The Swiftboating of Rep. Murtha begins.

It never ceases to amaze me how Republicans who’ve never seen a day of combat (see President Bush, Saxby Chambliss, Jean Schmidt) — indeed, many of whom asserted privilege to avoid combat — now see fit to question the honor, patriotism, and bravery of people who’ve given blood for this country (see John Kerry, Max Cleland, John Murtha). Jean Schmidt beat up on an Iraqi war vet to get elected to Congress in the first place. So I guess it’s only appropriate that her first headline-grabber would be to call a decorated, 30-year Marine with two purple hearts a “coward” because he doesn’t wany more kids dying due to the stubbornness of a political party determined to prove it was right in leading us into a foolish war. The hell with Jean Schmidt.

Murtha, like many of us, opposes this war because he supports the troops. That is, he’d rather not see them die for the naive, elusive fantasy that the U.S. government is capable of building liberal societies from sand, bombed rubble, and in places where liberal institutions haven’t existed for centuries. The U.S. military is the greatest fighting force in the history of man. It’s also the most selective, careful, and moral — to the extent that a fighting force can be. But we’re asking it to do the impossible. And yeah, it’s heartbreaking to read the newspaper and see a few more troops picked off each day, not in defense of the country, but in pursuit of the foolish, hubristic vision of a few arrogant politicians. Few of whom were willing to make the same sacrifice themselves.

Finally, a comment on this whole “chickenhawk” bit: In its least effective incarnation, the argument is bogus. That is, suggesting that a president, defense secretary, or any other elected official should have served in the military before sending someone else’s kids to fight and die. That, of course, runs afoul of the sound principle that our miitary should ultimately answer to civilians.

But I think it’s a bit more valid to criticize war-hungry politicians and opinion-makers who not only didn’t serve, but who actively sought to avoid serving, or who asserted privilege to get out of seeing actual combat. When those people then become politicians and get gung-ho about waging foolish wars, I think there’s quite a bit more merit in pointing out their pasts. I thought it was a fair criticism of President Clinton and his foolish overseas endeavors. And I think it’s a fair criticism of Bush, Cheney, and the Kristol-Perle crowd.

But there’s one realm of chickenhawkery that’s particularly egregious. And that’s those people who actively avoided service or asserted privilege to avoid combat who then question the patriotism and honor of people who did serve, not because they actually did something dishonorable, but because they have an honest difference of opinion on, for example, the necessity of the war in Iraq, the civil liberties violations inherent in the PATRIOT Act, or the all-encompassing executive power sought by the Bush administration.

Serving in the military doesn’t make you exempt from political criticism. But it ought to make you exempt from attacks on your character and honor by people who never served over what are honest disagreements on policy. When someone who sought a half-dozen deferments from combat duty in Vietnam questions the bravery of someone who left limbs on the battlefield because the latter opposes the PATRIOT Act, I think it’s more than appropriate to call attention to the raging double standard in play.

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 20th, 2005 at 8:22 am by Radley Balko and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.