When Republicans are called chickenhawks, they howl. They cry about how the term is ad hominem. They lash out and point to other Republicans who have served in wars. They do everything but actually join the military.

Now, prior to the days when Republicans had yet to break the U.S. military, chickenhawks had a valid argument against the fairness of the term. But now—not so much. Glenn Greenwald summed it up nicely earlier this year:

It is true that where there is an amply stocked volunteer military, it is natural and inevitable that many citizens will support a war in ways other than by enlisting. No additional troops were needed, for instance, at the time of the invasion of Afghanistan (or during the action in Kosovo), and there was thus no tension between supporting those wars and not fighting. But the current situation is completely different. Even according to the war's remaining advocates -- particularly those who want to escalate in Iraq -- there is a serious and harmful shortage of willing volunteers to fight in Iraq and to enable a more aggressive application of U.S. military force generally. So we do now have a situation where those who are cheering on more war and escalation really are needed not at the computer screen but on the battlefield, in combat. And their refusal to fight is actually impeding the plans of those on whom the President is relying for "Victory." As a result, it is now morally indefensible for those who are physically able to do so to advocate a "surge," or even ongoing war in Iraq, without either volunteering to fight or offering a good reason why they are not doing so.

Fortunately for most contemporary chickenhawks, they’re too old to enlist, and thus marginally excusable. But not all of them are. Indeed, there is a very vocal minority of Republican chickenhawks, still young enough to enlist in the military, but still unwilling to physically support their beloved war.

Ironically, four of the five listed below are only still eligible because the Army had to raise its enlistment age from 35 to 42—because it couldn’t find enough qualified recruits to send to Iraq. While raising the age limit twice within five months (first to 40, then to 42), the Army was also forced to lower physical standards at the same time. These facts alone should be reason enough for the most ardent supporters of the war to sign up. Obviously the military needs people that know so much about war.

I present them to you now:

1. Michelle Malkin, age 36



Time left to enlist: 5 years, 4 months, 16 days

Michelle is a prime candidate for the military. She knows more about terrorism and war than anybody. Just ask her. She even has first hand experience, having spent a whole week in Iraq earlier this year trying to gain some type of moral authority over her legions of detractors. But what makes Michelle ideal for the military, is the fact that she not only has a fervent hatred of terrorists, but that she also finds foreigners inherently distasteful. And what better place to fight terrorists and foreigners than in foreign countries with lots of terrorism? I mean, fight them there, so we don’t have to fight them here, right?

With her degree, they may even let Michelle become an officer.

2. Matt Drudge, age 40

Time left to enlist: 1 year, 4 months, 23 days

If Matt Drudge is going to enlist, he better do it soon. We’re talking less than a year and a half here for this protector of The American Way and Tabloid-Style News. Matt thinks the war in Iraq is awesome—and he slanders lies about those who don’t. He owes it to himself to pull at least one tour in the urban jungles of Iraq.

3. Patrick McHenry, age 31

Time left to enlist: 10 years, 4 months, 18 days

Patrick McHenry is perhaps the smarmiest, smuggest member of the U.S. House of Representatives. On February 7, 2007, as a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, McHenry vehemently defended Blackwater USA—whose home state of North Carolina he represents. Patrick is primarily suited for the military because of his youthfulness and his penchant for vomiting up stupid Republican talking points:

They're advocating a policy called cut and run. They're advocating a policy of waving the white flag to our enemies. It is a policy, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, that the left in this country are advocating. But we are fighting a war. We are fighting a war against Islamic extremists that hate the very fiber of our being as Americans.

We? We who? And would that be the Sunnis or the Shia? It is very rare, even in this day and age, to find someone so young, so passionate about defending this nation, and so willing to lead the nation on the path to war, who has no desire to fight it himself.

4. Dan Bartlett, age 36

Time left to enlist: 5 years, 11 months, 3 days

George W. Bush’s longest serving aide, Dan Bartlett, announced last week that he was resigning his position with the White House to enlist accept a commission "pursue new career options" in the private sector. Dan has come to be known as a hardcore apologist for Bush’s stubbornness concerning reality. While the White House is certain to miss him, the military could really use him—especially the Army Reserves, which is already 1,300 soldiers short of its mid-year goal this year.

5. Jonah Goldberg, age 38

Time left to enlist: 3 years, 9 months, 17 days

This guy is great. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I tried. When asked by one of Juan Cole’s readers why Goldberg (a rabid Iraq war proponent) didn’t have his ass "in the kill zone," Goldberg responded in a manner typical of many pseudo-erudite, arrogant chickenhawks:

As for why my sorry ass isn't in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give -- I'm 35 years old, my family couldn't afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my ass is, er, sorry, are a few -- ever seem to suffice.

Right. Because those are certainly disqualifying criteria for military service. Jonah is also the genius who lost the bet to Juan Cole over how Iraq would turn out. On February 8, 2005, Goldberg said:

Anyway, I do think my judgment is superior to his when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now).

Wow. Who would pay this man for his opinion on Iraq? Wait. . .don’t answer that.

And by the way, does anyone know how old Frederick Kagan is?

UPDATE: I just received an email from a Vietnam veteran and U.S. government employee who tells me that Frederick Kagan's birthday is March 26, 1970, making him 37 years old--and officially making him a young chickenhawk.