonymous at November 8, 2006 09:16 AM

Ignore me, I'm just an idiot with no life.

Posted by anonymous at November 8, 2006 09:55 AM

I'm really glad the GOP lost, now I can stop whoring
for this gang of idiots.

Posted by Leland at November 8, 2006 04:24 PM

One point; there is a strong train of thought among historians that Chamberlain saved the UK, and by extension the rest of Europe.

Why? Simple. England wasn't ready. If Churchill had had his way, England would have lost - and all of Europe and probably most of Russia would now be speaking German, and Israel wouldn't exist, and possibly Australia and a good part of the US would speak Japanese.

Sometimes appeasement is a good idea. Not often, but sometimes.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at November 9, 2006 04:38 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?