Angry in the Great White North

From the diary of Cindy Sheehan at Daily Kos:

George Bush said speaking about the dreadful loss of life in Iraq in August: (08/03/05): "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission." "The families of the fallen can be assured that they died for a noble cause."

In reaction to these two assinine and hurtful statements, members of Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) are going to George's vacation home in Crawford, Tx this Saturday, August 6th at 11:00 am to confront him on these two statements.

1. We want our loved ones sacrifices to be honored by bringing our nation's sons and daughters home from the travesty that is Iraq IMMEDIATELY, since this war is based on horrendous lies and deceptions. Just because our children are dead, why would we want any more families to suffer the same pain and devastation that we are.


2. We would like for him to explain this "noble cause" to us and ask him why Jenna and Barbara are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble.


3. If George is not ready to send the twins, then he should bring our troops home immediately. We will demand a speedy withdrawal.

This is a variation of the "chickenhawk fallacy" which holds that you can't argue a military strategy that includes facing the enemy unless you are in uniform (or if you are in uniform, then you have to be on the front lines -- there is always a "moving target" in this). On the other hand, a civilian with absolutely no connection with the military, who indeed loathes the military, is free to argue a strategy of fleeing from the enemy.

I could argue against this, but I'm feeling lazy, so I'm just going to quote Christopher Hitchens:

Further on in the same portentous article, we encounter one Andrew Bacevich, a "professor of international relations at Boston University and a retired Army officer." What could be more impressive? This expert delivers himself of the opinion that, "If this is such a great cause, let us see one of the Bush daughters in uniform." Let me do a brief thought experiment here. Do I know a single anti-war person who would be more persuaded if one of the Bush girls joined up? Do you? Can you imagine what would be said about such a cheap emotional stunt?

It's not hard to imagine at all. George and Laura Bush would be demonized, labeled the most heartless parents ever, willing to kill their own children for oil and power, or some such nonsense.

Maybe these people would be happier to have either of these guys as president, having suffered the loss of a child in war:

Stalin's son was taken prisoner by the Nazi invaders (and never exchanged), and Mao's son was killed in the war that established the present state of North Korea.

But Hitchens points out the obvious consequence of this logic:

Much more important than this, however, is the implied assault on civilian control of the military. In this republic, elected civilians give crisp orders to soldiers and expect these orders to be obeyed. No back chat can even be imagined, let alone allowed. Do liberals really want the Joint Chiefs to say: "Mr. President, I'll respect that order when you have a son or daughter in uniform"? It was a great day when President Lincoln fired Gen. George B. McClellan. It was a great day when President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur. No presidential brat needed to be on the front line for this point to be understood.

As he goes on to say, the value of your opinion on the war rests on its merits, the logic behind it, the evidence martialed in its favour. It has nothing to do with the person who delivers the argument or the personal sacrifices they have, or have not, endured.

The "chickenhawk fallacy" and the "send the twins into battle meme" are just variations of ad hominem attacks, and as such, should earn the person who presents it an immediate dismissal from the debate:

The bottom line is, the chickenhawk argument is an impediment to legitimate discourse and debate—and legitimate discourse and debate over national security is a necessity in a free society; and for that reason, those who raise the chickenhawk argument should be treated by everyone—right and left—as intellectual pariahs.

If only it was so easy to do. Instead, thanks to the intellectually bankrupt like Cindy Sheehan and her supporters at Daily Kos, we're treated to the same nonsense all over again:

We GSFP members will not leave until we get answers from George Bush. We deserve and expect him to welcome us with answers to as why our loved ones are dead.

Bring water and hats...we plan on staying until we are arrested or satisfied with the answers. (I am betting on jail).

Her kind are never satisfied with answers, or even interested in hearing them. It'll be interesting to see how the media covers her protest at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas.

[To be fair, I should point out that the Gold Star Families for Peace is a national organization of families whose loved ones died as a result of the war in Iraq. Cindy Sheehan's son Army SPC Casey Sheehan was killed in Sadr City, Baghdad, on 04/04/04. I feel for her and mourn her loss. Nevertheless, her sacrifice has no bearing on the argument. I know it sounds cold, but there it is.]