Breaking the Covenant: Why "Chickenhawk"?

Rogers at Kung Fu Monkey lucidly explains the difference between actually supporting the troops and the all-too-popular conception of "supporting the troops" that disingenuously conflates "the Bastards in Suits" with "the People in Uniform Getting Shot At."

He argues that U.S. citizens are parties to a covenant with those in the military, and have a "deep responsibility, a responsibility far beyond the emotional support one gives a sports team, or the minimal responsibility one has with employees."

Our oath is simple:

We will make sure you have the equipment you need.
We will make sure have a clearly defined mission.
We will make sure that such missions are as well-planned as possible.
We will take care of your families while you are gone.
We will take care of you when you come home.

When the country fails its side of the covenant, citizens in a representative democracy must attend to these failures "through the instrument of our will, the government." And when the government neglects its duties, "it is our job, our responsibility -- not our right, our responsibility -- to hold those civilian administrators accountable."

This one is worth the read.

Via Tbogg