Max Boot and the Tendencies of Chickenhawks

Over at Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall points out the idiocy of Max Boot:

It's sad to see articulate and intelligent, if terribly misguided, writers still trying to justify their Iraq catastrophe by claiming its no different from World War II and our decades' long stationing of troops in Germany and Japan.

Today we have the instance of Max Boot ...

I could just imagine an Andrew Sullivan of the 1940's writing something similar about Harry Truman's crazy idea to station troops in Germany and Japan without an exit strategy: "In fifty years' time, the West Germans will not be able to defend themselves against the Soviet Union? Or East Germany? Please." As it happens, the West Germans wouldn't have been able to defend themselves against a broad array of enemies without a long-term American troop presence. That presence has served other important goals too, namely reassuring Germany's neighbors that it would never threaten the peace of Europe again and fostering Germany's internal democratic development. But just because we've had troops in Germany and Japan for 60 years-and in South Korea for more than 50 years-doesn't mean we're occupying those countries. We are there are the request of democratically elected governments.

I wouldn't include Max Boot in the "articulate" or "intelligent" groups because he's clearly just another wingnut trying to tap into that feel-good sentiment about the only war we're allowed to admire. That's why the wingnuts also love comparing everything to the War of Northern Aggression. Max Boot is a wingnut welfare candidate--if it wasn't for the newspaper paying him, some wingnut organization would cobble together a salary for him and simply ask him to put up with smelly guys in cheap suits who sound a lot like Ron Paul. Nothing he says stands up to any kind of informed scrutiny. If you've just watched Saving Private Ryan, you can read what he's said and yell your approval and wait for the next war movie to come on AMC.

What I want to add is this--conservatives are informed by movies and television programs, not by experience. A scarce handful have seen military service while the rest avoided military service when their nation needed them. Those "chickenhawks" are able to squawk because they're in no danger of having to serve. The media is full of chickenhawks--and that amplifies the message of other chickenhawks. If the media actually were "liberal" you'd hear viewpoints that the media was comfortable presenting to people. Instead, you have a social strata of men in this country who control the media who deliver a message to the American people that help absolves them of their inherent chickenhawk tendencies. Fred Hiatt, are you listening? They can comfortably sit on their collective asses and sell their war by the turn of clever marketing--make THIS war just like World War II and, by extension, make THEM the the heroes of the war they feel like they should be because they sat on the dead asses and advocated it.

It's time to restore sanity in this country, and we need to stop listening to men who have never served calling for war. It should be a no-brainer. I won't be satisfied til these men are laughed out of the discussion every time they pipe up.

--WS

Notice anything?

Generation Chickenhawk



The First Member of the Royal Family to See Combat Since World War I



Angelina Jolie in the Al-Waleed Refugee Camp, Iraq



If a member of one of our own "royal" families was secretly in Iraq or Afghanistan defending this country, and Drudge revealed it and put their life in imminent danger, would anyone care?

UPDATE - By Blue Girl

"Buffalo 'em"

My husband is working on a book treatment and the subject matter is the era of the Plainsmen - Tom "Bear River" Smith, the 7th Cavalry, Wild Bill Hickok.

He said that it is time to "Buffalo" the chickenhawks.

I did not know what that meant, so he explained. A buffalo would stand there and let a man walk up to him and hit him in the head with a club.

When a man got buffaloed, he was marked, physically. Usually, it involved a pistol-whipping that left a scar on the mans face. It was a warning to the person on the receiving end..."I see your face again, I'm shooting you dead."

I'm not advocating violence, no matter how desperately some of these no-mind, fraidy-cat, reactionary, reptilian-brained piss-ants need their asses kicked.

My version is a loud "Shut the fuck up."

If you are carrying water for this fuck-up, and you are making excuses for the inexcusable, and you are not serving or encouraging your kids to go "drive around until we get shot at or something blows up" (what a concept for a mission!) I am not going to waste my time and listen to you. You are not worth my attention nor my time. You're a lost cause, and I despise you for willful, complicit ignorance.

Chickenhawk mother-fuckers, you have been buffaloed: Shut the fuck up.

The one where I break a taboo

There are a few phrases that are sure to induce eye-rolling every time I hear them. I hate them as only a scientist with a social sciences background can. Anyone who utters “aesthetically pleasing” or “develop a new gestalt” or “paradigm shift” is immediately going in my “pretentious dickhead” category, and remain there until I am satisfied it was a grievous error.

I tell you that because I am going to use one of them, and feel free to mock the mocker. I deserve it for not being able to come up with a synonym for “paradigm shift.”

But that pretty much sums up what has happened with the narrative of the war supporters.

Have you noticed?

The whole meme has changed recently. There is no longer talk of what it will mean to win. Democracy, stability, rule of law…

Those out-of-reach ideals are no longer getting play.

Nope. They are now using terms that couch it as anything short of a wide-spread regional war is success. If the whole damn Middle Eastern powderkeg can be kept from blowing up, then it was a catastrophic success!

Now the hook they are trying to peddle is “defeat in Iraq would result in wide-spread death and destruction all across the middle east and even in America, too!”

What that translates to is this: Basically - any scenario in which an unfriendly neighboring state or a group claiming to operate under a terrorist banner can't claim victory will do. (I know - that isn't a real victory, at least not the way it has been defined in any manual I ever picked up; but then, this isn't a real commander in chief, either, so...)

But here is all the proof you need to know Iraq is lost...the Dolschtosslegende is already being floated. Once again, those who support an unjust war but who are not fighting it – and neither are their children – and 52 months in, it is high time we start calling these bloodthirsty chickenhawk traitors on this part – these mendacious soulless fucks are attempting to blame the roughly 75% of their fellow citizens who get it as gutless, and we “won’t let the troops win.” Never mind the four-plus years of military failure. That has nothing to do with it. It's the folks back home who don't have the stomach for the fight, and we are causing the troops to lose.

Fuck those jokers. Hard.

I’ve had it with those chickenhawk mother fuckers, and I'm not playing nice any more.

The likes of them do not get to say one fucking word to me. How fucking dare they?

If you support this shit, and you can not produce a DD-214, or show me your children are serving…shut the fuck up. Assholes like Bill the Bloody Kristol are not fit to even speak to anyone who ever took that oath.

Y’all just work on that Dolschtosslegende. See how that works for you.

As for me and the rest who have been right all along…let me just clear something up for you...We are not stabbing anyone in the back, cowardice is your gig. We are, however, coming at you from the front.

We want you fucking cowards to see our faces.

But even more…we want to see the fear on yours.