The Young Chickenhawks

[EV_Ares]

by The Angry Rakkasan

Nary a word in the English language can make Republicans so apoplectically insane as this one:

"CHICKENHAWK"

Of course, they don’t like it because it’s an underhanded way of calling them cowards. And nobody likes to be called a coward. - Strictly defined, "chickenhawk" is a term "meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present." We all know who some of the most obnoxiously belligerent offenders are, like Bush, Cheney, Fred Thompson, Giuliani, O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Perle, Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Rove, Snow, and Ted Nugent.

The Angry Rakkasan's diary :: ::
When Republicans are called chickenhawks, they howl. They cry about how the term is ad hominem. They lash out and point to other Republicans who have served in wars. They do everything but actually join the military. Now, prior to the days when Republicans had yet to break the U.S. military, chickenhawks had a valid argument against the fairness of the term. But now—not so much. Glenn Greenwald summed it up nicely earlier this year:

It is true that where there is an amply stocked volunteer military, it is natural and inevitable that many citizens will support a war in ways other than by enlisting. No additional troops were needed, for instance, at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan (or during the action in Kosovo), and there was thus no tension between supporting those wars and not fighting.

But the current situation is completely different. Even according to the war's remaining advocates -- particularly those who want to escalate in Iraq -- there is a serious and harmful shortage of willing volunteers to fight in Iraq and to enable a more aggressive application of U.S. military force generally. So we do now have a situation where those who are cheering on more war and escalation really are needed not at the computer screen but on the battlefield, in combat. And their refusal to fight is actually impeding the plans of those on whom the President is relying for "Victory."

As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so.

Fortunately for most contemporary chickenhawks, they’re too old to enlist, and thus marginally excusable. But not all of them are. Indeed, there is a very vocal minority of Republican chickenhawks, still young enough to enlist in the military, but still unwilling to physically support their beloved war.
Ironically, four of the five listed below are only still eligible because the Army had to raise its enlistment age from 35 to 42—because it couldn’t find enough qualified recruits to send to Iraq. While raising the age limit twice within five months (first to 40, then to 42), the Army was also forced to lower physical standards at the same time. These facts alone should be reason enough for the most ardent supporters of the war to sign up. Obviously the military needs people that know so much about war.
I present them to you now:

1. Michelle Malkin, age 36

Time left to enlist: 5 years, 4 months, 16 days

Michelle is a prime candidate for the military. She knows more about terrorism and war than anybody. Just ask her. She even has first hand experience, having spent a whole week in Iraq earlier this year trying to gain some type of moral authority over her legions of detractors. But what makes Michelle ideal for the military, is the fact that she not only has a fervent hatred of terrorists, but that she also finds foreigners inherently distasteful. And what better place to fight terrorists and foreigners than in foreign countries with lots of terrorism? I mean, fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here, right?
With her degree, they may even let Michelle become an officer.

(((rest of the potential joiners @ link below including Drudge:)))

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/5/2030/83070