Of 'Chickenhawks' & the Politics of Division

One of the common refrains we hear from the anti-war crowd is that conservatives in general and Republicans in particular have used 9/11 and the war in Iraq to divide the nation into the 'patriotic' and the 'unpatriotic.' And of course, those who claim to have been charged with being 'unpatriotic' leverage their victimhood in much the same way that they did during the Clinton-era, itself a clever tool of divisiveness. I myself haven't heard too much of this sort of talk from conservatives. While I'm sure there has been the occassional unfortunate comment, I don't see any sort of concerted effort to portray those opposed to the war as anti-American. Of course, there are some on the Unhinged Left that openly root for American failure, and when they reveal themselves I am perfectly willing to call them what they are. But on the whole, I've never really bought this argument that conservatives routinely drive a wooden stake through the heart of the body politic by dividing the world into the patriotic and unpatriotic. In my humble opinion, it's always been more a psychological issue that those conflicted about the use of force and aggressive foreign policy have with themselves. Sometimes the conspiracies emanate from within.

But as news reports increasingly focus on the fire and smoke and blood in the streets of Iraq and public opinion polls have turned south, a new form of divisiveness has arisen. More and more the public is asking "Is it worth the sacrifice?" And this in turn has raised the question in the minds of many anti-war folks about just who is making the sacrifice. "After all, President Bush, you're the one who got us into this mess. I don't see Laura and Jenna over there." Fueled by Michael Moore's F911, this argument has mushroomed into a full-on attack of those of us who support the war and a question as to why WE'RE not over there. This, is of course, a specious argument. Christopher Hitchens explains why.

In the final analysis, the argument is lame because implicit within it is the assumption that the only folks allowed to have an opinion (pro-war or anti-war) are those who are actually in the military and who would have to go do the sacrificing, fighting and dying. Under this reasoning, I would ask how the anti-war crowd can conclude that the price is too high? After all, they too are sitting in their Lazy-Boys, watching CNN and drinking Heinekens. But I suppose this notion probably escapes them.