I’ve generally avoided criticizing Iraq war supporters who, despite their enthusiastic hawkishness, have never served in the military. It’s tempting to suggest that if they believe the war is the key to the future of civilization, they would walk into their local recruiting station and sign up, but I try to resist that temptation — it’s not necessarily wrong for someone to support a war they’re not willing to fight in. After all, I endorsed the wars in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, but didn’t volunteer for duty myself.
That said, there are certain times at which war supporters appear to lose all sense of perspective, and offer truly moronic thinking. Take the latest from W. Thomas Smith Jr. at the National Review:
[T]he majority of the most vocal of the war critics have never even worn the uniform of our country. Yet some have even gone so far as to suggest that they have military backgrounds based on their holding seats on armed services committees.
As Kevin Drum noted, “There’s chutzpah and then there’s chutzpah…. You gotta admit, it takes balls for someone writing for National Review to even bring up the subject.”
Indeed, much of the National Review’s stable of far-right commentators have been fending off charges for years now that they’re a bunch of “chickenhawks.” They love the war, but don’t want to fight it. They love the troops, but don’t want to join them. They believe our security depends on the success of the mission, but they don’t want to leave their keyboards.
But now National Review has the gall to argue that the “majority” of war critics have never served in the military? Seriously? Is this where National Review wants the policy argument to go? After NRO has spent several years smearing John Kerry, Jack Murtha, and VoteVets.org? Should we do a head-count to see what percentage of The Corner has worn a uniform and served in combat?
Smith’s dispatch from Al Qaim added:
This is not to suggest that they might not have flown in for a bite of lunch at Camp Victory out by Baghdad International Airport, or gotten a guided tour of the Green Zone. But I personally can’t imagine any of them spending any real time out here on the ends of the earth. And how can they possibly make claims that the war is “lost” and a “disaster” unless they’ve actually experienced it?
There is simply no way that anyone so eager to pull the plug on this effort can appreciate the realities of Al Anbar much less Iraq unless they’ve suffered in this heat, driven multiple times up-and-down these dangerous supply routes, patrolled the cities and towns, interacted with shepherds, shopkeepers, and the sick, aging, and unemployed living in some of the most impoverished villages on earth. How can they appreciate the realities of this effort unless they’ve been shot at a few times, sat for endless hours — sometimes days — with exhausted Marines and soldiers under the sun and stars of an isolated battle position.
I’m trying hard to appreciate Smith’s point here, but war critics can imagine the incredible challenges these soldiers face every day. What’s more, they don’t need to experience the disaster to know it’s a disaster. Best of all, war critics can also understand that, instead of having these troops get shot at, they should come home.
