Monday, January 09, 2012

The Return of the Chickenhawks

“Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.”

This was the core of the argument made by the more honest neocons, such as Michael Ledeen, cited by Goldberg and deemed the “Ledeen Doctrine.” Who cares about “weapons of mass destruction” and Condi Rice’s visions of “mushroom clouds” – war is a positive good, and the military is to be venerated as a kind of priesthood.

Nothing offends a neocon more than being called a chickenhawk. The epithet really ruffles their feathers, and they’re quick with a comeback: “It’s absurd to say one needs to have military experience in order to argue for the merits – or demerits – of a particular war.” It’s true that anyone can make any argument they wish: however, it is also true that not all opinions are equal. Certain voices carry with them a special authority, and others less so. To cite one example: in the debate over whether we should go to war with Iran, the opinion of a pencil-necked geek like Bill Kristol, the little Lenin of the neocons,who has never been anywhere near a war, carries much less weight than that of Admiral William Fallon, the former chief of the US Central Command who resigned rather than go along with the Bush administration’s efforts to goad Iran into war.

1 comment:

AndyT said...

You're right, of course.
Disturbing isn't it to listen to scrotums like Gingrich and Santorum prome they'll never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon?
They're stupid enough to make idiotic promises, but not too stupid to know where the next check is coming from.

opinions powered by