In case you missed it, Jonah Goldberg has been debating the asshat Juan Cole starting with Goldberg mocking a statement by Cole that the election in Iran were much more democratic than those in Iraq. Cole broke it down into a bunch of ad hominem attacks (history of the debate here), especially the non-sequitur of Goldberg being a "chickenhawk." From checking on lefty blogs, it turned into open season on harassing Goldberg (meaning my harassment goes unnoticed), so I wrote him my opinion on the whole chickenhawk issue. Goldberg seemed to appreciate it, and, since I don't think I've covered the issue here, I'll reprint most of what I wrote:

SUBJECT: Why a young warblogger like me isn't in Iraq

'cause I don't wanna go.

I'm 25, I don't have a family of my own, but I have a job here and I do a lot of good work through it (the contribution of my blogging is debatable, but I get e-mails from troops who appreciate it). If were to quit my job to sign up for the military, it would only be a symbolic gesture because my actual contribution through fighting would most likely be negligible.

My brother, on the other hand, as always been drawn to the military and signed up with the Marine a long time ago hoping for a conflict (you don't join the Marines to not kill people). He's finally heading to Iraq in March.

Now, if there were a call for people to sign up because of a lack of troops, that would be different (family tradition dictates dodging the draft by signing up), but this isn't WWII.

My suggestion to you is tell anyone who isn't an actively serving troop doesn't have the right to call you a chickenhawk... going by the logic of those who call people chickenhawks.

Whether you like my argument or not, I think being a "chickenhawk" is better than being a muckadoo.

Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble It!