"If you like the war so much, go enlist."

[Robb]

This one pops up on DU from time to time, and I thought we could benefit from examining it, especially in light of a recent poster who was roundly chastised for anti-war views from the family of a servicemember.

The implication of "If you like the war so much, go enlist" is pretty clear: it is a message from the speaker that your opinions are so much fluff, since you don't have "skin in the game." The chickenhawk thing, which we so often embrace as a valid argument.

But when families of soldiers dismiss anti-war messages from those who don't have family in the conflict, it's the same message, spoken differently. "Your opinions are so much fluff, because you risk nothing in holding them."

Since so much conflict resolution is based upon finding common ground, no matter how tenuous, I thought this might be an interesting place to start a discussion.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I always hate that argument. It's meaningless. Every American taxpayer has a say, and a stake, in

how the military is used, regardless of military service.

[Tarheel_Dem]

2. My answer is, the all "volunteer" army has already made it's decision.

I don't condone war, far from it. But the reality is, the people who have enlisted made that choice. I just think that anyone who wants out, should be allowed to, and anyone who wants to enlist should be allowed to serve openly, if it's their choice.

[tekisui]

3. I agree.

It is a weak argument going both ways.

[Robb]

4. Is that so?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=6769416#6776426">Short memory?

[DevonRex]

5. My, my, my.

:rofl:

[Tarheel_Dem]

8. Oh snap!

Kick for blatant hypocrisy! :applause: :rofl:

[tekisui]

9. THat is so.

It was a weak argument then, and is now.

[jenmito]

14. So you're calling your own argument "weak"?

OK! :rofl:

Good job, Robb! :toast:

[tekisui]

15. In that case, yes.

I never have claimed to be anything other than a person with an opinion. I have long since abandoned that argument.

[jenmito]

16. So I guess we should all wait 5 months after what you say and not be surprised if you totally change

your position? What changed to make you change your position on this subject?

[tekisui]

19. I didn't change my position.

I changed my tactic.

[Robb]

20. Not true.

You claim to have changed your position on a tactic.

There is a difference.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Some of our Third Way folks are not unlike the right wing ... they never make a mistake.

If they catch you making an error, they do not ever forgive and/or move on.

They have that in common with each other: The Third Way and the GOP = one upsmanship rules all in addition to admiration of hierarchy and authority figures.

[tallahasseedem]

18. LOL!

This is just...awesome.

[optimator]

6. using violence as a means to solve problems

that is war.
And I disagree with that method of solving problems.
And I am a veteran.

[Robb]

7. Did you ever come across this?

...The family of a soldier being difficult to move on the topic of the validity of the war? How would you address it?

[Orsino]

10. *Dumb* opinions from those with no skin in the game...

...can be dismissed as fluff.

There are no good pro-war arguments.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. It's a classic example of an ad hominem argument

And generally ad hominem arguments tend to be considered weak ones, if not logical fallacies. The bottom line is that there's really no good answer to this question. The fact that the military (particularly among the enlisted ranks) is not exactly socioeconomically balanced, is something that is very valid to discuss when discussing war and foreign policy.

On the other hand, I think it's hard to make the case that war only happens because the rich can send the poor to fight when wars have been happening throughout human history and often it wasn't the poor doing the fighting.

Yes, I think under certain circumstances it's valid to point out that one might have a different opinion if their own skin were in the game. But I think that using this as a blanket argument to dismiss any pro-war arguments is pretty weak.

I also think that it's disingenuous if people who both support and oppose the war and aren't serving, don't consider the fact that they might feel differetly if they did have skin in the game. I had a professor who once told us "Yea I think the draft is probably a good idea, but there's not a chance I would support it because I have a son who is draft age." Everybody is hypocritical at least sometimes and I have a lot more respect for people who acknowledge their own hypocrisy rather than try to cover it up in order to appear to be on a higher moral ground than others.

[Robb]

17. Excellent points.

Bias is unavoidable, but the validity of one's argument can be measured in part by their willingness to disclose it. :thumbsup:

[Kaleva]

21. +1

[Joe Chi Minh]

28. When did the rich ever fight on their own?

[frazzled]

12. It's an especially unsavory argument when we're trying to repeal DADT

It's a very mixed message: if military members and their families are subtly branded "warmongers" according to this argument, then what does that say about our efforts to get and retain gay soldiers in the military? Why would the left be pro open-gay service and then turn around and assume that anyone who enters the military is "for killing innocent children."

I'm not involved in the military, so maybe I shouldn't speak (the last person in my family to serve was my father, during World War II, where he flew 60 missions as a bombadier, and has reservations about what he was asked to do after all these years, but remains proud of his military service all the same). But my impression is that the men and women who enter the military do so to serve their country in any way they are asked (and to gain skill and education and in some cases to gain structure and purpose in their young lives). They do not make the policy.

[treestar]

13. I'm tired of people using the troops themselves either way

Trying to dominate another in argument by the sole reason of being related to one or being one.

Argue for or against the conflict on its merits, rather than attempting to get the upper hand due to a personal relationship.

This country confers superior civil/social rank on no one, including troops.

[Vattel]

22. What's to discuss? It's a dumb ad hominem argument.

Arguments in favor of war cannot be defeated by pointing out that the arguer is unwilling to enlist.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Yes, but it can highlight the fact that the war supporter is not willing to truly risk anything ...

save for his/her ego. With regard to fighting un-just wars, IMO, that's super lame. :shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

23. Tell ya what? If you can't enlist, there are many contracting agencies that will take you.

If you LOVE all this DEATH and DESTRUCTION as well as pretty weapons then you should NOT waste your time here with us who feel that both these occupations are UN-JUST.

Yes, at every opportunity, I will suggest those who love to cheer-lead for more KILLING and DYING as a solution to the situation within Iraq and Afghanistan, go forth and SERVE, whatever way they can.

Airborne! All the way! Otherwise you're just another arm-chair slacker. ;)

[noamnety]

26. These aren't equivalent statements.

Making a decision that an issue is so important to you that someone else (but not you) should sacrifice their life for it is not the equivalent in any way of stating that people shouldn't be sent to war.

I have NO problem with calling anyone out for being a smug self-centered privileged cowardly bastard if they believe their own life is more precious than those they are willing to send to battle.

[Joe Chi Minh]

27. Unfortunately, men and women often take great risks for an end they believe in,

but that physical commitment may or may not speak well of their character; whether it does or does not, will depend on the truth concerned; of itself, it tells us nothing of the truth concerned.

There were many passionate Nazis and Japanese militarists during WWII, but it didn't validate the truth of their stance. Indeed, arguably, the only unambiguous heroes were the conscientious objectors and anti-Nazi resistance people, and we can safely say, I believe, that they showed exemplary character, since their stance was on the truth of the evil of Nazism. Our leaders were not such innocents, themselves, but again, that is a separate issue.

[ShortnFiery]

30. That's why these wars should be fought out among our leaders.

:silly: It won't happen, but many of the citizens of waring countries don't want to kill ... they don't know "why" except their leaders tell them that they must Kill and Die.

It makes no sense. We need to find a way to settle disputes between nations without "whipping out the armaments."

[Oregone]

29. To play Devil's advocate...

To question why someone will not fight for a cause they believe is worthy enough that lives are expendable, is to cast doubt upon their expressed resolve and belief in such a war. Surely, if it is acceptable that people die for some greater cause, why is their own life an exception?

But to cast shame on someone opposed to war who has no "skin in the game" doesn't follow. You see, their resolve that a war is not worth fighting for is reinforced by the very fact that they wont put their "skin in the game". If they were fighting for a war they didn't believe was worth dying for, they would be mere hypocrites.

So I'm not sure these two statements are exact contrasts. While attacking someone, rather than the message, may happen in both scenarios, such an "attack" in the first one can be utilized in a logical argument about the necessity for the war (which, if they will not even put their own lives forth for, may not be that necessary after all).

[Robb]

31. We disagree on some things, but I'm always glad when you post.

:hi:

I think though you're looking at causality where it's not -- for example, not everyone who is not running out to enlist is avoiding service only because they are against the war.

Similarly, a military family member (in this case) makes a similar false assumption: that you're against the war only because you're not in it.

Both sides are claiming, interestingly, a larger group who feel the same way as them than there really is. Until you can neutralize both false assumptions, it's going to be hard to have a discussion.

[IndianaGreen]

32. There is no common ground: the wars are wrong and must end

And we have too many chicken hawks who have never served a day in uniform and are clueless as to the cost of war, to everyone involved!

[rasputin1952]

33. When bush sent our men and women into harms way...

I recall some plump little goomer that was in his early 20's talking about how the war was a "glorious" thing. When challenged on why he didn't join, he had several lame excuses as to why he "shouldn't" join, (student, looking forward to a "good" job, and other little excuses), but he was the quintessential Chickenhawk. He would go to RW "rallies" and squeal about how "important" it was to go to war, and everyone should support bush on his military excursion. I can't recall his name, but he was/is a twerp.

There are many other twerps out there that haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about because, unlike those that joined, they haven't a clue as to what war entails. They have never had to sacrifice anything in their lives, and consider it beneath them to even contemplate such an idea. When I was in, I knew men that covered up things that would have disqualified them, and I knew men who thought that perhaps not serving would have been better, but even those stuck it out and did their duty. None were cowards, the cowards ranted about war and a "strong military", but refused to serve in that they thought was so important.

The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces do so for varying reasons, but at the heart of all of them is a commitment to the nation. They are willing to put life and limb on the the line for the nation, and do so with dignity and honor, (two things most of the RW fail to have in any great quantity). These individuals are not only in harms way today, but they also stand in lonely outposts in cold and heat, often alone, watching for a potential threat. They man the battlements while the rest of us slumber, they sacrifice years of their lives so that the rest of us can sleep at night with some sense of security. I was once among these ranks, and I respect our men and women in uniform immensely. I know what they are going through, unlike those who grandstand with meaningless platitudes and then refuse to even consider paying the wounded a visit, much less paying taxes for their care after they come home disabled and disfigured...or worse, in a coffin. I would like to know just how many of these creatures have ever gone to a military funeral, not just for someone they knew, but a complete stranger, someone who paid the ultimate price so that they could lay awake at night thinking about the "glory of war".

I have stood by many a graveside as a veteran has been laid to rest, there is a brother/sisterhood that is hard to understand unless you've been a part of the military. The uniform a service member wore before they were killed means nothing, the rank achieved means nothing, their MOS means nothing..it is the fact that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for the nation that counts.

I wish there was no war, I wish there were no calls for armies and navies, but wishing accomplishes little, and until we evolve enough to realize that carnage is not the answer, I will continue to respect those that hear the call and respond...and I will continue to detest those that "glorify" war, but refuse to serve.

:patriot:

[Robb]

34. Which is all well and good and largely inarguable, ras,

...but what do you say to the family members of a soldier who won't budge, because they don't believe anyone who hasn't sacrificed (or risked it) the way they have has a valid opinion against the war?

[rasputin1952]

35. I can honor anyone's opinion...

the one's I find difficult to honor, are the one's who refused to serve when they have the chance, and continue to rail on about he "glory" of war. It is simply a choice I have made.

Honoring an opinion does not mean I have to agree w/it, I fight these people all of the time, but I do allow them to have their opinion, even if in my opinion it is warped.

:hi:

[Robb]

37. OK, but that's the easy fight.

You're talking about calling out chickenhawks, which is easy, and honoring opinions you don't agree with -- harder, but still.

What about actually moving opinion? That can't be all "fight," there's got to be some conflict resolution stuff in there, too. Do we just give up on convincing the soldier families who adamantly support whatever military endeavor we're in that their sons/daughters/mothers/fathers may not be in service of what they'd like to think they're in service of?

If you look at the great leaders, they've got in common the ability to find common ground within their ranks. Look at this President, he's got common-ground-finding down to an art, some say a fault -- because finding common ground implies not fighting, and that's not particularly popular.

[rasputin1952]

38. The key in a situation like this is to avoid confrontation...

The individuals that have a loved one in harms way are not about to easily change their minds, even harder if that loved one is wounded or killed. People have to believe a sacrifice is worth the overall cost.

I empathize with those who have loved one's in the service, and I don't feel an obligation to challenge their system that keeps them hoping for the best. It doesn't hurt to plant the seeds of peace though...:)

[Robb]

39. Fair enough. Thanks, ras. nt

[mkultra]

36. That argument is valid and goes only one direction

Pacifists have a right to be pacifists whether they have served or not. People who support a conflict can be questioned based on their past, present, or future service because of the "skin in the game" argument. If you support a conflict, you better have a FULL understanding of what it means for those actually doing the work.

There is nothing more dangerous our foolish in this world than people who come with ideas for other people to do.



For clarity of position, i support the war in Afghanistan, not the war in Iraq.