It is so amazing how nothing more than a macho-full-of-onseself swagger, wearing some faux military gear, a few Tom-Clancy-ish technobabble words and sense of absolutely certainty, can be passed-off as "national security" credentials and expertise among many of the American electorate. As Marx (Groucho) said: "The two keys to success are honesty and sincerity; and if you can fake those, the sky's the limit."
And it is also amazing how many dumb people let these armchair generals and pontificators, most of them outright Chickenhawks, get away with it.
It is simple:If one has not served in the military, then tread cautiously both with and on your opinions and advice involving the wars, conditions and military service--and possible deaths and maiming--of others if one did not bother to show up for military service oneself and had a chance to do so.
The other day Romney was asked why, given his pro-War and pro-continuance stands on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, he had not urged his five sons to sign up to serve. No one asked him why he had never served in the Armed Forces. His answer, gave a whole new meaning to the construct of "Chutzpah" which used to be defined as "killing one's parents and then pleading mercy on the Court on the grounds that one is an orphan...". Romney's answer was that there are many ways to "serve" and his boys were "serving" America by working to get him elected to the White House. Damn, and does combat pay, body bags, missing limbs, PTSD, DU-poisoning go with that duty? Can you spell NARCISSISM?
A Chickenhawk is not one who has not served in the military. There are many legitimate reasons why one either cannot serve or one chooses not to serve in the military. And a Chickenhawk is also not one who, when serving in the military, is serving in "the rear with the gear" because, simply, all jobs are necessary--the non-glory ones must be done in order that the more glorified ones get done--and no one chooses their MOS or where they will serve and under what conditions.
A Chickenhawk is a low life form that promotes and justifies wars (past, present and future) when they--and family relations insulated by them--have never served and/or never had any intention of serving when they had a chance to, and/or used connections to avoid combat and combat areas like Bush in the Guard. This applies in the present to those supporting present wars and are not presently serving if eligible and/or in which they have no intention to serve. In the case of now justifiying past wars like Vietnam, I would only characterize them as Chickenhawks if, at the time, like Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh et al, they were Vietnam War supporters and, had the opportunity to go and serve and "chose" to run their mouths while urging others to go and get maimed, suffer Agent Orange or Gulf War Syndromes and to do the dying for them while cynically and carefully insulating themselves from that they were urging others to sign up for.
These low-lifes must be exposed whenver they crawl out from the swamps they inhabit. It is a powerful and profound testimony to how many really stupid people there are in this country that some two-bit Chickenhawk, with nothing more than a John Wayne swagger, some Tom-Clancy-like macho/techno-babble and some posturing in faux military garb can wind up in mass polls as "credible" or "a leading figure" on national security.
Every one of these types, Giuliani, Thompson, Romney, and I include the Dems, media types like O'Reilley, and I include any women with big mouths and "talking tough" and promoting war like Billary as well. The basic question is: "And Where were you when you had a chance to serve?" "Did you urge your children to serve?" "Why are you so cavalier about supporting war when you have no idea of what war is really about--for both combatants and non-combatants?" "Who the f-ck do you think you are?" In the case of actors like Thompson who have made a career out of "playing" at being generals, cops and presidents, ask him outright: "Do you understand that in a real war, as opposed to 'play war" or a movie war that you have built your acting personna on, you don't get to do retakes, the blood and gore is real and not from special effects, and you don't get to go back to a nice cushy trailer after the day's "shooting" that is nothing like the "shooting" in a real "shooting war?"
Another thing that can be done, is when these posturing fools--both Dems and Republican--start posturing with such self-assurance and waxing so erudite and all-knowing about national security, the military and the world and how to fix it, ask them some basic geography. How many right now, can list the countries bordering Iraq? I know for sure General Clark can. If they cannot give even the basic geography, what are their opinions really worth? These creatures only "look" expert on world affairs and military matters because the dilettantes of the media asking them questions are every bit as shallow as those they are posing questions to so "in the land of the idiots, the half-wit is king..."
I myself have done all of the above and continue to do it at public meetings. And you should see the "Deer-In-The-Headlights" look when they get taken on toe-to-toe with real facts, real logic and their sopohistry and cliches sliced-n-diced in public with no backing down when they retort with more cheap theatrics and cliches.