National Review’s limitless chutzpah
I’ve generally avoided criticizing Iraq war supporters who, despite their enthusiastic hawkishness, have never served in the military. It’s tempting to suggest that if they believe the war is the key to the future of civilization, they would walk into their local recruiting station and sign up, but I try to resist that temptation — it’s not necessarily wrong for someone to support a war they’re not willing to fight in. After all, I endorsed the wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, but didn’t volunteer for duty myself.
That said, there are certain times at which war supporters appear to lose all sense of perspective, and offer truly moronic thinking. Take the latest from W. Thomas Smith Jr. at the National Review:
[T]he majority of the most vocal of the war critics have never even worn the uniform of our country. Yet some have even gone so far as to suggest that they have military backgrounds based on their holding seats on armed services committees.
As Kevin Drum noted, “There’s chutzpah and then there’s chutzpah…. You gotta admit, it takes balls for someone writing for National Review to even bring up the subject.”
Indeed, much of the National Review’s stable of far-right commentators have been fending off charges for years now that they’re a bunch of “chickenhawks.” They love the war, but don’t want to fight it. They love the troops, but don’t want to join them. They believe our security depends on the success of the mission, but they don’t want to leave their keyboards.
But now National Review has the gall to argue that the “majority” of war critics have never served in the military? Seriously? Is this where National Review wants the policy argument to go? After NRO has spent several years smearing John Kerry, Jack Murtha, and VoteVets.org? Should we do a head-count to see what percentage of The Corner has worn a uniform and served in combat?
Smith’s dispatch from Al Qaim added:
This is not to suggest that they might not have flown in for a bite of lunch at Camp Victory out by Baghdad International Airport, or gotten a guided tour of the Green Zone. But I personally can’t imagine any of them spending any real time out here on the ends of the earth. And how can they possibly make claims that the war is “lost” and a “disaster” unless they’ve actually experienced it?
There is simply no way that anyone so eager to pull the plug on this effort can appreciate the realities of Al Anbar much less Iraq unless they’ve suffered in this heat, driven multiple times up-and-down these dangerous supply routes, patrolled the cities and towns, interacted with shepherds, shopkeepers, and the sick, aging, and unemployed living in some of the most impoverished villages on earth. How can they appreciate the realities of this effort unless they’ve been shot at a few times, sat for endless hours — sometimes days — with exhausted Marines and soldiers under the sun and stars of an isolated battle position.
I’m trying hard to appreciate Smith’s point here, but war critics can imagine the incredible challenges these soldiers face every day. What’s more, they don’t need to experience the disaster to know it’s a disaster. Best of all, war critics can also understand that, instead of having these troops get shot at, they should come home.
Not asking people to do what you wouldn’t do yourself is seen by some delusional pinkos as a virtue.
Good thing the right wing is around to set us straight.
Can anyone spare an aspirin? I’m gettin’ a headache.
Opposing war, while not directly experiencing it, is at least logically consistent.
Praising war, while not wanting to participate oneself, is at best hypocritical.
These types also fail to recognize that their own Dear Leader (Cheney or Bush, take your pick), also did not serve. (And the ‘champagne squadron’ of the Texas ANG doesn’t cut it, sorry.) Let’s see–Cheney enjoyed 5 deferments; Bush was AWOL, punished with a wrist slap. One of the only (former) members of this Administration that has served was Rumsfeld (Naval Aviator). I’m sure that there are a few others.
But the point is, or should be, that those who support the war in Iraq, and who do so so vociferously, are the ones who should be spotlighted in this manner, and not those who are against it. I suppose that this is another instance of ‘Rovian Emulation’ wherein, in the spirit of ultimate disingenuousness, the goal is to use your greatest hypocrisy and/or weakness (i.e., ‘those who haven’t served–and who don’t want to–proclaim their full-throated support for war’), and turn it around into a supposed ‘weakness’ of your opponents.
Ah the 101st Fightin’ Keyboardists! Got to love them. To suggest that on must serve in the military to have a valid opinion about foriegn policy is bogus and simplistic. Iraq is a foriegn policy issue, that is State Department not DOD! Too bad our choices are Condi or Gator-Gate-Gate (or whatever W calls him).
The greater problem here not that Wm. T. Smith Jr. (nice name) wrote this crap but that it passed editorial review, was published and that anyone reading it finishes and says “Right on!” Wm. T. Smith Sr. should be soooo proud!”
I wonder if Wm. T. Smith, III is active duty or National Guard?
The next surge (and there will be another) should include the 86th Fighting Keyboardists (no need to sully a real division). They would probably make Sad Sack/Gomer Pyle aka Leonard Lawrence from Full Metal Jacket look like a Green Beret compared to these guys.
Let them show us how to fight. It’s their fucking war, let them “own” it.
They only war supporters I can think of with military experience are Rumsfeld and McCain. Neither one an actual ground level troop.
The article just doesn’t make sense. I’m with Ed on this one:
“Opposing war, while not directly experiencing it, is at least logically consistent.
Praising war, while not wanting to participate oneself, is at best hypocritical.”
I’ve been trying to find a word to describe this tactic and yours is a good effort. That is precisely what’s going on here and it seems rather pointless to go through the pain of bruising our chins, let alone the trouble of lifting our jaws up off the floor over this.
These scumbags are committed to propaganda and this is another fine example of “Rovian Emulation”, “Rhetorical Noise Cancellation” (RNC?), whatever it finally gets labeled as. Surely, these idiots know the argument well, know it belongs to us, and are well aware of their own version’s lack of originality. It’s calculated, its repulsive and it’s practitioners deserve only shame.
I’ve been trying to find a word to describe this tactic
Projection.
There is simply no way that anyone so eager to pull the plug on this effort can appreciate the realities of Al Anbar much less Iraq unless they’ve suffered in this heat, driven multiple times up-and-down these dangerous supply routes, patrolled the cities and towns, interacted with shepherds, shopkeepers, and the sick, aging, and unemployed living in some of the most impoverished villages on earth. How can they appreciate the realities of this effort unless they’ve been shot at a few times, sat for endless hours — sometimes days — with exhausted Marines and soldiers under the sun and stars of an isolated battle position.
How does this justify anything? Because we can’t appreciate the realities? For vets like me, that’s a load of shit. I’m against the war and against the war criminals who perpetuate it.
I don’t need some chickenhawk questioning my character, my patriotism, my love of my country, screaming, “support the troops!” while simultaneously smearing them as gormless and craven (e.g., Malkin, Ace, Hannity, Coulter, and their fans).
Projection is more a psychological phenomenon that, probably more often than not, takes place at the subconscious level. Projection is undoubtedly involved on some level here but it falls short in defining the calculated, propagandistic usage we see used more and more by the far right.
Desiderius Erasmus said it best five hundred years ago — Bellum dulce inexpertis. (War is sweet to those who know it not. Makes a nice t-shirt, too.
Regarding the “success” of the surge and the need to “stay” the course, here are three items from yesterday afternoon’s “All Things Considered” program on NPR. (Click on the “listen” button for #1 and #2; #3 can be read.)
1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12542843
2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12542846
3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12523890
The two Shiite-Sunni stories blew me away when I heard them.
So at Smith’s remote outpost in al Anbar province, where the Sunni tribal leaders can apply redneck justice against anyone they want and the central government really has no authority, the occupation is going swell.
Hey, that’s great.
I guess the fact that Baghdad is going to hell is really just water under the bridge at this particular time.
This piece is like war porn or a romance novel for dudes who never got laid. “Yes, if you’ve never smelled the musky scent of battle, it’s the smell of virtue and democracy. Riding shoulder-to-shoulder in the back of a Humvee with real men is a ride into destiny. While the sun set slowly over Anbar, we proud warriors, and one hack writer, drove headlong into passion, a passion for freedom and lust for democracy. My spine tingled with anticipation for the first touch of battle. Eagles soared heavenward as the RPG’s ripped into our hillbilly armor, Johnson was hit and the blood of a patriot stained by quivering brow….
.
While there are too many writers at NRO to look into all of them, here’s a look at some of the bigger names.
John Derbyshire — Never served. A self-admitted racist, homophobe and blamer of murder victims.
Kathryn Jean Lopez — Never Served. She has, however, fought many battles against double cheeseburgers. Current record: 0 – 2,983,698.
Andrew Stuttaford — Never served. Typographically stalks Cameron Diaz.
Kate O’Beirne — Never served. Her husband, however, was responsible for making sure Iraqi contractors were part of the forced pregnancy movement because, you know, having actual experience in anything really doesn’t matter when reconstructing a country.
John Podhoretz — Never served. But a five-time champ on Jeopardy.
Mark Steyn — Never served. A Canadian, which according to his own magazine, makes him a pansy.
Rich Lowry — Never served. Thinks it’s okay to be a bigot toward Muslims.
Jonah Goldberg — Never served. Pretends he does on the weekends, though, as he dresses up in his Bobba Fett costume.
Larry Kudlow — Never served. Big fan of blow, booze and Enron.
Byron York — Never served. Does have a wonderful mullet.
So yeah … the thought of anyone at NRO criticizing anyone else for not serving seems a bit ridiculous.
Just for the record, WT Smith was a Marine, according to his bio.
But so what? As a soldier, he would have learned how to fire and maintain various weapons. He would know how to fight singlehandedly and patrol with a group. He might have learned some rudimentary mechanical skills. He would have developed a tolerance for sleeping in tents, eating camp food and marching in formation.
Does any of that make him an expert on global geopolitics, military strategy, logistics, budgets, medical issues or diplomacy? He’s no more qualified to have an opinion on war than the non-military yokels in the US. It’s a non-issue.
The real issue is whether citizens are allowed to have a say in their government’s policies. Smith and his pro-war cohorts want to deny the right to criticize that most serious of government policies: going to war. They are just furthering the obscenity of Bush’s folly.
There is simply no way that anyone so eager to pull the plug on this effort can appreciate the realities of Al Anbar much less Iraq unless they’ve suffered in this heat, driven multiple times up-and-down these dangerous supply routes, patrolled the cities and towns, interacted with shepherds, shopkeepers, and the sick, aging, and unemployed living in some of the most impoverished villages on earth. How can they appreciate the realities of this effort unless they’ve been shot at a few times, sat for endless hours — sometimes days — with exhausted Marines and soldiers under the sun and stars of an isolated battle position.
And any of these testosterone-challenged fatboys of the right has done this? They haven’t got one Iraq vet on their side, unless you count an ex-pornstar gay whore who’s up on charges of fraud for his b.s.
Another easy to make, difficult to dispute accusation out of the drooling pie hole of another arm-chair general.
But for all I know this ding-dong thinks vets who critisize the war aren’t real soldiers. In the same way a feminist isn’t a real woman, or civilians who critisize the war aren’t real Americans.
Denying the existence of people who don’t think or act the way the Smith’s of the world think they should is a common mark of the KoolAid lapper.
And fascist pigs.
This article is Mad Lib actually. Simply replace: “lost”, “disaster”, and “pull the plug” with “progressing”, “triumph”, and “continue” and it can be a hit piece on the chickenhawks. It’s fun for the whole family!
I think part of the problem here is that conservatives always imagine that they have the upperhand in each situation, even when they don’t. And for Iraq, they imagine that they’re in our position. We’re the ones who support the troops by wanting them to come home. Seeing the realities in Iraq supports our position. While they’re the ones who need to pretend that war isn’t hell, but rather some ultimate bonding experience akin to those WWII war movies.
As usual, these guys just can’t admit that they’re on the losing side of an argument, so they imagine that they’re in our spot. But his argument is the equivalent of suggesting that you shouldn’t support anti-poverty programs unless you’ve seen the horrors of poverty firsthand; and that if you were to do so, you’d stop supporting those programs.
Hey Mark D – don’t be bringing those fierce battles against cheeseburgers into this.
Proponents of torture criticize those who have never tortured…saying you just don’t know what it’s like to hear their screams and watch them trying to catch their breath or watch them shiver…duh? What stupid logic that those who would stop the suffering and horror of an elective war wouldn’t feel that way if they were doing the suffering?
There’s no comparison between those who want killing and murder and those who who wish to stop it. It’s like comparing the rapist to the non-rapist or even to the victim. They don’t relate.
The National Review always thinks they are playing the game, “King of the Hill”. The only ones that count are on the hill…and there is really only one way for the US to win.
This is not to suggest that they might not have flown in for a bite of lunch at Camp Victory out by Baghdad International Airport, or gotten a guided tour of the Green Zone. — Smith
Um… But doesn’t that describe the visits of the occupation’s greatest proponents as well? The ones who bought 5 rugs for 5 dollars and who didn’t se any diff between strolling at a county fair and a Baghdad market? If such a visit isn’t enough to judge the situation, then neither the opponents *nor* the proponents have any credibility.
Wilfred Owen:
“…if you had seen these things, my friend, you would not tell,
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est, pro patria mori.”