Every blogging supporter of the U.S. military in Iraq seems to be getting a similar pack of comments and e-mails recently. In effect they say, in tones of supreme snarkiness, “You support the war, so why don’t you go over there and fight it, or else shut up?”
It’s a personalized form of the election campaign insistence that all patriots and military supporters must vote for Kerry because Bush was a draft dodger (so who did you vote for in ’96, when it was Clinton vs. Dole?).
The e-mails and comments have come on so suddenly and are so similar that war supporters have started talking about them as the “chickenhawk meme.”
I wonder if they aren’t a campaign by moonbat trolls lashed into a progressive frenzy from some frothing far-left site. They are dished out without much thought: even bloggers with obvious and well-advertised military service to their credit, such as Baldilocks, get them.
I hardly can conceive a tactic more pernicious to the user. People who write these things must never mentally slot themselves into positions of political power, otherwise they’d see their mistakes in a second.
For instance, I want Iraq to succeed, and America to succeed alongside it, which is exactly why I don’t want to ship overseas a bunch of nearsighted, over-aged bloggers with bad backs, who would just get in the way of real soldiers. But that’s the least of the problems with this “argument.”
The essence of it is, “People who advocate for some exercise of government power have no legitimacy unless those people endure the greatest burden of that exercise of power.”
So by that measure only property owners can approve school budgets based on real estate taxes, if you defend free speech you should become a porn star, and only firefighters can pull fire alarms.
Do the people who write these e-mails not realize that, having set this rule, they will be judged by it? And that if they carry the point that only those who have served or are serving in the military may espouse the use of American military power, they disqualify their own set from high office?
Disqualify, because most Americans, however they may feel about Iraq or Bush, are not absolute pacifists who would entirely renounce America’s military option. Thus they would not vote for a non-military candidate if he would have no legitimate grounds to invoke military options.
All of which just digs the Democrats a deeper hole. The party already has an image problem in the minds of many voters who see it as hostile to the military, or at least not sufficiently understanding of or experienced with military matters to be trusted with the national trigger. The GOP has worked hard for decades to paint this image, but it has gotten good help from the other side, from just the sort of people who wrote these e-mails. By now, the distrust is deep and real.
As one of the best MilBloggers out there, Blackfive, put it recently:
I would venture a guess that many MilBloggers are, in fact, Democrats. That’s right.
But with the recent possibility of a *shudder* President Kerry and the left’s willingness to roll over anyone (including the troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan) in order to destroy President Bush, you find many of us on the Center-Right. What other serious choice do they have?
You can blame George Soros or Teddy Kennedy or Media Matters or Howard Dean or Terry McAuliffe for that. If the Democrats took back the center of their party, they’d have a chance at winning some of the MilBloggers back.
Attention Democrats – Gangrene has set in. It’s time for the true Democrats to decide whether to allow the infection to spread or to amputate.
Meanwhile, the chickenhawk meme keeps flowing, from the fertile pens and fertilizer brains of people who relish their poses as anti-authoritarian trickster flower children. They don’t seem to know or care that they’ve doomed themselves instead to be nothing but merry minoritarians.