I almost feel sorry for conservatives, constantly having to defend the indefensible. Maybe it's just me, but there seem to be more and more chickenhawk flamewars popping up all over the conservative blogosphere. No doubt many conservatives resent the fact that the all volunteer army is running short of its recruiting goals, while insurgent bombs blast and the public's resolve quavers, basically peeing on their "fun and easy war" parade and giving ammunition to the liberal charge that conservatives aren't willing to fight the wars that they start.
I think we can all agree that premeditated violence against other people is, on a very basic level wrong. Of course there are extenuating circumstances such as self- defense, or (some say) the death penalty for murderers. Because most people accept the general immorality of hurting people, people who want a legal justification to hurt people have to make a pretty good case for said violence. If a war looks bloody people are going to be reluctant to fight it, doubly so if it looks ineffective and triply so if they feel they were sold a
bad bill of goods.
The root of the recruiting problem is not that two few people are volunteering for the war, but that too few people were involved in setting the course to war. Sure, there were opinion (push) polls everyday tracking the progress of the administration's media campaign, convincing some people that they were part of a grass roots upheaval of patriotism that took on the semblance of a massive religious revival for a flag worshipping cult, but it was the Bush administration and media elites like Robert Novak, Judith Miller and Matt Cooper who decided that this war was good for America and that it should be sold at any price (only 4 months, 200 dead MAX - I swear it! Of course I could be wrong, but not intentionally).
These are our leaders, so much wiser than us, interpreting the news to us as they write it, bolstering our courage - the "homefront" that praises our successes and minimizes our defeat. They are much too important to risk sacrificing themselves on the battlefield, after all not just anyone can be a television pundit contributing their (mis) understanding to the marketplace of ideas. They have children and it would certainly be a shame to deny the world the next Karl Rove wouldn't it?
All sarcasm aside, the media - or should I say the opinion shapers - see themselves as exceptional - the leaders, the thinkers, the too good to die young. Unfortunately, for their war effort most people see themselves as exceptional; I consider myself exceptional and I will be eating double-stuffed Oreos for the duration of the war (unless something comes up).
Christopher Hitchens has exempted himself and his son, but so has joe six-pack (Dem Rep it doesn't matter). The Grocery bagger at King Soopers does not immediately recognize the greater value of Christopher Hitchens life and neither do I. But I don't blame anyone (pro or anti-war) for not wanting to fight; whatever they are doing has to be more important (and necessary) than dying in Iraq. - Mayhaps they must pick their butts for the next 12 years.
The charge of chickenhawkery (for my part) is not meant to suggest that the aforementioned chickenhawks would be better off dead, it's meant to ask the question, "What makes you so special?" The charge of chickenhawkery is aimed at the exceptionalists, the American aristocracy who's rallying cry appears to be "do as I say, not as I do." "I like this war, but I wouldn't fight in it" is like saying "I like Mexican food, not that I would risk eating it," or "you should ride the Colfax bus, not that I would (crazies you know)" or "the Golden Gate bridge is great, you should jump off it - I'll go next..."
Today most people oppose the draft because A) violence is generally wrong and B) they don't think that people should be forced to fight in a war that they might not agree with. On the other hand there has always been a healthy pro-conscription constituency from the days of feudal medieval warlords, to Lyndon Johnson, to these present days of George Bush and Charlie Rangle. In a way I almost admire the steadfast defense of self-determination that the pro-war/anti-fighting wing of the hawk movement embraces. Too bad the paucity of men of fighting spirit doesn't preclude them from overcommitting our military resources.
To be fair both the Civil War and WWII were supplemented by drafts but 100 years after the Civil war, a lot of people are still not sure if the impact of that much-celebrated war (and its after-math) was uniformly positive. And while America's fighting forces may have joined World War II out of a sense of justice, and honor, the war itself was begun in an unjust attempt to take over the world.
For all the poetry of "to free the slaves" or "states rights," people tend to forget that the leaders of the Confederacy and the Union were also concerned, respectively, with free labor to boost the profit margins of the burgeoning Southern cotton industry and (for the North) protecting cheap labor from the aforementioned free labor. In the end the weight of history forced the abolition of slavery, but would it have been war if the elites of the North and South had not desired to protect their interest? At least half of the country was wrong to fight this war (and I bet I at least half of this country agrees with me as to which half) and they exploited sometimes-reluctant soldiers as much as the other `right' side.
Some might even say that the North should have let the South secede and fail at the impossible task of keeping the slaves subdued - not that I would say that, as "speculative history" is a subject best left untouched.
World War II for its part wasn't so much a "just cause" as it was a just defense in the face of the threat of expansionist fascism. In a way World War II defeated the colonialist allies as much as it defeated fascist Germany as condemnation of the west's military expansionism, imperialism, and racism was implicit in Germany's defeat. The point being that the concept of a "just war" is entirely relative and one man's `just war' is often another man's profit opportunity.
But conservatives love these two wars. - They give their pundits the cover to say something to the effect of "sometimes wise leadership just isn't equaled by the people's willingness to fight," that is usually followed up by something to the effect of: "In case you didn't know, in this analogy, we're the wise leadership and Iraq is the `just war,'" and then it is incumbent on their audience to say something to the effect of "oh, yes we will follow your wise leadership, despite the body language that gives quite a few of us the impression that you are blowing someone else's ideas out of your ass," (I'm looking at you Armstrong Williams and you Tucker Carlson).
You know why I didn't join the army when I turned 18? Cuz they elected a Bush and I `figgered to myself "chance of unnecessary `foreign entanglements' up 50%" Again, I was not thinking of the much bloodier World War II, I was thinking of Vietnam, or being made to train contras or beat people, sexually molest them, and take pictures. Indeed most World War II veterans that I've spoken to and that I've seen on TV are proud of their service regardless of whether they joined up or were called - Vietnam veterans, are not so uniformly pro war, as for the Iraq war all the veterans are volunteers.
See, I'm not exactly opposed to the draft on principle. I rather like the idea of everyone in a society being forced to play a part in the country's defense. It actually invests said society in a war, like those twin bastions of American principle World War II and Vietnam (again just kidding) invested America. America reaped the rewards of said investments, that one produced victory and the other defeat is reflective of their relative merits. Even in war government should legitimately obtain the consent of the governed and (draft or no) an ill-concieved war will lose public support. The solution to a loss of public support is either to reform your policies so that they are more in tune with public opinion or to forge ahead boldly against the grain of said opinion. The Bush administration and its apologists have chosen the latter.
Let's assume for a moment that this war is worth fighting (contrary to popular opinion), the argument against chicken-hawkery still boils down to this: if Republican and conservative war supporters don't volunteer for army service who will? Protest all you want that it is unreasonable to expect all hawks to invest themselves or their families in this war, but if none of those hawks volunteer America can't fight. It's not a matter of principle; it's a matter of numbers. There aren't enough people joining the army. Who do you expect to sign up, the doves? Apparently yes.
The all-volunteer army is not working.
Its time for a draft.
...and you thought it wasn't coming.
What a simple and elegant solution; if you can't convince people by force of argument to volunteer for your war you simply make them fight in it (no biggie). Funny how we didn't hear the conservative right cheering on the draft when it might dampen the popularity of the war while it really mattered (before the it started). Funny how Republicans were happy to strike out on their own - screw the concerns of the rest of the country - but now that the war effort is losing steam "we're all in this together." Funnier still that they should criticize liberal "cowardice."