Akkam’s Razor

Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe whines:

 You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a “chicken hawk" [...]

“Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur — a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply — that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer.

Glenn Greenwald counters:

A "chicken hawk" is one who strikes the pose of a warrior, who imputes the personal courage of a soldier in combat to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are in favor of sending that soldier off to war, or who parades around with the pretense of personal courage and resolve while assuming none of the risks. And a "chicken hawk" will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.

And best yet, a National Review Online blogger counters that the war at home- the war of ideas - is just as important as, you know, real war (via Thinkprogress):

There is a war of arms. And there is a war of ideas. They are not just inter-related, they are interdependent. They are equally consequential.

…Let’s take just one example: In the 1930s, Churchill fought a war of ideas. He tried to warn the world about Hitler; tried to warn Europe and America that Hitler’s hatred and ambition had to be checked. But most people did not listen. Churchill’s ideas did not prevail. They called Churchill a “war monger.”

…So yes, Kathryn, you are fighting a war. And your e-mailer is ignorant about how wars are fought, about how wars are won and lost, and about the way the world actually works.

Personally, I prefer to refer to the bloodthristy warbloggers as the 101st Fighting Keyboarders (FAQ):

Q. So what are the 101st Fighting Keyboardists?
A. They are a group of bloggers out to fight the war on the media front.

Q. Why would the media front be important?
A. Unfortunately, as hard as our military men and women fight, they can still lose by the American public turning against the conflict and convincing whiny politicians into pulling everyone out. That's because we've still yet to learn the main lesson of the Vietnam War.

Q. Which is?
A. Don't lose wars. Otherwise, people - especially the enemy - will declare any conflict "just like that other war America lost" and be certain America will pull out if enough pressure is put on the American people. This means much more fighting is needed to convince the enemy we are serious.

Q. But can bloggers really help?
A. Sure we can! We've forced the media to look into issues they've wanted to ignore in the past. In this conflict, the media tends to focus on the negative, much to the frustration of our troops who have been over there and seen what it's really like. By highlighting the good on our blogs and giving the military general support, we can shame the media into giving fuller coverage of the entire conflict… as long as some girl doesn't go missing in Aruba.