Son of A Snitch
Chris Hitchens recycles.
One hopes that the next implication is inadvertent, but the clear suggestion is that there ought not to be civilian control of the military. What—have callow noncombatants giving brisk orders to grizzled soldiers? How could Lincoln have fired the slavery-loving Gen. George B. McClellan, or Truman dismissed the glorious Douglas MacArthur? During the defense of Washington, Lincoln became the first and last president to hear shots fired in anger. Donald Rumsfeld was at his desk in the Pentagon when the plane hit, but probably is no better and no worse a defense secretary for that.
Much more important than this, however, is the implied assault on civilian control of the military. In this republic, elected civilians give crisp orders to soldiers and expect these orders to be obeyed. No back chat can even be imagined, let alone allowed. Do liberals really want the Joint Chiefs to say: "Mr. President, I'll respect that order when you have a son or daughter in uniform"? It was a great day when President Lincoln fired Gen. George B. McClellan.* It was a great day when President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur. No presidential brat needed to be on the front line for this point to be understood.
Of course, Hitch's real insult to the reader's intelligence is his repeated claim that identifying armchair warriors who are unwilling to make any personal sacrifice for a supposedly just war is the equivalent of opposing civilian control of the military. This is pure nonsense. In particular, opposing this war means opposing the military brass's promotion of the Iraq war against the will of a growing majority who oppose this war.
Update (6/30): Retardo at Elementropy points out that Hitch's views on chickenhawkery have, uh, evolved and become more nuanced. Yeah, that's it!
No comments:
Post a Comment