I’ve always opposed the military draft. And I’ve always opposed sending women into combat.
But I’m making an exception for chickenhawks, including chickenhawkettes. Draft them all and send them to Iraq in combat positions. You want war, well, you’re gonna get it, baby, front and center.
Attention!
The latest candidate for being drafted and sent to Iraq is National Review Online’s editrix, Kathryn Jean Lopez. According to Wikipedia, she was “born March 22, probably 1976.” OK, we’ll take that number. Well, that means she’s 32, well below the 42 top age for joining the U.S. Army.
So she could be drafted today, in boot camp in a week, in infantry training in 3 months, and in Iraq in 9 months.
In today’s column, she’s obsessed with keeping the Iraq War going:
Say what you want about McCain, but he’s been right about Iraq….
Bottom line: Right now there are three choices on the table. Only one is a leader. Maybe not on all the issues conservatives care about, but if McCain looks out for the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces, that’s more than Clinton and Obama appear to be offering in their bids to be commander-in-chief.
But, Kate, baby, you’re a leader too. In fact, after you’re drafted, in a few months you’re going to be point girl in patrols through Baghdad.
You’re the new G.I. Jane. Demi Moore will make a movie about you.
Welcome to Iraq, sweetie. You’re gonna love it.
Myblog's Blog 
April 2, 2008 at 8:04 pm |
Is that the sound of Kathryn Jean Lopez crapping her pants?…
I have the same reaction when I hear these women calling Talk Radio or Fox News to yell “Let’s Roll!” with no particular thought for the troops who will be doing the rolling. It would be instructive to have them all parachuted into Basra.
April 17, 2008 at 4:52 pm |
The chickenhawk argument is very lame…a weak tool of the ignorant. MCCAIN is far from a chickenhawk and he supports continuing the effort. I must guess that as we always need to be prepared to go to war that politicians such as Romney, Hillary, and Obama have not served we cannot dare have them as President as they could not order men to war as they have not seen it themselves. Hell you don’t even support regular Joes and Regular joettes who can make very good arguments for going to war. You love to bash them in an ad hominem attack . Very weak. Seems if the war effort is wrong state your case on that alone. The Military is here to defend ALL Americans. To use the word “chickenhawk” to stifle debate is wrong and evidence of a lack of American values. Somehow I bet if you supported the war you would not have attacked Lopez…you know I am right.
April 18, 2008 at 5:21 pm |
Just as an exercise… pretend she had served…then make your argument like a grownup.
April 24, 2008 at 6:38 pm |
The “chicken hawk” charge gets thrown around often. Of course it isn’t really an argument, but even as a pejorative it last intellectual rigor. There many tasks one can advocate that one is not suited for. A person can want there to be firemen and yet not want to be a fireman himself. Being a fireman is a dangerous job. Yet who would not want those fit for the task to take up the burden? As dangerous as is it is to be a soldier, or a fireman, many people volunteer for the positions.