Three wonderful counter-arguments to left-wing anti-war arguments were linked to on InstaPundit today. These counter-arguments give further credence that the left wing's arguments against the war are simply just anti-American garbage.
Ralph Peters writes in the New York Post about how the left uses phony caring about the welfare of Americans in uniform.
THERE are few things more repugnant to a soldier than a coward who claims to speak on his behalf. At present, there seems no end of politicians and pundits claiming we dare not strike Saddam because of the danger of friendly casualties. Self-appointed voices of conscience warn of tens of thousands of American dead.
That's nonsense. And when those who despise the men and women in uniform invoke the welfare of our troops to further their failing agendas, they transcend the commonplace cynicism of Washington. This is hypocrisy as a moral disease.
Make no mistake: The anti-war voices long for us to lose any war they cannot prevent.
The Sound an the Fury writes about charges of "colonialism" by the United States, which I suppose is the same charge as "imperialism."
And I would love to see any of these so-called opponents to colonialism speak out against Wahhabist colonialism in Europe or Afghanistan (or the repeated Arab desire to colonize Israel by force and commit genocide in the process). The failure to do so shows that the objection is not to colonialism but to the West and to democracy. It's frankly appalling and close to racist to see people complaining that a repressive and murderous dictatorship might get replaced by a democracy because the people leading the transition aren't the same skin color as the victims of the totalitarian regime.
Richard Bennett writes about "chickenhawk" charges against the president, who supposedly is unqualified to make decisions about war because he never served in Vietnam when he had the opportunity. Bennett's reply to the Democratic Congressman Pete Stark who made the charge:
So now you're trying to tell us that Vietnam was a just war, and the President should have been on the front lines, where you weren't? You need to make up your mind about that.
I love this argument. It had never occurred to me that the left is arguing that our political leaders should have served in the military during Vietnam. If they honestly believed the Vietnam War was unjust and morally wrong, they could never make their "chickenhawk" argument. Hell, they should be congratulating these politicians and civilian military leaders for doing the right thing, and not serving in Vietnam. But they won't, because they don't have a consistent argument or principles other than their anti-Americanism.
Another thing occurs to me, because of this counter-argument to "chickenhawk" attacks. Last month, I discussed how everyone under the age of 40, who meets the qualifications, has had the opportunity to serve in the very professional, well-equipped, adequately-paid American military without legitimate fear of death or grievous injury in a foreseeable war. This includes service in the reserves or National Guard, which does not interfere with school or career plans. The left has activity been arguing against and protesting military policy--particularly social policy--for the past 15 years, yet these people have refused to serve in the military. I mentioned that I will be happy to throw this back in their faces when protesting against American military social policy resumes, but I failed to make the logical concluding argument.
Since not going to war is a military decision, people who have not served in the military are not qualified to make that argument. They have said themselves that only those who have military experience--particularly in war--should be making these decisions. "Slinging hash" and treating psychiatric patients in Southern California doesn't quite meet the criteria. I apologize for stating the obvious, and for stating something that someone else has certainly already said.
