An Example for You Chickenhawks

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like I digressed but one more thing, PLEASE stop comparing volunteering to go to war with volentering at a soup kitcher or emergency fire fighting squad. Think about that one some more.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK look...I'm not comparing it in the sense that they are equal forms of service. I'm comparing it for the purpose of illustrating that criticizing someone for not actively participating doesn't make sense. We may believe in many good things in which we can't actively participate. The title of Grey's post is therefore unjust criticism (and a cheap churlish shot).

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
We may believe in many good things in which we can't actively participate. The title of Grey's post is therefore unjust criticism (and a cheap churlish shot).

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, sorry, no. If you "can't" enlist because you are medically or otherwise unqualified to serve, that's one thing. If you "can't" enlist because you are too busy, etc., that's another. I *opposed* starting the war and yet called a recruiter to inquire about the new 15-month active-duty enlistment, even though (1) I'm 37 years old; (2) I have a new baby (my first) on the way; (3) it would be a pay cut of over $150,000 per year; (4) it would be very disruptive to my career at a critical time and (5) my wife would be very, very much opposed. As it turns out, I am too old (you have to be 34 or younger for the regular Army, which is what the 15 month enlistment option is). But if I wasn't I would certainly be talking to my wife about it because of my personal sense of one's duty to one's country in wartime.

Those who are capable of serving and choose not to obviously have a different view of one's duty to one's country or of what triggers that duty. Which is all well and good. But certainly criticism of those who believe the war is just and necessary but yet refuse to serve in the face of a recruiting shortage cannot fairly be called "unjust".

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who are capable of serving and choose not to obviously have a different view of one's duty to one's country or of what triggers that duty. Which is all well and good. But certainly criticism of those who believe the war is just and necessary but yet refuse to serve in the face of a recruiting shortage cannot fairly be called "unjust".

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. There are needs for people in many professions and trades right now. There are undoubtedly shortages of people in, just to guess a few: nursing, paramedics...you name it. You are making an arbitrarily designation..

Now, if the USA were actually being invaded by a foreign army, I'd say you might really have a point. But that isn't happening. And if military recruitment goals are not being met presently, then perhaps the military pay scale needs to be raised in order to make it a more competitive profession, given the appearance of greater risks in very recent years.

And again, there are many good causes and professional services for which there are needs. Your entire argument rests on the presumption that other causes or services do not hold a candle to the current need for military service. That is a very large presumption. In addition, your argument rests on the presumption that someone could not do more good elsewhere. That is another huge presumption. I don't believe you can show either of those things. Basically, this entire line of argument is a crock.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. There are needs for people in many professions and trades right now. There are undoubtedly shortages of people in, just to guess a few: nursing, paramedics...you name it. You are making an arbitrarily designation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you a right winger or a communist? Health care is pretty much a private industry in the country, right? So if there are "shortages" of nurses and paramedics, it'll be taken care of by the market, right? Wages will be raised, more people will take those jobs. Simple, right? I know you understand this basic concept, because you say:

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if the USA were actually being invaded by a foreign army, I'd say you might really have a point. But that isn't happening. And if military recruitment goals are not being met presently, then perhaps the military pay scale needs to be raised in order to make it a more competitive profession, given the appearance of greater risks in very recent years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Before I address the economic argument, let me ask you to explain why criticism could be valid in the case of invasion of the homeland "by a foreign army" and "unjust" in the present circumstances? What is the justification for/rationale behind the current war that would be different from the justification for/rational behind a war to repel an invasion?

As to your economic point: undoubtedly you are right that increasing the compensation would result in more recruits (somehow, I suspect that you would rail against any tax increases to pay for it, though). But at some point we will reach market failure -- after all, how much more would you have to be paid before you would volunteer for a war, all other things being equal? That's typically why countries have compulsory military service.

[ QUOTE ]
And again, there are many good causes and professional services for which there are needs. Your entire argument rests on the presumption that other causes or services do not hold a candle to the current need for military service. That is a very large presumption. In addition, your argument rests on the presumption that someone could not do more good elsewhere. That is another huge presumption. I don't believe you can show either of those things. Basically, this entire line of argument is a crock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, YOU are among those that claimed that this war was just and necessary, right? Pray tell, WHAT is more important to any society than fighting such a war? Please identify for me, for example, the non-military, non-government jobs that were more important than military service during world war II. What's that, you say? This isn't as dire as WWII? Well, obviously not, because our civilian and military leadership has decided that (1) we don't need a draft right now, and (2) they're not taking people over 35 years old. But please explain, given the "need" for the war, what "causes or services" are more important for those able-bodied people under 35? Or please explain how you personally are doing "more good" elsewhere, and I will reconsider whether Grey's criticism is "unjust".

The funny thing is that the "huge presumptions" you claim "my" argument rests on are nothing more or less than the presumption that the war is just and necessary -- which *is* YOUR position, right? So I find it odd that you consider the criticism "unjust".

[MMMMMM]

You still don't get it.

There are MANY causes and things which are good, or just, or necesasary. Criticizing someone for their support but lack of active participation in ONE of those things is ludicrous, because it is clearly impossible to actively participate in every good cause you may happen to believe in or support.

In order for your criticism to be justified, you need to show a number of things which you have not shown:

1) that this particular cause or need, under these circumstances, outweighs the spectrum of other good causes or services or needs in which one may choose to work

2) that the particular individual you are criticizing is not much better suited to "doing-good" in another venue

3) that enlistment goals cannot be met by other methods

4)...there are probably more things you need to show that I don't think of right now off the top of my head.

YOU are the one arguing that the criticism is merited. You can start by clearly showing the above. If you can't do that you haven't even started to make your case.

Also, I never argued that the Iraq war was necessary. I said I thought it was probably a good idea and would likely and hopefully do more good than harm. I still think so to a fair extent, though somewhat less emphatically than I did initially.

Finally, I am not of military age and in fact am older than you. However criticizing non-enlistees, as Grey (and you) are now doing, is unsupportable in my opinion.

[elscorcho768]

Since when did this forum start disrespecting firefighters. I seem to remember after 9/11, we all praised these people as heroes. The firefighter analogy is a good one because they do risk their lives like military personnel. Also, Grey, did you get the idea for this topic from Bill Maher, cuz he had it on his show last Friday.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, I never argued that the Iraq war was necessary. I said I thought it was probably a good idea and would likely and hopefully do more good than harm.


[/ QUOTE ]

This qualifies as good enough to go to war!?!?!?!?!? You would advise to go to war because it might be a good idea and it might be good for a foreign people in the long run despite massive death and choas now?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I never argued that the Iraq war was necessary. I said I thought it was probably a good idea and would likely and hopefully do more good than harm.




This qualifies as good enough to go to war!?!?!?!?!? You would advise to go to war because it might be a good idea and it might be good for a foreign people in the long run despite massive death and choas now?

[/ QUOTE ]

The death and chaos now are relatively small potatoes compared to the murders of many hundreds of thousands by Saddam, and to the atrocities, and to the lack of freedoms and decades-long terrorizations of an entire populace.

I say "might" because in such matters one cannot often be 100% sure of anything. At any rate, I think the Iraqis will relatively soon be beter off than under Saddam.

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
You still don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...ok. Let's see:

[ QUOTE ]
There are MANY causes and things which are good, or just, or necesasary. Criticizing someone for their support but lack of active participation in ONE of those things is ludicrous, because it is clearly impossible to actively participate in every good cause you may happen to believe in or support.

[/ QUOTE ]

My good man, it appears that YOU are the one who is not "getting it". The essense of the "Chickenhawk" criticism is that those who advocate war and choose not to serve either (1) are too quick to advocate war; or (2) are cowards. You are neglecting (1), and seem to be focused solely on (2).

Let me start with a series of numbered sentences, so that you can indicate where you disagree:

1. War is undesirable.
2. However, there are times when a nation must fight a war.
3. For example, a nation may have to fight a war to protect its survival as an entity and/or the lives of its citizens. See, e.g., Israel and the Six Day War.
4. When a nation fights a war, winning the war is the most important business of the nation.
----

So let's turn to what you say I must show. By the way, inasmuch as I am adressing these issues in your post, I hope that you will do me the courtesy of answering the questions in my last post, which I will repeat at bottom.

[ QUOTE ]
1) that this particular cause or need, under these circumstances, outweighs the spectrum of other good causes or services or needs in which one may choose to work

[/ QUOTE ]

See number 4 above. I assert that the United States should fight a war like the one in Iraq only when the enemy poses a reasonably imminent danger to the vital interests of the United States. Once engaged in a war, the most important business of the United States is winning the war. Thus, the "cause" of the war outwieghs "the spectrum of other good causes or services or needs in which one may choose to work".

[ QUOTE ]

2) that the particular individual you are criticizing is not much better suited to "doing-good" in another venue

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If a person is much better suited to, say, polishing the Lincoln Memorial, the need to win a war would still outweigh the need to keep the memorial shiny. The relative value of the "good thing" must be taken into account, and winning the war dwarfs other concerns. See above.

[ QUOTE ]
3) that enlistment goals cannot be met by other methods

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, no. If an able-bodied swimmer sees a man drowning in a pool and does nothing to help, it is not unfair to criticize the swimmer even if one is unable to show that there was no one else who could have saved the drowning man.
In any event, the military is falling well short of enlistment goals.

You can only obviate 1 and 2 above by arguing that it is valid to support a war in which the vital interests of the United States are not at stake. IMO, that's wrong, and it is certainly not unfair to criticize such a position as such. And it's also certainly not unfair to criticize those who would claim that a war IS in the vital interests of the United States, and yet refuse to serve, for the reasons explained above.

Here, again, is my question to you:

Why do you contend that the Chickenhawk criticism could be valid in the case of invasion of the homeland "by a foreign army" but is "unjust" in the present circumstances? What is the justification for/rationale behind the current war that would be different from the justification for/rationale behind a war to repel an invasion?

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

There are MANY causes and things which are good, or just, or necesasary. Criticizing someone for their support but lack of active participation in ONE of those things is ludicrous, because it is clearly impossible to actively participate in every good cause you may happen to believe in or support.
-------------------------------------------------------------
My good man, it appears that YOU are the one who is not "getting it". The essense of the "Chickenhawk" criticism is that those who advocate war and choose not to serve either (1) are too quick to advocate war; or (2) are cowards. You are neglecting (1), and seem to be focused solely on (2).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, because I am not about to rehash the arguments for and against the war now in this thread. That argument has been pounded to death by both sides in this forum already; it has been debated over the course of two years or more. I am saying the blanket accusations of cowardice or hypocrisy are unwarranted.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me start with a series of numbered sentences, so that you can indicate where you disagree:

1. War is undesirable.
2. However, there are times when a nation must fight a war.
3. For example, a nation may have to fight a war to protect its survival as an entity and/or the lives of its citizens. See, e.g., Israel and the Six Day War.
4. When a nation fights a war, winning the war is the most important business of the nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. usually so, but the statement needs to be qualified

2. agree

3. example given

4. disagree, if that is an blanket unqualified statement

[ QUOTE ]
So let's turn to what you say I must show. By the way, inasmuch as I am adressing these issues in your post, I hope that you will do me the courtesy of answering the questions in my last post, which I will repeat at bottom.

--------------------------------------------------------
1) that this particular cause or need, under these circumstances, outweighs the spectrum of other good causes or services or needs in which one may choose to work
---------------------------------------------------------
See number 4 above. I assert that the United States should fight a war like the one in Iraq only when the enemy poses a reasonably imminent danger to the vital interests of the United States. Once engaged in a war, the most important business of the United States is winning the war. Thus, the "cause" of the war outwieghs "the spectrum of other good causes or services or needs in which one may choose to work".

[/ QUOTE ]

Too loose; your conclusion is drawn too quickly. For instance, as a counterexample, the need of the United States to win the previous wars in Vietnam or in Bosnia, might well have been less pressing than the need for the continual service of firefighters, EMTs, and nurses in this country.

[ QUOTE ]


2) that the particular individual you are criticizing is not much better suited to "doing-good" in another venue
---------------------------------------------------------
No. If a person is much better suited to, say, polishing the Lincoln Memorial, the need to win a war would still outweigh the need to keep the memorial shiny. The relative value of the "good thing" must be taken into account, and winning the war dwarfs other concerns. See above.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with the blanket statement that winning (any) war necessarily dwarfs all other concerns. It may dwarf polishing the Lincoln monument, but it may not dwarf the need for the continual service of firefighters, EMTs and nurses in this country. And there are many other professions and businesses which are vital as well.

[ QUOTE ]

3) that enlistment goals cannot be met by other methods
-------------------------------------------------------------

Again, no. If an able-bodied swimmer sees a man drowning in a pool and does nothing to help, it is not unfair to criticize the swimmer even if one is unable to show that there was no one else who could have saved the drowning man.
In any event, the military is falling well short of enlistment goals.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that able-bodied swimmer was giving CPR to someone else at the momemt, it would be unfair criticism. Similarly if someone is involved in other important endeavors it may be unfair criticism to castigate them for not enlisting in the military.

[ QUOTE ]
You can only obviate 1 and 2 above by arguing that it is valid to support a war in which the vital interests of the United States are not at stake. IMO, that's wrong, and it is certainly not unfair to criticize such a position as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

So to clarify, you would be against a war to stop the genocide in Africa at present? Or against the war undertaken by Clinton to stop the genocide in Bosnia, etc.? That's a valid position if you choose it, but you can't expect everyone to agree with it nor to accept it as a premise of some sort.

[ QUOTE ]
And it's also certainly not unfair to criticize those who would claim that a war IS in the vital interests of the United States, and yet refuse to serve, for the reasons explained above.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many things that are vital to the interests of the united States. The Iraq War is certainly NOT the ONLY thing that is vital (if indeed it is even vital at all).

[ QUOTE ]
Here, again, is my question to you:

Why do you contend that the Chickenhawk criticism could be valid in the case of invasion of the homeland "by a foreign army" but is "unjust" in the present circumstances? What is the justification for/rationale behind the current war that would be different from the justification for/rationale behind a war to repel an invasion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Repelling an invasion is clearly an imperative of the highest order. The points for/against Iraq War are not nearly so unarguable nor is the case so clearly imperative.