« 72 Virgins Await | Main | Moonbat Medication »

V the K and The Warden have pointed out in comments on this site that the chickenhawk arguments implies you have no right to expect the protection of the police and the fire department unless you are a cop and fireman yourself. V the K follows this logic further down the twisting lane of antiwar moonbat logic:

How many more cops have to die before the Bushco fascist regime realizes that law enforcement is a quagmire? Fighting crime only creates more criminals! Support the cops by closing all the prisons! The greatest crime in the history of America — the murder of Nicole Simpson — remains unsolved because the regime took their eye off the ball by pursuing other crimes. America isn't safe so long as the "real killers" remain at large.

Jonathan at Crush Liberalism references an excellent piece by Ben Shapiro, and raises some good points himself. For example, he notes that some leftists giggled like "teenage girls at a Justin Timberlake concert" at the idea of the draft-dodging Clinton being Commander-in Chief. He also wonders if he has to stop cheering for the Jacksonville Jaguars, since he's never played for the team.

Shapiro' two-part piece (Part I and Part II) drives home the point that by positing that only those who have served in the military are entitled to a point of view on foreign policy, the chickenhawk argument "explicitly rejects basic principles of representative democracy." He notes that leftists are among the last people who would want the military in control of foreign policy, especially since those in the military and their relatives vote overwhelmingly Republican — in 2004, Bush beat Kerry among them 69% to 24%. Democrats are of course aware that they have very little appeal for the military; otherwise the Gore campaign wouldn't have gone to such length to suppress military votes in Florida in 2000. Obviously leaving everything up to those who have served in the military and their relatives would do very little to advance the left-wing point of view.

Here's another of the many good points Shapiro makes:

If they [the American military] fight for the right of pacifist anti-military fifth columnists like Michael Moore to denigrate their honor, they certainly fight for the right of civilian hawks to speak up in favor of the highest level of moral and material support for their heroism.

Whatever might have remained of the asinine chickenhawk ploy was thoroughly obliterated yesterday by Rich Lowry on NRO. Here's a highlight:

By the same token, we could say to proponents of leaving Saddam Hussein in power: "That's an illegitimate position unless you yourself are willing to move to Tikrit to live for the duration of Saddam's regime." Or to supporters of "containing" Saddam: "You're a hypocrite until you go help patrol the no-fly zone." Or to advocates of inspections: "You can't support them unless you don a baby-blue cap and sniff around his suspected chemical-weapons sites yourself."

Why should this line of argument be limited to Iraq? "You think we should help fight AIDS in Africa? Well, go work in a clinic in Lavumisa, Swaziland." "You oppose land mines? Go clear them from the Korean DMZ." "You think there should be a new U.N. protocol in favor of [insert fashionable cause here]? Then spend interminable hours helping negotiate it yourself." "Support jobless benefits? Become a clerk at an unemployment office."

Alas, the argument only swings one way. A few radical antiwar groups, including Code Pink and Veterans for Peace, have released a statement supporting the Iraqi insurgency. But no one is badgering its members about whether they are going to go set off roadside bombs in Baquba. Jihad is so easy when it's someone else's son or daughter doing all the suicide bombing!

Shapiro sums it up as well as anyone:

The "chickenhawk" argument proves only one point: The left is incapable of discussing foreign policy in a rational manner.