Obama may want to brush up on military speak

Within reason, knowing your military nomeclature is generally a good idea. But woe be unto the candidate who tries to come across as is they are combat veterans.

The Young Republican Chickenhawks:
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.

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.

2. Matt Drudge, age 40

Time left to enlist: 1 year, 4 months, 23 days

If Matt Drudge is going to enlist, he better do it soon. We’re talking less than a year and a half here for this protector of The American Way and Tabloid-Style News. Matt thinks the war in Iraq is awesome—and he slanders lies about those who don’t. He owes it to himself to pull at least one tour in the urban jungles of Iraq.

3. Patrick McHenry, age 31

Time left to enlist: 10 years, 4 months, 18 days

Patrick McHenry is perhaps the smarmiest, smuggest member of the U.S. House of Representatives. On February 7, 2007, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, McHenry vehemently defended Blackwater USA—whose home state of North Carolina he represents. Patrick is primarily suited for the military because of his youthfulness and his penchant for vomiting up stupid Republican talking points:

They're advocating a policy called cut and run. They're advocating a policy of waving the white flag to our enemies. It is a policy, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, that the left in this country are advocating. But we are fighting a war. We are fighting a war against Islamic extremists that hate the very fiber of our being as Americans.
We? We who? And would that be the Sunnis or the Shia? It is very rare, even in this day and age, to find someone so young, so passionate about defending this nation, and so willing to lead the nation on the path to war, who has no desire to fight it himself.

4. Dan Bartlett, age 36

Time left to enlist: 5 years, 11 months, 3 days

George W. Bush’s longest serving aide, Dan Bartlett, announced last week that he was resigning his position with the White House to enlist accept a commission "pursue new career options" in the private sector. Dan has come to be known as a hardcore apologist for Bush’s stubbornness concerning reality. While the White House is certain to miss him, the military could really use him—especially the Army Reserves, which is already 1,300 soldiers short of its mid-year goal this year.

5. Jonah Goldberg, age 38

Time left to enlist: 3 years, 9 months, 17 days

When asked by one of Juan Cole’s readers why Goldberg (a rabid Iraq war proponent) didn’t have his butt "in the kill zone," Goldberg responded in a manner typical of many pseudo-erudite, arrogant chickenhawks:

"As for why my sorry butt isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my butt is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice"
Right...hmmm, because those are certainly disqualifying criteria for military service. Jonah is also the genius who lost the bet to Juan Cole over how Iraq would turn out.

On February 8, 2005, Goldberg also said this:

"Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now)".

Wow!! Who would pay this mope for his opinion on Iraq? Wait. . .don’t answer.....the GOP.

GOBAMA08!

Obama wasn't that far off. If it had been Hillary, she might have complimented on their "outfits," meaning their uniforms.

Bush would have asked them which bar they were assigned to.

One blogger apparently writes his own dictionary. According to Merriam-Webster, the word, "chickenhawk," is defined as "a hawk that preys or is believed to prey on chickens." What it doesn't say is that those "chickens" usually have a letter (D) behind their names. It is humorous to observe radical leftists who have maligned the military in the past to be concerned about who has served or not. If that is a criterion, the non-servers have a lot of company. Fully 84 percent of Americans have not served in the military. All the more reason to laud the 26 percent who have carried the load.

Here's a continuation from my above post.
So many young Repub Chickenhawks, so little time.....

YOUNG CHICKENHAWK #1: Matthew Continetti

Organization: The Weekly Standard

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: Expecting war supporters to actually fight goes against the Constitution

Matthew Continetti is Bill Kristol’s clown protégé at The Weekly Standard.

YOUNG CHICKENHAWK #2: Jason Mattera

Organization: Young America’s Foundation

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: Too busy "fighting the battle of ideas" here at home.

This guy sounds like he has rocks in his head. And I’ve never heard of "Young America’s Foundation."

YOUNG CHICKENHAWK #3: Ben Ferguson

Organization: College Republicans

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: "I support the Yankees, doesn’t mean I wear their uniform."

Young Ben gets a 10 on the Chickenhawk Aggressiveness Rating Scale (CARS). Besides his really great comment about the Yankees and fighting wars, he also said, "Just because I support something doesn’t mean I have to always go fight it." Ben’s vigor for war, added to his unbridled fear of actually having to participate in one, puts him squarely in the running for this year’s Chickenhawk Champion.

YOUNG CHICKENHAWK #4: Chris Bucovich

Organization: Freelance chickenhawk

Excuse for not serving in Iraq: the US Government "wants him to make more money here at home so he can help pay" for continued Iraq war escalation...

John E.,

Good for you!

What would you expect from a guy that wants to invade our ally,Pakistan.
I wonder how many squads Obama would send in for that little adventure...?

Paulo

Once again, John E is cutting and pasting. Anyway, once again, here are the facts. Most of those in the military are Republican. Most of those in the military comes from Republican and Christian homes. Most of those in the military come from the "red" states.

Rather than "chickenhawks," I'd like to discuss those who pretend they were/are in the military or even have children in the military like John E. Last fall, he kept talking about a son in Iraq and then last October he said the Pentagon sent him a letter he was being redrafted into the military and would be in Iraq come February. What's up with all that, John E.???

That's funny. In military speak, the term "Mission Accomplished" generally means the job is done.
Just saying.....

Obama wasn't that far off. If it had been Hillary, she might have complimented on their "outfits," meaning their uniforms.

Posted by: Halsted | August 20, 2007 1:37 PM

'cause she's a girl and girls only know about clothing and makeup and stuff.

Now then, if she were Japanese, she'd know a lot about math and science. And if she were black, she'd be able to jump real high.

You liberals just don't understand people...

Once again, John E is cutting and pasting. Anyway, once again, here are the facts. Most of those in the military are Republican. Most of those in the military comes from Republican and Christian homes. Most of those in the military come from the "red" states.

Posted by: John D | August 20, 2007 1:51 PM

Biff,
Just because "some" members of our military come from red states doesn't automatically make them Republicans, have you taken a poll of these people and did they all tell you that they are registered Republicans?

While I normally read The Swamp, I dont typically post. I will make an exception in this case to point out this is about the most irrelevant piece of non-news ever reported here. I have been in the military for 7 years and what is offensive to me is not a politician who misspeaks trying to make an effort to talk with troops, but the politician who put words in our mouths to say that we reenlist because we believe in the war, or make blanket statements on our behalf to explain how we "support the mission". I know this is a blog and all, but please try and keep the reporting to things that matter guys

What would you expect from a guy that wants to invade our ally,Pakistan.
I wonder how many squads Obama would send in for that little adventure...?

Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | August 20, 2007 1:47 PM

You've got some brass opening your puke hole on this topic chicken hawk. Girls like you should do what you do best. Hide stateside guarding yer 6:00 position.

Most of those in the military are Republican.

Most of those in the military come from the "red" states.

Posted by: John D | August 20, 2007 1:51 PM

John D... can you post links to the source data supporting these claims?

An M-16 is a rifle ..an M-4 is a shorter version of an M-16 ...
A gun is something that has wheels on it !
Fireteam, squad, platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corp, and army, and then the Army....but usually soldiers identify themselves by what divison they are in ...

"What would you expect from a guy that wants to invade our ally,Pakistan.
I wonder how many squads Obama would send in for that little adventure...?"

I wonder how many squads it would take to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden? Do neocons still need to be brought-up to speed on his whereabouts or are you guys still trying to convince everyone on where those known, unknown, knowns, wmd's in Iraq are?

A leader who signs truces with terrorist tribal leaders agreeing to stay out of dangerous regions may be an ally to Paulo and his Republicans but not to this liberal. You do not make truces with people who protect the whereabouts of Al-Qaeda leaders! I'd rather be an ally to the family members of the victims of 9/11 than to General Musharraf any day of the week. You sicken me to the core! Whose side are you on?

Frank James:

You must be really desperate for material and/or painfully bored ...This "story" will certainly make the Top 10 Most Irrelevant Stories of The Decade. The more you media heads take cheap shots at Obama, the more his support base will solidify. How about writing a piece on Hillary's Hypocrisy regarding her lambasting Obama for saying he wouldn't nuke a band of terrorists holed-up in a mountain range, andd risk the lives of innocent civilians; and she said the same exact thing last year. Oh no, you choose to write about squad-unit nomenclature, as though our troops and their loved ones give a s@#$ about this picayune "mistatement". Get a grip Mr. James. We've got some serious life & death issues at hand; this type supercilious "journalism" serves your readership no benefit.

Not all teams are fireteams, some are just teams.
What about detachment, regiment, battery, troop, and other elements that make up a functional Army?
Sometimes we identify by Division....but usually we identify by the lowest-level numbered unit (often battalion or equivalent, but not always). for example, I started my career in the 143rd Signal Battalion (part of 3rd Armored Division - Spearhead), ended in the 1/216 Air Defense Artillery Battalion (part of 34th Infantry Division - Red Bull. It really depends on who you're talking to. With some folks, I was with Charlie Company, with others such as the Mittens (Mitt's Kittens, the cute little chicken(shit)hawks roaming around here in Iowa (what they like to think of as outside the Green Zone) doing their "Patriotic Duty" to help a rich chickenhawk get a job he both doesn't need and isn't qualified for) I'd simply say I was "in the Army". That's about all they might understand, anyway, as war - to them - is 'somebody else's problem.'

I was in the Army. I remember being in a "platoon," but I can't say that I remember the term "squad" if that helps. I thought that was Air Force.

David K., perhaps this will help:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_vote_100404,00.html

Why don't the chicken hawks admit it. Their neocon dreams have become a nightmare and quagmire. There is no victory in Iraq. Think about this - if an occupying power were to occupy the U.S., what would Americans do - lie down and accept it or "terrorize" the occupier until they leave. Our soldiers presence in Iraq was uncalled for; they should have been in Afghanistan hunting down the perpetrators of 9/11, not the fictitious WMD's. "As you sow, so shall ye reap". The War on Terrorism has become the the New Age of Terrorism because of Bush, Cheney and their entire group. Fear was their instrument of war against the American people while they're in the backroom counting their dollars.

David K., perhaps this will help:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_vote_100404,00.html
Posted by: John D | August 20, 2007 5:19 PM
Sure, Three Years Ago the troops supported Chickenhawk-In-Chief...do they now? One thing I came to understand in retrospect is we military tend to support our CinC because that person is "The Commander" and we know they'd never send us on a mission they don't really believe in. We also like to believe our missions are important, relevant, necessary, well-conceived, and fully supported in all aspects...including personnel strength, equipment, supplies, etc. Many of my brothers-in-arms are learning that standard no longer applies, and hasn't in some seven years or so.
Regarding troop support for Kerry, the scumbags that swiftboated him are among the same scumbags who dis'ed Max Cleland and the like continue to call actual Patriotic Americans such as myself unAmerican and anti-troop, etc. Anyone who's actually put their asses on the line for our country know what true patriotism is, and that it ain't about waving a flag and pandering to POTUS and his crazy cultist pals. I, for one, am still not willing to sacrifice my freedoms for security, and will keep calling out the chickenhawks, the Mittens, and the rest of the effete elite on their hypocrisies. Time to stop talking smack and actually make some sacrifices, George. Let's see Jen and Barb in uniform...then you come talk to me about being a true American. Until then, shut up about we all needing to sacrifice...many of us already have. As for the Wrong-Wingers (they damned sure ain't Right) running for president, if you didn't serve and were a pathetic parent who failed to inculcate in your spawn the sense of patriotism and values to serve, why should we even consider voting for you?

"David K., perhaps this will help:

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_vote_100404,00.html

Posted by: John D | August 20, 2007 5:19 PM"

Nice start, but perhaps the words "unscientific survey" in the first line of this article, or the statement in the fourth paragraph that "The publisher cautioned that the results are not a scientific poll. Its readers [the ones who responded to the survey -- Op109] are older, higher in rank and more career-oriented than the military as a whole." might give you some indication that the data is skewed. I'm pretty sure that statements like that in documentation given YOU by a "loony lib" would have you tearing it apart as absolute crap.

However, even given the suspect nature of this reference, I'm willing to give you that the armed forces will probably turn out to be made up of a majority of Republicans (as in 51% or more), probably from "Red" states, and probably able to express public support for the President and his policies (although, of those, how many continue to express the same opinions privately might be another matter). I'd have pretty much assumed as much so wouldn't be surprised if it were true -- as proved by RELIABLE data.

In the future, though, please don't insult our intelligence by trying to pass stuff like this off as proof positive, thinking that no one will bother to read it.

This type of story is considered "equal time" for Frank.

A fluff piece about a simple error by Obama.

Hey, no one can claim his bias after this "hard hitting" story. Look at how HARD he went after OBAMA.

Whew, go easy next time Frank.

I love watching the loonies go with the Chicken Hawk argument again.

Hey guys, why aren't you in Iraq as "Human shields?" NO age limit or minimum required.

Sean Penn got there....so can you.

Also, John Edwards was for the war with Afghanistan, so was Hillary.

Does that make them Chickenhawks?

Also, John Edwards was for the war with Afghanistan, so was Hillary.

Does that make them Chickenhawks?

Posted by: JD | August 20, 2007 6:49 PM

Just Dumb

The people whom you have pointed out ARE NOT PRO-"WAR OF CHOICE", ie Iraq.

Nice try.....

Paula,

Is this the same wonderful ally of ours that was supporting the Taliban leading up to 9/11?

Before you get on a condescending tangent about how much you know about the military, you might want to brush up on your knowledge of uniforms. BDUs are no more. The Army now uses the Army Combat Uniform, which those soldiers are clearly wearing.

Dear alleged Desert Storm Vet, I know a REAL Desert Storm Vet. Actually a few. They thought we should have continued in Iraq in 1991 and while come criticisms of the handling, believe the right thing was done in 2003.

Dick Cheney got it right in 1994 when he said going all the way to Baghdad would have a mistake. He was right then, he's wrong now.

Dear alleged human John D,
What unit were you with...if ever? Where did you serve...if ever? What was your MOS, AFSQI, Rating, whatever? Chickenhawk pussy punks who've never served in the military really don't have any business questioning the service of anyone who's actually put their asses on the line for our country. You do, however, have the right to do so...I fought for you to have that right. ..did you?
As for your other statements...that may be. I knew quite a few 'Storm vets myself (being one of them)...and working in the Ops cell of an EAC Signal unit attached to VII Corps during 'Shield, 'Storm, and Provide Comfort I learned that even the brightest of minds didn't always agree...even with all the intel we had. Some think we should have done what we did back then, others (including myself) think we let the Kurds and Shiites down by not supporting the uprisings we called for....you can thank Bush 41 for that. 2003 was another matter...we dropped the ball on Al Queda and went after Iraq, creating thousands more terrorists (in their view freedom fighters...no different than the patriots of our fledgling America in the later half of the 1700's). Saddam was indeed a 'bad guy'...but yes, they really are worse off today than when we went in. They now have very little infrastructure, a country full of both terrorists and military occupiers, and damned little hope for a normal life. Folks who use their critical thinking skills instead of their koolaid drinking skills understand this. Perhaps someday you will, too.

"The people whom you have pointed out ARE NOT PRO-"WAR OF CHOICE", ie Iraq."

This is seriously your reply??

...so you're a chicken hawk if you are for a war that YOU disagree with??

Intellectually stimulating John E.!!!!!

That may be your best post yet.

Also, you never answered my question.

When are you and Dougie Zook going to hitch a ride to Iraq to act as a Human Shield? No age limit on that one?

What is it with people pretending they were in the military on this board? JOhn who claimed he had kids in the war and then was being reenlisted back into service. You are a joke. I was in the Marines, never served in combat, and have never rec'd any kind of letter from anyone. I was at Camp Pendelton from 96-99, went to Dubai and partied with oil heirs. That is the extent of my military service. People who pretend to have served in a war are the lowest from of scum on the earth. My barracks awas right across the parking lot from the Navy's in Oceanside, CA.

JD,

I did my tour back in the '70s tough guy. Your turn.

It's better to be the chicken hawk than it is to be the chicken.

Here are the first three words of John D's "support" link:

"An unscientific survey", which only POLLED 4,000 people.

Even better is how the poll DID NOT ASK these 4,000 WHICH PARTY THEY BELONGED TO, but that doesn't stop John D from alleging the "fact" that a majority of the military "is Republican".

John D, where's your editor when you need one to save your butt?

Ignorant-For-Life BC, the poll you are questioning consisted of 4,000 military folk. Do you realize that most polls consist of anywhere from 600 to 1,200 people?

Also because the poll is not scientific does not mean it does have accuracy.

But you do not understand polling, pretty much like everything else in life.

Dear John,
Ad homonym attacks become you, and tell us so very much about your character. Keep it up, you're doing a great job of turning Reds into Blues, much like Shrub is turning formerly pro-American Iraqis into Al Quaeda sympathizers. Keep up the good work!

John E,
Lot's of catterwailing on your part. However we know that it was only the Clintons who stated that they loathe the military.
In addition it was the Dems who tried to steal the Florida election for Gore in 2000 when they wanted to disenfranchise the military voters in the Pensacola area.