Scarborough is a GOP hack, given a cable news show when conventional wisdom said only Republicans had anything to say to anyone. Before that, MSNBC gave media hack Rita Cosby a show because conventional wisdom said that Faux News was the wave of the future and everyone had better ride it.

My understanding is that we need more troops in Iraq to regain control and provide security and we don't have them. Recent estimates is that we could scrape up 20,000 to send to Iraq and that is not enough. I have read estimates as high as 400,000 for the number of troops needed to provide security.

It is, instead, a MORAL judgement on the ACTIONS of those who could serve but, for reasons of self-interest, actively avoid service. Most especially those who, while doing so, seek special moral approval and recognition as "supporters" of a war. To call someone a "chickenhawk" isn't to condemn their speech, but their character. It is to call them moral cowards -- without the courage of their supposed convictions.

But that condemnation only has power in an environment in which military service IS recognized as a universal moral obligation. Which it no longer is in this country.

Those most offended by chickenhawks are veterans of the Vietnam era who, apolitically, took the moral concept of shared obligation and sacrifice, used to justify the draft, seriously. Men who, separate from whether they "supported" the war or not, thought it dishonorable to indulge in the strategies of avoidance practiced by contemporaries like Cheney and George W. Bush. They submitted to conscription and served against their personal interests out of a sense of duty.  

People are free to say anything about the war. You don't have to have served in the military to support or oppose the war.

That said, people are also free to make observatoins about one's character that are not slander, and they are also free to to point out practical or logical inconsistencies in one's arguments.

Therefore, if a raging hawk says that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are desparate struggles for the survival of our very civilization, and she also says that it's idiotic to even bring up the subject of a draft or some kind of selective service, it is perfectly germane to point out that she is essentially contradicting herself. If she is under 42 (which is now the recriutment ceiling), it is not unreasonable to ask why she is not doing the one obvious thing that could she could personally do to directly assist this great task (that is - join the army).

it must be nice to have a mind uncluttered by facts.

i'm not a veteran, i couldn't pass the physical, for reasons i had no control over. that said, i am a citizen and taxpay, which give me standing to opine on whether or not this country should send our military into harm's way. it shouldn't be done lightly, to avenge an insult, for example.

in fact, it should be done only when all other avenues to avert military action have been exhausted; war, as "diplomacy by other means" is usually more wasteful of scarce, allocable resources, than difficult diplomacy.

it should be undertaken only using the "powell doctrine": clear goals, combined with overwhelming force. neither of these was in attendance upon our entry into iraq, aside from toppling saddam. starting the war on a lie didn't help matters either.

i disagree with the pentagon: long-term, low numbers is not a viable option, unless we intend to paint targets on our troop's backs. the only two legitimate options, that give our people the highest survivability possibilities, are to either leave entirely, or gross up the troop levels, now.

this is where the draft comes in: if the country as a whole truly believes in the conflict in iraq, put the burden and risk on the entire country, not just those who volunteer.

the "all volunteer" military was never intended as the sole bulwark for this country's defense, in times of grave national peril. given its numbers, it couldn't realistically be. what it does is provide a huge buffer, to enable us sufficient time to recruit/draft, train and arm the larger numbers that would be needed, in the event of another great war.

And, O'Donnell is exactly right about the military being almost-totally divorced from the society of the country it serves.

bush said, "Go shopping..." instead of, "In order to fight what I SAY is the greatest threat ever faced by America I am requesting both a tax increase and cancellation of my tax cuts for the wealthy. All Pentagon spending for the Future Combat Systems, the Star Wars missile defense system, and any other weapons systems not necessary to fight this war will be suspended. I will be asking congress further for the additional funds necessary so that we can restore our manufacturing capabilities to WWII levels, I will call for gas rationing, critical materials rationing, and we will be providing additional resources to recruit and train the soldiers we need. The automobile manufacturers will be ordered to increase the gas mileage of their cars by a minimum of ten miles to a gallon to conserve resources. I will be calling upon all able-bodied men and women to enlist or, if unable to enlist, to join in a Manhattan Project-style massive effort to restore our steel mills, train mill workers, reform our textile industries and train needed workers, and to restore our capabilities to construct all necessary vehicles, airplanes, weapons and ammunitions without having to outsource any of this to a foreign country, so every American can and will be able to serve our country in one capacity or another."

Absent a true call to battle similar to that above, it just shows that no one in this administration EVER really considered this WOT to be a great threat to our country. The entire endeavor is a sham to enrich corporations and seize Iraq's oil.

It is small wonder that our military feels cut off from our society and that we have about 1% of the nation involved in defending us against "the gravest threat ever to our nation".

It's not just a debate about who did or did not serve, it is about the inequities of sending troops into battle undermanned, ill-equipped, and with insufficient resources committed to winning this "greatest ever threat", while asking NOTHING of every other American other than, "Go shopping...".

Anybody believing that neocon BS while not recognizing that no one has been asked to sacrifice BUT the troops is wearing blinders. That the troops are sacrificing so greatly while the rest of the country sacrifices nothing (with the exceptions of the families of our troops who often face the greatest sacrifice, the loss of a loved one) is an abomination and, IMO, makes Dubya the most ignorant, cold-hearted, lying-through-his-teeth, and lousiest C-in-C to ever betray this country and abandon our troops to useless sacrifice for oil.

Anybody who believes that a call to massive efforts to recruit, train, equip, and provide for the military's every need to fight "the gravest threat American has ever faced" isn't necessary, is delusional as is bush.

That isn't true and Fox News reported on it last night from a Heritage Foundation report...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/charlie_rangel_bring_back_the.html

"Now what about the charge that an all volunteer force is poorer, less educated, and more minority? Well a Heritage Foundation study last year, analyzing census data on income, race, region and education, found there that military recruits before and after 9/11 were more middle class than poor, more rural than urban, better educated than the general public, and that whites joined in higher proportions to the general population than all minority groups."

This is based on census data.  Not one man's opinion or a sense of what's happening.  Hard data.

It's fine to opose the war, to criticize the policy but stop with the fabrication of facts and a smoke screen draft proposal to make your point.