Only One In Congress Has Enlisted Son In Military

How many have sons in the oil/energy business, I wonder?

How many 'activists' here at indymedia have one, are one, were one or would even talk in a civil tone to one?

i do meet prospective enlisted men at the recruiters office when we do civil-and i do mean civil--disobediances, and i've gently talked at least two out of enlisting.

so that's at least two the chickenhawks won't be sending off to die for oil.

so be careful what you ask for when you request we be "civil" to military folks. you might end up with far fewer soldiers. at least that's my goal.

Mike, I respect your right to present arguments to young men and women and to attempt to dissuade them from a career in the military. It isn't for everyone, and a lot of young people are pressured into joining after their first visit to a MEPS station. Furthermore, anyone who is succeptable to falling out after talking to a perfect stranger is someone who needs to to think more about their commitment.

I must take issue with your reiteration of the "chickenhawk" canard, however. The framers of the Constitution (the document not the ship) gave power over the military to civilians. The Chief Executive is the Commander in Chief, and the Legislative Branch has the authority to declare war. If, as you seem to argue, only those who are serving, have served, or have relatives that are serving can say whether we go to war, well then only these people can say that we cannot. This would mean you should be silent on the impending conflict, I imagine. This would also make our government captive to a military junta. I don't suppose you'd like a plebicite of the military on this issue of war with Iraq. I assure you it would come down solidly in favor of action against Iraq. I would be heartened if more of our politicians were good stewards like some notable figures from our past (Teddy Roosevelt served, and all four of his sons served also. His youngest, Quentin died in an airplane during the first world war, and his namesake Tedddy Jr. died on Omaha beach on D-Day while a Brigadier General, postumously earning a Medal of Honor), but this is not a requirement. Perhaps it should be. Then we would have had a Second Bush (41, war hero) term instead of a first Clinton (draft dodger) term, and Dole (big time war hero) would have been elected rather than allowing a second Clinton term. Somehow I doubt you would find this palatable.

" If, as you seem to argue, only those who are serving, have served, or have relatives that are serving can say whether we go to war"

*sigh* why do right wingers have to lie and distort what people say? Don't they have a leg to stand on?

Let me put it to you simply, Simon: no one's suggesting that only military families may decide on war. Where you got that from, I don't know - outer space maybe? Most children could plainly see what is being said, and you miss it (surprise, surprise).

The politicians who are sending us to war do not believe in it themselves for their own. Among their families, representation in the military is FAR below that of the general population. It is obvious they are ready for the commoners to die but won't risk their own kin. It is reminiscent of the worst arrogances under the British.

my friend enlisted in the regular track, but it was weird because his mother is actually really wealthy now, but they have a dysfunctional family dynamic. Anyway, he was one of the few that was transferred from enlisted to the Westpoint officer track - which is a different experience. They control your time completely but allow you to think more. He was also one of the few liberals at Westpoint. A week ago I talked to him and he said that he is getting out two years early for an injury, but the injury will go away as soon as he is out. It's hard to get real information about what his job is from him.

<I must take issue with your reiteration of the "chickenhawk" canard>

the problem with the chickenhawks is not that they are civilians or lack fighting experience; you are correct that in a republic or a democracy, civilian political authority supersedes military authority. That is why, for example, the Secretary of Defense is always a civilian, and why active generals are fired if they verbally question the Commander in Chief.

the problem with the chickenhawks is this: WHEN THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO SERVE IN WARS THEY SUPPORTED POLITICALLY--WARS LIKE VIETNAM AND KOREA--THEY CHOSE NOT TO. THEY SLEAZED OUT. This is common behavior among Wolfowitz, Perle, Bush I, Rove, etc. Bush I, for example, joined the National Guard and then didn't even show up for that.

They are called "chickenhawks" because they are cowards and they are hypocrites. Typical Republicans, they demand accountability from everyone but themselves.

As for your statement that the military is gung-ho for the Iraq war, this is most emphatically not true. The management of the armed forces is dead set against it. Several ROTC guys I work with don't support it. The retired commander of the Gulf, Gen. Anthony Zinni (who coined the "chickenhawk" epithet), is against it. Even Colin Powell is known to oppose it.

saying that congressmen and women dont send their kids to the military but are willing to go to war dont make no sense $$ it aint up to the congressmen and women whether or not they kids enter the military or not $$ when i got out of high school i went to college not the military $$ my parents couldnt have made me go into the military if they had wanted to $$ you thinking these congressmen and womens kids are gonna go ask their folks what they should do, go to college, go to work, or enter the military and they gonna do what their parents say for them to do? $$ not likely to happen that way $$ their kids like any other peoples kids $$ lots more kids in colleges, universitys, technical schools, the work place, and the like than there are in the military $$ we dont make foreign policy decisions based upon how it will affect the kids of congressmen and women

No name, you make the argument that someone who is not a serviceman or related to one is to be labelled a "chickenhawk". This label is meant, by you, to delegitimize their position. Your point of view is that it is hypocrisy to advocate for war without having a personal stake in it. If we accept this logic, then you are saying that only those who are soldiers or are related to soldiers have a legitimate right to advocate for war (hence, not "chickenhawks"). But this is only half the argument. If only a soldier can decide when war is to be initiated, he is also making the decision when it is to be refrained from. You can't say that only soldiers can say war (and be considered legitimate) yet anyone can say peace.

Furthermore, the label of 'chickenhawk' is a dishonest one. If all members of Congress had soldier-sons, you'd find another canard to hide behind. It is imperative for you not to argue the pros and cons of conflict but rather to defame your opponents.

I think I'll coin my own label: Appeasniks. I don't think we should listen to anyone who advocates peace with Iraq that hasn't lived their entire life under a brutal dictatorship.

Mike, trust me, if you ask soldiers, especially combat soldiers you'll find a great enthusiasm for a conflict with Iraq. ROTC people are students, not yet soldiers. Whether or not a proposition is popular doesn't really matter, however. Oh, and Bush II was the guy who joined the Air National Guard and flew combat jets. Bush I was in the Navy during WWII.

was AWOL for over a year, was never prosecuted for it, and never saw combat.

>Mike, trust me, if you ask soldiers, especially combat soldiers you'll find a great enthusiasm for a conflict with Iraq.<

yeah, just like the 8 combat soldiers from wars past i saw the other day standing in a group with their decorations pinned on their clothes passing out flyers and stickers that said "Say No To War In Iraq."

hoo ah...

yes, correct, that is actually what i meant. it was a mental typo.

Dear Simple,

I applaud you for pointing out that per our generally ignored Constituion (Article I section 8) "Congress shall have the power...to declare war." And article 1 section 2 clearly states that to be a member of Congress one only need be a citizen and over 25 years of age. I, like you, see no mention whatsoever about any requirements to have served in the miltary (or have children in the military) in order to wield War making powers. If you are going to defend your position with our nation's Constitution however, you are going to have to explain 1) how Congress was able to cede its power to declare war to the executive branch? and 2) how the Commander in Chief is authorized to independently declare war (per a Congressional approval to use force as he sees fit against another sovereign state) in order to enforce UN resolutions. If you can not show us where this authority exists in the Constition (original or fully amended) then please don't pretend that the pending attack on Iraq is Constitutionally valid. I think one of our few Heroic members of Congress, Republican Ron Paul of Texas makes the case best here: http://www.antiwar.com/paul/paul50.html
This pending war ; the methods being used to bring it about overseas along with the methods being used to wage it at home, does absolutely nothing to defend our Constitution. I do not care in the least whether my Representatives have put on a uniform to defend their country, I simply ask that they honor their sworn oath to defend our Constituion --Its what we elected them to do. With our Constituion, left ignored or misrepresented, we are at the mercy of those who seek to benefit themselves through usurping the rights that we have been endowed with by our creator.

remember some WHITE commentator talking to Jane Pauley (or some other WHITE presenter) about how WE (meaning AMERICANS) 'feel' for the Bosnians (Bosnian MUSLIMS that is - good Muslims don't get called Muslims...)because...wait for it...

"They're blond and blue- eyed LIKE US."

See, it's not like looking at images of starving Africans cos they're black folk and WE don't 'connect' when WE look at them...

also remember that images of 'ethnic Albanians' (who also happen to be Muslim) in our local media focusing on 'flaxen blond' types...

also...the huge number of deaths (by accident)BEFORE the Gulf War started being reported on NBC by Bryant Gumble...From memory most were black...