This wasn't the best of weeks for John Kerry. Maybe it's his own fault. He placed so much emphasis on his military service that when The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth went after him, he tried to ignore them, but finally had to respond and he slammed George Bush for not distancing himself from the group.

A few months ago Bush was the one squirming when his military service became grist for the mill. Now it's Kerry's turn in the dunking booth.

Which reminded me that several weeks ago in the Chatroom, there was a heated discussion on whether or not you can truly support a war such as the one in Iraq when other people are going to fight it.

This week Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called Vice-President Cheney a "coward" for not going to Viet Nam.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's questioning of John Kerry's war record and his ability to protect America is "cowardly," Sen. Tom Harkin said Monday.

"It just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during Vietnam and said he had 'other priorities' at that time would say that," said the Iowa Democrat, a former Navy fighter pilot.

"They're running scared because John Kerry has a war record and they don't," said Harkin. "What he (Cheney) is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. The actions are cowardly."

Harkin, a 20-year veteran of the Senate, was a Navy flier from 1962-67, including stints at Atsugi Naval Air Station in Japan and Guantanamo Bay. He served 1968-74 in the Reserves.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/16/...y.ap/index.html

We've all heard the talk about "support the troops" and "chickenhawks" who support the Iraq war though they have never served in the military. Those people rankle Senator Harkin and to a lesser extent many others who have served in the armed forces.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?

I don't believe that because someone served in the military they should be considered an expert at war, but rather they do have a perspective that others that have not served might have. Such as rushing into a war rather then trying to look at evidence, consequences, cost, lives, etc. Someone that has been on the battlefield might try to exhaust the alternatives first after having firsthand experience. On the second question I would say no, because everyone is not made for the military but can support what the military is doing.

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?

When it comes to criticizing Kerry's war record I would say yes Cheney doesn't have a leg to stand on, but that won't stop him just like what they did to Max Cleland back in 2002. On the debates about war and military matters- No.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?

Tough questions- In a moral man, that is able to take in all data, and make an informed decision, AND HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART- listen to the naysayers opinions and oppositions arguments in an objective and intellectual manner, ESPECIALLY if the reasons for the war are not very clear- you can be an expert, experiance or no, however, those that question THE PATRIOTISM OF THOSE THAT DONT AGREE WITH THE WAR- yet have never enlisted in a WAR THEY PUBLICALLY SUPPORTED - is indeed cowardly. For instance,IMO- GW talked about how he supported the war in Vietnam- however, he had the skills, and never took the fight to the enemy- so to me, if you suport the war, are in the military, you should do everything you can to take the fight to the enemy- and if you can not to this- you never again have the moral right or credibilityt to question others opinion or lead others into such a situation. I respect Clinton more for not going, and not believing in the war in Vietnam, than I do for GW, who publically supported the war in vietnam, but wasn't brave enough to volunteer to get right up there, down and dirty. I think GW has no business talking about any war- He had the "moral fortitude" to publically support the war in Vietnam- so show some backbone, and get over there. I feel the same way about those that are so vocal about going to Iraq- okay, fine, get you butt over there, there are soldiers that need to be rotated out, quit being such a wuss! If YOU ARE GOING TO TALK FIGHT, THEN FIGHT, DON'T TALK!!!

[/b]Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?[B]

Cheney isn't fit to kiss the butt of the fly on the poo that kerry stepped in IMO- he is a thief, (as shown by the Haliburton fine recently) and a coward (as shown by his hawkish life while obtaining all those deferments- he had a family deferment, right?)

No, all Americans have a RIGHT to join the debate, however, leaders in the, aptly named, chickenhawk group, absolutely have no BUSINESS questioning the bravery of others that DID fight, even by proxy, through the swifties etc. Cheney is pure scum, and to suggest that he has any business in this debate, other than is constitutional right to open his mouth, disgusts me.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?


No, it does not mean because you served you are an expert on war. However, those soldiers do carry the experience of fighting in a war which someone who has never fought will not understand. I believe a soldier who has fought in a war understand that there are no winners but only losers. Yes goals get accomplished when fighting a war, but at what cost? thousands and thousands of dead soldeirs and innocent civilians.

To answer the second question, yes and no. Yes because as I mentioned before,
those civilians can never relate through actual combat experience. No, because we can learn a lot about war listening to those who experienced it.


Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?

Harkin hit it right on the money. Bush/Cheney have been talking tough about war ever since 9/11 and here they are attacking a man who has freely fought in a war while they were hiding from it. Yet, most American citizens believe Bush would do a better job on the war on terror than Kerry. (GO FIGURE ) If I was Kerry, I would go after Cheney with the full force and make him answer some tough questions not on just military matters, but on some contradictory statements he has made over the last 3 years regarding Iraq. I don't quite understand how Kerry could just sit on the sidelines until now and let them attack his experience in Vietnam and NOT SAY ANYTHING.

And no, war and military matters should not be confined to those who served or fought in a war. This country belongs to the people (even though the Bush administration has yet to understand that), so the people should always be consulted in terms of militalry matters. The people do not belong to the military, but the military to the people.

Well this is certainly one issue that's going to bite some people in the behind in a future election. If you rise the bar to a point where elected officials or candidates must not speak of war if they haven't served........the next Clintonesque candidate may have a tough road to the white house.

Harkin is a proven liar. There was a snippet of his bio in nighttimer's link. But what is missing is the fact that he had promoted himself as a Vietnam vet, until a reporter called him on it. So his taunting of Cheney by calling him a coward falls on deaf ears here. I don't have time for people who inflate their war experience. If Cheney is a coward, so is Clinton.
I'm sure that all of the previous posters realize that Harkin made his little 'coward' snipe in response to Cheney criticizing Kerry's Senatorial record on terrorism. Sooooo, somehow if one hasn't served in war, they cannot bring light on a public record??? That's patently ridiculous. Harkin should be ashamed, but he's falling right in line with the Kerry camp, pimp war for personal gain. Cheney's record with deferments and as VP is fair game to bring up, but calling someone a coward....that's a beautiful soundbite that you'll get to see in a future republican TV spot. Open mouth, insert foot.

I've mentioned it once before, and I'll say it again. I have more time in service (by far) than Kerry did, and I have had more time in a combat zone than Kerry did. Yet, I would not (outside of mentioning my leadership skills) run on my service record. It's simply not very applicable to elected office. By listening to Kerry, one might walk away with the impression that to be president, you must have served on a swift boat.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?

I think cgorham summed up pretty well my feelings. Those who served have a perspective, knowledge and advice concerning matters of war. But I find it interesting that some posters will say that a civilian can be patriotic, love their country and support the military, and in the next sentence go on to bash Cheney. And I just love the line I think GW has no business talking about any war. Interesting sentiments concerning the Commander in Chief. I assume that's emotion and not objective reasoning talking.
What if I'm disabled, or otherwise unable to join the military. Do I then have no right to speak of war? Does my opinion no longer count, because of the subject?
The right to voice opinion is equal across the board, a constitutional right. And I've pledged the last 18 years of my life to defend ideals such as those. I served under with Clinton as my Commander in Chief for 8 years, yet I went where I was deployed and did my duty. It didn't matter to me that he didn't serve. I don't care for his actions during the Vietnam era, and I'll never be slandered as a Clinton supporter, politically, but we in the military served the citizenry at large, and under civilian leadership.

Don't think anyone is an expert at the chaos that constitutes two or more groups of people trying to kill each other: war. Oh, you've got your analysts and your strategists and your leaders and your soldiers and your civilians and your big butt shells and bombs.

It is chaos. How do I know this? Hell, just take a good wide-eyed gander at it. I think the most heinous form of war was when columns lined up and shot at each other over a formal field of battle, men falling over like a child's tin soldiers. The formality of that illusion for the chaos of war irks me to no end.

So I've got an opinion about war but have not been in a shooting war this lifetime. It's as valid an opinion as any I suppose, but I don't consider myself an expert on the subject. And as stated first, don't think anyone is. We're all a bunch of fools when it comes to war -- or simply crazed with some basic instinct to destroy. I've seen that happening in this lifetime.

Dick Cheney is doing his duty to party by slamming Kerry's service record. He has a right to do this, just as I have a right to be a blithering idiot if so I choose. Those listening to Cheney and nodding in agreement apparently have no qualms about who says what about whom. If I can't stand Cheney and don't trust word one from his pie hole, that's just my opinion, right?

Well yeah. Except Cheney's and others' trashing of Kerry's service record is, well, offensive. I'm sorry. It's indefensibly offensive like sniping at unarmed civilians for personal gain. I'd like to see Cheney level his charges against Kerry face-to-face. I wonder how long the sneer would last before a knuckle sandwich is delivered, ala John Wayne?

In fact, this whole thing reminds me of a John Wayne scene. Some cowardly, fat bastard needling until he gets what he deserves, the whole crowd cheering it on.

Ah well. So no, you don't need to have fought a war to be considered an expert in it. I just don't buy anybody's expertise in war. And it's a right to trash whomever you please, but the free speech could be just a pack of lies expounded for personal gain. That sums up Dick Cheney in my book.

How he can possibly look himself in the mirror is beyond my ken. But my understanding is that he's always been like this. It's still legal to be a slimy piece of politician in this country. The maddening part of it is that this guy will be influencing policies that send young people to early deaths whether in or out of office.

Oh, the implied thing in this is that Kerry would not be so eager to send young people to early deaths. I'm pretty darn certain of that due to his record of service, both in combat and civilian life. That Cheney and others in this administration are cavalier about it is a matter of public and recent record. Is the fact that none of these people served in combat causing less caution?

Yes. That's obvious for anyone to see. Could more caution be developed somehow? I think for some people (Bush I, Clinton), yes. For these guys, nope. They are true believers in order over chaos, while chaos laughs hysterically like the devil it is.

"Oh goody," snarls the devil, "More true believers."

Well. Lessons remembered or ignored. Miracles needed to happen. They did not.

Edited addition: And no, you don't have to be a combat vet to morally support a war. I just question the fundamental morality of war in the first place. Iraq was promoted as a defensive act of war, people bought it, and now it's a questionable thing. Always was in my mind.

No it shouldn't matter. People who seem to need to constantly remind me that they served make me nauseous.
Doesn't matter if its a candidate or someone who has nothing else of note in their life. I chose not to enlist and never regretted the decision. my little brother was a Marine and I was proud of it. I respect those who served but see nothing about it that others need to know. They did it for themselves and their beliefs and bugall anyone else's opinion.
However, were I President it would be a requirement in my choices for certain posts and positions.
I am annoyed --to put it lightly-- by those who talk tough and make challenges others have to bear, but service does not determine my choice.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?

Was waiting for this topic to come...didnt realize it would take so long. Hmm... how many people in this country have taken part in war? Well currently there is under a million people active throughout the world. Add that to the surviving veterans of WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War1, and maybe you have 3 million people...give or take a few.

SO what you are suggesting...is that matters of war fall squarely on those people. We live in a country of 300 million yet i am being told it is only 1% of the country who has the right to support a war. Makes no sense to me. Like i said in the chat, there are other ways to support a war without having to actually be a soldier.

Obviously soldiers have experience and a first-hand account of actual combat. Some do not necessarily have to be experts but veterns would know enough. I see it as perfectly fine for non-military civilians to support a war and their troops. Because the country needs those non-military civilians just as much they need the troops. We all know what happened during Vietnam. Once the people stopped supporting the war...the troop morale went down, politicians scrambled to get out...and it was a big disaster. The people's support is what gets the troops through it.

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?

No...if cheney is right, he is right. If someone else is right, they are right. This is like the whole issue that if you are white and discuss problems in the black community, you are racist, but a black doing the same thing is ok.

Here is a question for you: Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country, and support the military, actually be against war?

Its a double-edged sword. If civilians cannot be for war...then they should also not be allow to be against it. What do you think about that?

Because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?

No, soldiers are not necessarily experts in that regard. Every person’s war experience is different, every war is different, every job within the military is different, and every individual’s experience in that job is different. Most importantly, impressions change over time, and even those with a lot of prior experience look at the past with a jaded perspective. People forget, and it’s always the old who send the young to war.

I do think that military experience (especially war experience) lends more of an appearance of credibility when sending our soldiers to war. Overall, though, sound judgment is much more relevant criteria than prior exposure to combat. From what I’ve seen of the military, there are soldiers and there are politicians, and quite often, politician-soldiers are the exact people I would NOT want to see as president.

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war? I would prefer everyone stop criticizing everyone else’s record here. I don’t see many heroes these days. Matters of public record and prior experiences are certainly fair game, but it is a bit unbecoming to get as down-and-ugly as this has been getting.

lederuvdapac -" If civilians cannot be for war...then they should also not be allow to be against it. What do you think about that? "

Actually- that was quite my point- it is the opposite- to be a pacifist and be against war is quite fine, or to be a civilian against sending troops to war is not only appropriate, it is moral, thinking of what will save a soldiers life- I have nothing but respect for you, even when I don't agree.

However- to puff up your chest, be all for war, but insist on sending others to do your dirty work, in my book, you are a coward, and a low dog coward at that-I have always had a deep disdain for those that talk tough but are not brave enough to step up themselves.

And I think most poeple have that opinion of those that "talk a good fight"- but tuck tail when it comes time to "go"- as did Cheney.

CR. i was trying to make the point that if one believes that only military veterans can make objective views for the war...then they should also believe that only military veterans can make objective views against the war.

I would watch what i say, because by your logic, 99% of the population of the United States are not allowed to have an opinion on war. 99%. I completetly understand your reasoning and do believe that there is a fine line. But i cannot with full faith say that the support of the troops and for war by a non-combatant is hypocritical. As i stated before, the civilians are just as important as the soldiers. Not everyone is a soldier...not everyone can handle the intense pressure that it takes to be in a combat situation. Thats why our soldiers are revered at home. Thats why war heroes make politicians and leaders. Thats why citizens go up to people in uniform just to say thank you without even knowing who they are. A soldier is (imho) the most respectable profession one can have. You learn discipline...you learn to care for something...and you defend an entire country. Thats why soldiers fight. So their mothers, and fathers, and brothers and sisters do not have to. I assume that they understand it and accept it willingly.

Everyone has the right to an opinion on everything. I think the main problem is that you are not drawing a distinction between being for the reality of war and for the principles of war. Nobody wants death, or for their countrymen to die. Nobody is FOR war. Rather, people are FOR principles. FOR democracy, FOR freedom from oppression, and FOR the safety of America.

You are confusing my thoughts on RIGHTS vs MORAL AUTHORITY- as I said before, Dick Cheney, in the US, has every CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to talk his talk- and on top of that- FOLKS THAT DIDN'T DO EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO STAY OUT- but continue to be "hawks"- are cowards and just plain lame. - For instance, a man, in today's US- that chants all about who's "butt we need to kick" all over the world the "france is next" crowd- but doesn't go up and enlist himself- is a coward- he is perfectly willing to send someone else to do his fighting for him, while he <ahem, wink wink> supports the troops, perhaps with a flag on his house. What a wimp. If you are going to be all gung ho for a war- go over there and make a difference- show your values by putting your life on the line for them.

Dick Cheney is far worse than some Vietnam protesters than ran to Canada during the 60s and 70s, because he took the cowards way out while being a hawk.

I remember this chat quite well. I notice that you are not hearing what CR is saying anymore than I thought I was being heard in that chat. Take a look at that quote you wrote. I agree that EVERYONE has a right to an opinion. But what CR is talking about is character. You have subject A. Subject A believes in war X for the reasons you stated above.
Subject A knows that in war people die, right?? Yet, though subject A believes in the need to defend these "principles" subject A does not think he/she should have to defend these principles, because.... there are already people doing that for him/her. Why should subject A volunteer for a war that subject A believes in and that subject A believes should be fought??? Again, character. It's not that subject A should not have an opinion, it's just that subject A's character diminishes how some may view him/her and that opinion on the matter of war.

Some may call people like this cowards, I choose the term chickenhawk. I don't think they are necessarily cowards because there may be so many other reasons for them not trying to join. Maybe they are in school, or rich, or lazy, or have kids they don't want to leave. I call them chickenhawks, because they have a hawkish mentality when it comes to war, but not the hawkish actions of GOING into the service. But what does it say bout a perfectly capable and able individual who believes in a war, but wants to support it with their wallets. It like saying "Why don't YOU go die for this cause I believe in, you'll chance the greater sacrifice, but I got you back!!..... that is....way BACK here." It is one thing to try and join and the military not take you for one reason or another, it is another to simply stand on the sideline screaming "go team go....USA", while people are getting their body's blown up, cause your not willing to physically defend something that you believe in, unless someone makes you(with a draft).

What is up with the 99% of people who shouldn't talk about war remark. A person against war not going to the service is not akin to a person for war not going to the service. One's actions coincide with their beliefs, the other does not.

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve? Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?

DTOM Harkin is not a Vietnam vet he is a Vietnam Era vet. Yes he lied about his resume in regards to flying in Vietnam. So why not listen to what he has to say anyway if not , read this. Cheney is a draft ducking professional. He was "scared" to go to Vietnam. He is beseeching a record of someone who volunteered to go to Vietnam. You don't think he is a chicken...call him a duck, I hear they're greasier so the name applies quite well. Either way, a man too cowardly to risk his life is talking about they WAY the other man risked his.
Is Kerry record fair play, sure... but please pick someone who wouldn't be hiding under a desk when fireworks go off.

I voted "no" though on reflection I think I was probably focusing on the "can you morally support..." question in the headline more than the poll question.

In answer to the debate questions, I'd simply say this: turn the question on it's head and see how much sense it makes. Can soldiers ever really understand peace? It is necessary never to have served to understand or support it? Or even further Is it necesarry to have trained as a doctor to understand health?

Clearly, some professions lean their practitioners towards greater understanding of certain subjects, and away from others, but they aren't barriers to understanding in either direction for those outside the professions.

As a military man and a vet of two wars let me add my two cents.

No Harkin is not right. You can have an opinion about a war, conflict, military matters, etc without ever having served or been a participant in a war, in most cases.

Where the lack of experience comes in is in specific issues. For example, there are those who are horrified by the idea that there are many person freedoms they enjoy that military personnel are not allowed. They fail to understand the need for discipline and order in the military and how the lack of it can easily cost lives.

From my experience, having gotten out of the military in 1991 to return in 2002 I am sorry to say that those with these opinions seem to have made a sizable dent in military culture. From what I see, discipline is out the window when compared to the military of 1991 and earlier. And I bet lives have been lost as a result.

Another area where lack of experience comes in is when dealing with war vets. If you have not been in actual combat for months at a time you cannot possibly understand what these men and women feel or have gone through. My unit is not a front line unit, ours is a rear security, IE Force Protection unit. The stress of not knowing if each and every boat approaching us was a threat or not was bad enough. The stress of not knowing of an ambush was waiting just around the bend for our convoy was hard enough. I can't imagine what it was like to have bullets flying around you constantly. Just being shot at is tough enough on people. Being shot at constantly must be damning to the psyche.

When you wonder if military policies are right or wrong. It is a good idea to get the perspective of a vet. You are free to have an opinion about those policies all you want. But if you want an accurate understanding of them, you would be better served hearing from those who serve(d) under them.

One more point. When you protest a war you don't agree with, Remember this. You may feel that you are protesting the war and not the warriors. But if your marching through the streets waving signs that say things like 100,000 innocents of the other side are dead, then you are protesting the soldiers and sailors who are fighting the war whether you believe it or not. Because we see these signs, speeches, etc, and we DO take them to heart.

When you protest by saying we should never have been there, and protest how the government went about getting us there, that is at least easier to take. But when you protest the operation of the war, you are, by default protesting the operators. So don't be surprised if when they get home they want nothing to do with you. I know a few families that have ben shattered because of this.

You have the freedom to say what you want and act almost anyway you choose. The volunteers in the US military are there to preserve those freedoms. Just remember that those freedoms do come with consequences.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means?
I think Mrs. P sums my response to this question up very well:

If you ask a Vietnam vet vs. a Gulf War vet what their thoughts on war are, you'd probably get a very different answer. If you asked someone in spec ops vs. a supply sergeant for their opinion, again you'd probably get different answers.

Being involved in a war as a soldier of some kind gives you a perspective on things, but it doesn't necessarily make that the right perspective over someone else's. We are all a product of our experiences, and for soldiers, war is another of those formative experiences.

Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?
I think that civilians have as much to offer to the discussion as soldiers do. A civilian might have to admit that a soldier is going to have a better knowledge of tactics if that is the discussion, but if a soldier and a civilian were discussing whether it was right to invade Iraq then I don't think either one of them is automatically an expert based on their experiences.

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve?
I don't think Cheny doesn't have a right to criticize Kerry, but I think it is plainly obvious that it is attack politics and hypocritical to boot. Personally I would say bring on the attacks so that we can highlight the fact that Cheny didn't go to war and in fact avoided it deliberately. When you bounce those two things up together, Cheny will lose credibility. Any further nails the Bush administration desires to put in its collective coffin is perfectly fine by me.

The problem with turning the question on its pointy little head, Julian is that every soldier starts out as a civilian. Soldiers are made, not born.

And while you don't have to be a doctor to understand the value of good health, I sure don't want some guy that never graduated from medical school cracking open my chest to perform heart surgery.

I voted "yes" in the poll for the same reason that I don't believe I could fully accept the advice of a marriage counselor who had never been married or a lawyer who never tried a case. While everyone may have an opinion not all opinions all informed ones or should be given equal weight.

I trust the word of a man who had fought in war more than a man who had served in the military and never seen war and trust the man the word of the man who served in the military and exposed himself to the risk of going to war more than the man who had not.

And I would trust the word of the man who could have served in the military and exposed himself to the risk of war but did not for moral, physical or conscientious reasons than the man who merely sits on the sidelines and pounds the drum for a war he will never fight in.

Hmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but most soldiers enlist when they are 17 or so, right? Usually straight after they leave school? No disrespect to the many high-schoolers who read and contribute admirably to this site, but I when I think of a "civilian" I think of an adult, not a schoolchild, and not merely someone who isn't in the services.
I'd say that the majority of soldiers take rather longer to get an appreciation for ordinary civilian life - i.e. the commercial world of work - than people that live ordinary lives (by the same logic that gives them a better direct appreciation of the extraordinary life of soldiery and, occasionally, war).


True, but the analogy we're really referring to here is trusting someone who practiced surgery 40 years ago and then retrained in politics being a more expert observer of a current surgical procedure where the blood is still quirting than a businessman-turned-politician. Perhaps the ex-surgeon might be more dangerous than the ex-businessman if they were let loose in an operating theatre, because one of them thinks they know what they are doing, when in fact they are both now politicians?



On this heirarchy of general principles, I would agree with you, but I think that underlying all of this is the fact that it depends on the person. I'd trust the opinion of someone who had never served over a career soldier if the two men in question were Bill Clinton and Oliver North, or (forgive me for not knowing for sure if he ever served) Abe Lincoln and George Custer.

A service career might give some insight, but it doesn't guarantee that such insights will be correct. John Kerry isn't right because he used ot be a soldier. He's right because he's right (meaning, as everyone does when they say it, "because he agrees with me" ). Dick Cheney and George W Bush aren't wrong on this issue because they have never properly served, and avoided doing so, they're wrong because they are {insert plural pejorative of choice}.

I haven't read most of the replies, but I'd like to point y'all to a column which discusses this matter quite well, both from a moral, and practical perspective.

Nonetheless, here's my perspective: First, Kerry has constantly made a big deal of his Viet Nam record, so its fair game. Second, limiting moral support to only those with experience in the matter means that half the Democrats who are pro-choice have no moral leg to stand on, because as men, they don't experience pregnancy. (BTW, this IS an argument that pro-choice feminists use to attempt to delegitimaze male pro-life opposition). However, I'd like to take this reasoning further in Kerry's case. If a lack of war experience disqualifies one from taking a position on the war, does that mean that a welfare recipient who's never paid a dime of income tax in her life is disqualified from taking a moral position on income tax reform? Does it mean that a New Mexico rancher, who has never seen the ocean, can't take a moral position on "Save the Whales"? If John Kerry has never flown a nuclear armed bomber, is he morally unqualified to order around men who have? As a man who has never run a business, is Kerry qualified to pass moral judgement on the business practices of Ken Lay?

Moral reasoning can be informed by experience, but it does not require experience. To the best of my knowledge, nobody on this board has ever experienced chattel slavery, yet we all (hopefully) find it morally objectionable.


No it doesn't. Being an expert, and being experienced, are two different things. Hopefully related, but different. War is an incredibly complex business, and nobody is an expert in all of it. There are stone cold, frighteningly efficient warriors in our armed forces who, if put in charge of getting the beans and bullets to the troops, would lose us the war.

Did Harkin say this while in the company of Bill Clinton? What about other Democrat standard bearers who refused service during VietNam? Should they shut up as well? (I wish most WOULD, but that's different from SHOULD).

If we take the "if you haven't been there, you don't have a voice" as the standard, then lets consider this:

Who has more moral standing to talk about energy policy? Kerry, with no experience whatsoever in the energy industry, or Cheney?

Who has more moral standing to talk about health policy? Kerry, or Cheney, who's health problems are well known?

The entire notion is bunk. Yes, "those who've been there" can offer valuable perspectives unavailable to those who haven't. Then again, the experience can also cripple their outlook...


Unless you were there...

I don't know that much about Harkin, but it seems to me that he has as much right to criticize Cheney as Cheney does to criticize Kerry.

Should Cheney shut up? I wish he would, but then I also wish there would be more rainfall in the western United States right now and less humidity here in Michigan, and I have about as much chance at making those things happen as I have shutting up Mr. Halliburton.

Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?

Not in a free country.

But back to the poll question: Is military service necessary to truly understand war?

No--you could be an unarmed victim.

But because you've served does that mean you are an expert on what war is and what it means? Can civilians who are patriotic, love their country and support the military have less to say about war because they haven't been a soldier?


Although I certainly give credence to the views of those who have 'been there', I don't think it is a prerequisite. One can make informed decisions about war without having ever been a soldier--although they would also be wise to seek out opinions, in that case, from those who have.

Is Harkin right? Should Cheney shut up because he lacks the moral authority to criticize Kerry on matters related to war when he didn't serve?

Politically, yes...ideologically, no. While Cheny is certainly within his rights to criticize Kerry in this matter, it is also perhaps not the wisest decision politically.

Oh, I'd like to add one very important, yet overlooked aspect to this:

Our Constitution is specifically set up to place the military under civilian control. If "been there, done that" were a legitimizing criteria, then the logical extension would be that only those who are going to risk their lives in the future have legitimate moral authority to decide on war. That would be the military, yet, it is civilians who are in control...

The questions raised in nighttimer's post are different than the poll question: Is Military Service Necessary to Truly Understand War?

Having never served in a war, and facing the prospect that serving in a war could very well be in my future, I can honestly say that I don't think I can understand war until I have been in a war. Whether the war surrounds you because you are in the military or because it is happening in the place that you are, I am not sure which would be better for understanding war. But there is no way that I can say I understand war without having experienced it.

I can understand the reasons for going to war. I can understand the need for aggression or defence based on political agendas and goals, or to protect my country. But the experience of war is more than these clinical facts.

As for the question of whether someone can pass moral judgement on war or talk about it without having served in the military - I agree that the constitution places the military under civilian control, therefore making it every American's duty to think about it as an issue. I believe one can talk about war without having been there -- that these issues should be open for debate to all people. But that is a different question from "Is military service necessary to truly understand war?"

I dont think it matters really. I dont support war period, regardless of how clear-cut it is to accept in modern times the armed conflict. War is nothing new, and people seem good at fighting them but not really the reasons war stems from in the first place. I, like most things, see it as ignorance like many other things within the capacity of my reason of course. i am on deployment, and i dont support it, so i guess that may make me non patriotic vs. the millions that will never offer themselves to war, chicken hawks i guess, but as long as they tow the line they are “good”.

I imagine like most things though, its relative....

For the most part again, its like having your perception handed to you, and the lack of wanting to think about things. For example, to debate about cars, you ability to hold a good debate about "cars" will be relative to your overall position on cars. This position can come from many things overall. So if you are all for america or some other nation regardless of what that nation does, and i mean like with feeling and such, that all it does is good, then you will support its war regardless of any actual fact related to such. I learned this long ago debating about evolution against religious people, you can find that many times a person will and can debate on really nothing in terms of knowing about something, and more to the point just debate from emotion, i feel this is one of those issues. So i again would just point out to my opinion of it, its a relative thing again. like iraq was good when fighting iran but not kuwait. in that iraq is using its army against another nation, but in one case its acceptable and one case its not, so it has to be relative to the viewer again, that is the supporting of war from a moral standpoint. There is so much that touches on many of this issue, its really hard to derive a post that has impact while being short.

This is a little tough, the question would seem to indicate that there is a difference between you're moral reasoning and you're actual experience. Obviously not everyone that served in the military is an expert on the moral implications of war. What is even more important is that not everyone who serves in the military actually sees combat so the horror of war is seen by those who see the horror of it first hand. Of course someone who never actually fought or served can make a moral judgement about the merits of military action. However, one could question the morality of someone who is instrumental in ordering people into harms way when they themselves are not willing to actually fight themselves.

There is no way the soldier in the field can perform their duty without the support of the people who sent him to war in the first place. Cheney can be criticized for his lack of military service with his numerous deferments but that does not mean he has no moral authority with regards to military intervention. It is wrong to send people into harms way in a conflict that you would not fight yourself. I don't know what his priorities where that kept him from military service but if he lacks the courage to fight a war then he has no moral right to order others to. What is even more important is that the people who have to actually fight a war have a moral authority to judge whether or not the war was justified in the first place. I have always believed that.

There was one other issue I wanted to address:




No one except the worst kind of fool would support a nation irregardless of what it does. I don't know what you mean by 'feeling' but if you mean that an emotional bias exists I would agree. But there is an emotional bias on both sides of the issue of the morality of war, and should be.



Oh really? Then explain the moral implications of this:

"Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, ants making slaves, the larvae of ichneumonidae feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings--namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)

Again, darwin in terms of western culture was not the first the describe evolution in terms of a more natural system, rather then from special creation, as you may find common in a creationist standpoint. Most of his observations were made by indirect means, like on his little voyage for example, with fitness in terms of the ecology being a mechanism he used in his theory behind evolution(natural selection). Biology has come a bit far from the days of darwin and his theory behind evolution. much of all his work was put to more direct means for trying to obtain fact, and well today we know that the 2nd chromosome we have is bundled more directly with the primate biology or phylogeny homo sapiens(primate) and such "evolved" from. more to the point, just like with relativity in perception and ignorance, most people still use darwin and his stance, and you can find a slew of relativity if you will on how it took to thought and or feeling and emotion in our culture, or perception. Of course much none of this has to bear any consequence to fact and then can be used on so much, and of course its all on ignorant authority really that such is done. I really do not care to describe evolution to my ability, i am a biology major, and i also like the fact people dont have to have such shoved down a throat, though i do firmly believe fact and fiction if you will need a separation clause in a society. Phylogeny and what that all means and covers is still being worked on very much so, and for what we know of the principles behind evolution, there is still a long road ahead.

In terms of a way, would it be moral to support a war though you would never commit yourself to what that means, would that not just be a more genetic based self interest at work in some form or nurture really, and thus would it be moral. Many people will at some point in time question a nation, but you can and do find people that feel a nations actions like are own are always "good" to use such crude words. I cannot for a second sit by and swallow that, i need fact on why a war needs to occur, which leads me to dislike the actions in iraq more and more, but that is just one war and not really on topic. Then again it would be the morality of a culture or group that deems what, and how, or when a war should occur, and for some, the reason behind iraq is good, and to some its bad or not enough as in my case. so with relativity existing it what is called morality, then for various reasons it becomes a grey area in trying to answer this question. I dont think you should say you support a war period, and more so i dont think you should say you support if you yourself will not have any part of it, that is a lie, because you really dont support it, or for again what would be relativity behind reason of support, so how is it then really possible to answer this question? i guess becomes my question.It would be on the individual and whatever thought or "moral" code that person follows that enables such. That in itself could be and most likely is complex, or at least should be in relation to how i would feel about such as issue as war.

edit: i was wrong on my data and or use of fact above, it was the 2nd, not 23rd, i am sorry for such, i was tired.

I really didn't follow you discussion about Darwin but I guess it was just a tangent after all. I was thinking about the survival of the fittest concept in evolutionary biology as a possible motivation for going to war. In natural selection species compete with one another but like I said, that was probably a tangent.

There is a definite moral consideration when supporting a call to war that involves choices in the way we deal with real or perceived threats. Right now we have a massive military presence in Iraq sandwiched between two nations, Syria and Iran, that could become a serious threat to us if left unchecked. Just being there, just as we were in Post World War II Germany, is a deterrent to aggression and there is a net gain in security. However you view the outcome, can we be that pragmatic when dealing with the moral issues of war? War is allways wrong and it is the result of very bad things being done, still we are left with a choice between allowing evil to continue unchallenged and fighting back.

Let's cut to the chase, very few people actually go to war. A far smaller minority can actually make the decision to go to war. What we are left with is a huge number of people that collectively can influence the political system with their votes and expressed moral consensus. Americans have by and large supported this action in an effort to stop the spread of global terrorism and it's going to be a long time before the terrorists and insurrectionists are ineffective in their efforts to influence political policy.

In answer to the original question I would have to say yes, you can morally support a war without actually having fought in one. I worked the ports in Charleston and Savanna and I supported the war effort without actually fighting in Irag. Whats more Bush was re-elected dispite the fact that he was highly criticised for unilateral military action the angered so many of our allies. I honestly think that Bush and Cheney would have had a far different perspective on military action had they actually been involved in combate. I still don't think this negates their moral authority to lead us into war, it just makes the choice between pramatic and moral options that much more dubious.

Allow me to readdress this. I don't want to change the debate but through some contacts and my own profession I know that recruitment as a whole is down. You may have seen some stories of how national guard missed its shipping goal. In other words ... people aren't joining. One of the biggest reasons why recruitment is slowed is, obviously, the war in Iraq.

The need is THERE!!! Now, if someone is eligible and they support the war, but they will not go fight it, no I don't think they stand on moral ground. However, if they go to the recruiter, and are disqualified for whatever untold reason then there support is legitimate. Same goes for Vietnam era supporters.

There are fighting men and women in Iraq who do not want to be thee but have no choice, yet someone who believes we should be there wonders whether they can sit on the sideline and wave pompoms... in this case yellow ribbons.

So I think that is the moral line that needs to be drawn. If you are eligible to join, and you support the war, than you lack the fortitude to follow your conviction and contribute as needed at this time. If you are ineligible and support the war than you do not lack conviction, you lack the opportunity

I don't remember who said it...but if THOSE who "take their country to war" were required to SERVE on the the front lines...there would be no war...

case in point...a Commander in Chief who

refused to go to the "front line"
and used his father's political influence to AVOID front line service to his country
and then wouldn't even attend that "safe service" with any regularity if he had something else to do (or was it he was unfit during certain periods)

And now he serves as WAR MONGER IN CHIEF...

I am unable to locate the list...but if you look at the list of Senators and who served, the Democrats on OUTNUMBER the Republicans something like 6 to 1

Here is a list of Senators who served. Of those still in the Senate (I think three are gone from that list) 14 are Republicans and 12 are Democrats (one Independent). Your figures are, apparently, WAY off.

Edited to add: From Aquilla's link (thanks, Aquilla ):

Apparently so. According to this PDF file from the official US Senate website the breakdown for members of Congress who have served is as follows.....

House - 117 Members - 69 Republicans, 48 Democrats
Senate- 35 Members - 19 Republicans, 16 Democrats

6-1 ratio in favor of Democrats? Only in Philadelphia when they're counting the votes.....

Edited to address the question.....

Should the debates about war and military matters be confined to only those who have served and/or fought in war?


I don't think so, certainly not unless you wish to further confine the debate to those who have seen/experienced the reasons for the war in the first place. I knew a guy in my church when I was growing up who was one of the soldiers that first entered a concentration camp at the end of WWII. He had marched across Europe liberating towns and seeing a whole lot of his friends die in battle. He was pretty bummed out about the whole thing until he saw what was happening in those camps. It was only then that he understood the reasons for why his terrible war was so necessary.

great story there Aquilla. Yet if the whole idea of democracy in Iraq fails and the country devolves into civil war will you still feel it was worth the total cost of our soldiers and their civilians killed?

It's a bad idea normally to answer a "what if" question, but what the heck. My answer to that question would depend on the circumstances surrounding your hypothetical. If the US withdraws from Iraq out of political considerations and leaves the Iraqi people hanging out to dry to the evil forces of terrorists, then no, it wasn't worth it. If, on the other hand the duly elected government of Iraq believes they can handle their own security and requests the US to leave and then things go to hell, that's another matter. At least we gave the Iraqi people a choice for their own destiny. I don't know what that's worth in terms of human life, that sort of thing is something I really can't balance on a spreadsheet.

Of course not. All citizens have the same right related to all matters effecting our country.

That sort of logic could be turned around in any number of ways. Demanding that people who support the Iraq war "go enlist" could be turned to demand that all people "protesting the war" renounce their US citizenship.

I voted that it's not necessary to be a combat veteran to understand war.

I do believe one thing to be certain though. When politicians make the decision to go to war, the combat veterans have to have a strong influence in the decision.
If you go to the chickenhawk database, you will find that many of the Iraqi invasion supporters took steps to prevent themselves from doing combat when they were eligible. Dick Cheney for instance had 5 deferments. And we can't forget the story about Rush Limbaugh's sore butt.

Regardless of whether the Iraq invasion was justified or not, it should be obvious that the Bush administration planned the occupation poorly. Had there been more combat veterans in the Congress and the White House, the situation in Iraq would have turned out better.

Interesting idea... but you're not really hitting the nail on the head. Take a look at this link, as there are numerous combat vets in congress.
http://grunt.space.swri.edu/senatevet.htm

It's not an overwhelming percentage, but you'll notice some house-hold names in the list.

Secondly, what you don't understand is that there have been numerous "debacles" planned by veterans whom did see combat. How did we get into Vietnam? Surely you recall that Congress and the Whitehouse was flush w/ combat vets at the time...

What we need is for the Congress and Whitehouse to not be involved in military action. They need to set goals and allow the US Military to achieve them. Something else most Americans should recall is why Vietnam was such a resounding failure. We won every battle... but lost the war?? It was because of political involvement in a military matter.

Being a military officer on a very small scale, I saw daily the red-tape involved with combat and acheiving military objectives, even in Afghanistan which has and had popular support.

Get the whitehouse and Congress off the battlefield, so to speak, and things will move markedly faster...

Of course the question here is faulty. You can't morally support a war at all. War is immoral. It is legalized murder. Murder is immoral, therefore war is immoral. This question is on the level of: "A principal can't spank a school kid unless she was beaten herself."