The trouble with Jonah
Yesterday, Steve Gilliard reported on the White Feather for Jonah Goldberg campaign. You may remember Jonah, a prominent supporter of the war in Iraq, making a fool of himself in his feud with Juan Cole. It seems that quite a few people have taken the time to remind Jonah of the sacrifises others are making for his war and
he doesn’t like it:
Sorry for reopening what may be for most folks an old and tedious argument. That?s not my intention. Unfortunately, my recent spat with Juan Cole has launched a second front of hate mail, spam and blog flames. And since I don?t have the time or energy to respond to every email or ever blog post, I figured I could respond here and then I?d at least have a link I can send back to folks.
As you may recall, Cole advocated the position that every able bodied male in America who supported the Iraq war should have enlisted. In response to these and similar ?chicken-hawk? arguments I mentioned in passing that ?a few? of the reasons I never signed up before the war were my age, my financial situation, my brand new baby daughter and my physical condition. The blogger Atrios considered this an ?incredible? admission as have several other leftwing bloggers. The moral outrage seems to be based on what I can only figure to be several misunderstandings and one fair point. The misunderstandings include the fact that I never said these were the ?only? reasons I didn?t sign up. Merely that these were among them. I never expected Atrios to be a fair reader (he?s too concerned with my looks). But apparently this misreading has now become the official one among many on the web. I?ve received lots of email from folks who sincerely believe ? for one reason or another ? that I was saying my family or my financial situation was more important than those of the soldiers, marines and airmen in Iraq who also have families and, often, even greater financial challenges. So let me just say here that this was never my intention nor my meaning. If I gave that impression, I?m sorry. While obviously my family is everything to me, I have never thought in those terms. And I have never done anything but marvel at the contributions of America?s warriors. And, having gone to Walter Reed this weekend to meet with wounded vets, my gratitude and admiration for their sacrifices is even greater. What I was trying to say was that it doesn?t matter what my reasons for not enlisting were, it wouldn?t matter to people who think it?s more satisfying or effective to hurl insults than engage in arguments. Indeed, the fact that I am too old to enlist seems to bounce off of most of these people (to serve at my age I would need to have already served before or be in the reserve).
But as for the larger argument, I still think it is absurd. Every morning I get these emailed images of white feathers sent to me by folks who think I should sign up. The reference is to WWI when women would give young men not in uniform feathers to shame them into enlisting. It?s a clever bit of web-bullying I suppose. But the analogy is stupid. Those women supported the war. The people reprising the role of WWI prim ladies on the homefront do not. Daily Kos? reaction to the mutilation of American contractors in Iraq was “I feel nothing over the death of the mercenaries [sic]. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.”
That?s not the sort of thing one says when in support of the war effort.
The lefty blogs love pointing out conservative hypocrisy. Fair enough. But this chickenhawk nonsense itself is grotesquely hypocritical. Recently many on the left took great umbrage at Peter Beinart?s suggestion that much of the left opposed the Afghanistan war. No we didn?t! They declared. Well, okay. But if they didn?t oppose it, why didn?t they sign up? What about for the first Gulf War? Or Bosnia?
Look, in the age of the all-volunteer military, and in a country which prides itself on civilian control of that military, there is no shame in not signing up. Or even if there is shame, it?s personal not political. We have, by my rough estimate, some 70 million men of military age. Should they all join-up the moment they agree the military should do something dangerous? I favor aggressive law enforcement at home, does this mean I should become a cop? Of course not.
I supported the war and I support the work the military is doing there now. I make no apologies for that. I do not believe they?re there on a fool?s errand nor do I consider them to be hapless dupes and slaves to a cause not worth fighting. About the folks sending me these feathers, I know no such thing.
The typical bluster and strawman attempts from a conservative loon who knows he has no arguments left.
The trouble with Jonah is, that unlike any hypothetical other war supporters he would like to drag up, he has used his priviledged position as a media commentator to demagogue for a war whose costs he doesn’t have to bear himself. And that is what a chickenhawk is, somebody who is more than willing to let you die for their cause.
It is an old pattern with Jonah, with other rightwing commentators. Again and again they will argue and bluster for policies of which they don’t have to bear the cost. It’s all just a game for those Beltway Braggards, nothing real, but they forgot or don’t care that their lunacy costs lives back in the real world. It’s not just Iraq, it is also things like supporting the destruction of Social Security, the slow demolishing of any social safety nets or even the gutting of environmental regulations.
Jonah and the countless others like him are all nicely sheltered from the impact of their decisions. so whenever cold harsh reality intrudes, when people do hold them to account, they don’t like it, they’ll whine and cry for momma to protect them from those mean people.
Well, fuck ’em. Show Jonah what you think of him and his kind.