He uses the deaths of Michael Kelly and David Bloom — two men he didn’t know — to make tired, cliched, and quite dumb chickenhawk/neocon arguments. “Paul Wolfowitz didn’t resign from Donald Rumsfeld’s staff to go to the war with foot soldiers. Kelly didn’t see Richard Perle traveling with the 3rd Infantry Division….”
Um, maybe those guys were needed elsewhere?
If Hamill wants to say that pro-war journalists should cover them first hand, well, okay; that’s an argument. One could say the same of anti-war journalists. Whatever, that’s a subject for grad school seminars. But why should the number 2 ranking man in the defense department suit-up with the infantry because journalists are covering a war? Journalists have to cover wars when they’re good ideas and when they’re bad ones. Wolfowitz didn’t send Bloom or Kelly to Iraq. Besides, did Hamill make similar arguments in favor of senior Clinton Administration policymakers fighting in Mogadishu or Kosovo? Or is this simply a matter of hackery? It would be one thing if grief were pushing Hamil to lash out, but he admits he didn’t know either of them. This is just pure opportunism combined with stale ideas. Shame on him. I thought Hamill was better than this.