Gravitymaster 0 #1 July 30, 2006 JEFF JACOBY 'Chickenhawk' By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 23, 2006 You hear a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you support a war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a ``chicken hawk" -- one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who ``shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself often played that card. ``I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war. ``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean? The cry of ``chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of ``chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of ``chicken doves." In any case, the whole premise of the ``chicken hawk" attack -- that military experience is a prerequisite for making sound pronouncements on foreign policy -- is illogical and ahistorical. ``There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security policymakers than civilians," notes Eliot A. Cohen, a leading scholar of military and strategic affairs at Johns Hopkins University. ``George C. Marshall, our greatest soldier-statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform, thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?" Some combat veterans display great sagacity when it comes to matters of state and strategy. Some display none at all. General George B. McLellan had a distinguished military career, eventually rising to general in chief of the Union armies; Abraham Lincoln served but a few weeks in a militia unit that saw no action. Whose wisdom better served the nation -- the military man who was hypercautious about sending men into battle, or the ``chicken hawk" president who pressed aggressively for military action? The founders of the American republic were unambiguous in rejecting any hint of military supremacy. Under the Constitution, military leaders take their orders from civilian leaders, who are subject in turn to the judgment of ordinary voters. Those who wear the uniform in wartime are entitled to their countrymen's esteem and lasting gratitude. But for well over two centuries, Americans have insisted that when it comes to security and defense policy, soldiers and veterans get no more of a say than anyone else. You don't need medical training to express an opinion on healthcare. You don't have to be on the police force to comment on matters of law and order. You don't have to be a parent or a teacher or a graduate to be heard on the educational controversies of the day. You don't have to be a journalist to comment on this or any other column. And whether you have fought for your country or never had that honor, you have every right to weigh in on questions of war and peace. Those who cackle ``Chicken hawk!" are not making an argument. They are merely trying to stifle one, and deserve to be ignored. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,103 #2 July 30, 2006 If it weren't based on a false premise, it would make sense. Unfortunately it IS based a a false premise and makes no sense except as an apology for the Chickenhawks in the current administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #3 July 30, 2006 exactly what Kalend said .... whether or not the chickenhawks are afraid to fight themselves doesn't make them any less wrong on their decisions._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #4 July 30, 2006 Quoteexactly what Kalend said .... whether or not the chickenhawks are afraid to fight themselves doesn't make them any less wrong on their decisions. So Cindy Sheehan is a chickenhawk? . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,557 #5 July 30, 2006 She's not any kind of hawk.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #6 July 30, 2006 QuoteShe's not any kind of hawk. Yea, point understood, but still . . . she hasn't fought anywhere, so how is she more qualified to speak out any more than a "chickenhawk"? She lost her son, but that doesn't give her more knowledge (outside the personal grief) than anyone else. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,557 #7 July 30, 2006 QuoteYea, point understood, but still . . . she hasn't fought anywhere, so how is she more qualified to speak out any more than a "chickenhawk"? She lost her son, but that doesn't give her more knowledge (outside the personal grief) than anyone else. My take on it (bear in mind I have never used the phrase) is that it attempts to point out hypocrisy not qualifications. "Chickenhawks" are people who avoided fighting themselves who want to send others off to fight. People like Cindy Sheehan both don't want to fight and don't want others to fight either. Like I said though, I don't use it and i don't think it adds anything to a discussion either.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 July 31, 2006 the words of a man whose party has but a single vet. It was a lot more fun in the late 80s and 90s when the GOP had Bush and Dole and the Dems were full of draft dodgers, no? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 July 31, 2006 Quote If it weren't based on a false premise, it would make sense. Unfortunately it IS based a a false premise and makes no sense except as an apology for the Chickenhawks in the current administration. 97% of the population in the US didn't serve, including most on here. Please explain the false premise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,103 #10 July 31, 2006 QuoteQuote If it weren't based on a false premise, it would make sense. Unfortunately it IS based a a false premise and makes no sense except as an apology for the Chickenhawks in the current administration. 97% of the population in the US didn't serve, including most on here. Please explain the false premise. The DEFINITION he uses is incorrect.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #11 July 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote If it weren't based on a false premise, it would make sense. Unfortunately it IS based a a false premise and makes no sense except as an apology for the Chickenhawks in the current administration. 97% of the population in the US didn't serve, including most on here. Please explain the false premise. The DEFINITION he uses is incorrect. Please give us the proper definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #12 July 31, 2006 I don't really mind the use of the label "chickenhawk", as long as the same sort of stigma and prejudice is applied to the chickendoves. And grats to Kallend for missing the point of the article by about a mile, give or take.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #13 July 31, 2006 I agree with the general observation that policy decisions are no better coming from those who have served. However, Klinton's "I loathe the military" stance is a lot different, because it went far beyond those who willingly chose not to serve in the military. His administration was populated with those who despised it and did everything they could to undermine it. Anybody remember Morton Halperin? That being said, "chickenhawk" is nothing but a pejorative term; a handy label to slap on someone you disagree with on matters of policy. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #14 July 31, 2006 Quotethe words of a man whose party has but a single vet. It was a lot more fun in the late 80s and 90s when the GOP had Bush and Dole and the Dems were full of draft dodgers, no? Bush 1 was the only CI CHIEF that wasn't a coward for the last how many decades? Dole was a candidate, but as for presidents, Reagan a feeble, senile old actor, Nixon, whom I think had zero military time (correct me if I'm wrong) and did Ford have any? Carter was a Navy man. Point I'm making, and I basically agree with you, is that Bush 1 is the only war hero we can really celebrate from the Repubs for decades? Did Ike have military time? I'm thinking so, so we have to go back damn near to the 50's until Bush 1 to find a credible Republican CIC. Yet they slam their fists the hardest when it comes to military presence. KInda like ordering more death in Iraq while denying stem cell research because it intrudes upon life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #15 July 31, 2006 QuoteI agree with the general observation that policy decisions are no better coming from those who have served. However, Klinton's "I loathe the military" stance is a lot different, because it went far beyond those who willingly chose not to serve in the military. His administration was populated with those who despised it and did everything they could to undermine it. Anybody remember Morton Halperin? That being said, "chickenhawk" is nothing but a pejorative term; a handy label to slap on someone you disagree with on matters of policy. mh QuoteHowever, Klinton's "I loathe the military" stance is a lot different, because it went far beyond those who willingly chose not to serve in the military. Are you saying this because he downsized the military or what? This is a trap, so maybe just move along . If not the above reason, then why did Clinton loathe the military? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #16 July 31, 2006 At the expense of re-opening an old debate on this forum, I will remark that GWB wore his country's uniform and was an aviator. However, he did not see combat. Then again, neither did Carter, but to give credit where it is due, Carter was a submariner, hand-picked by Rickover himself, but although having been an Executive Officer, never held his own command. Reagan served in the military in WW2. Poor eyesight kept him from seeing action. There are very few in the upper echelons of government who have served, and that number is getting smaller every year."The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,103 #17 July 31, 2006 QuoteI don't really mind the use of the label "chickenhawk", as long as the same sort of stigma and prejudice is applied to the chickendoves. And grats to Kallend for missing the point of the article by about a mile, give or take. Being a chickenhawk is about being a hypocrite. Why should chickendoves be stigmatized? No hypocrisy there. It's the people who actively avoided combat for themselves ("I had other priorities", R. Cheney) but who have no hesitation sending others into harm's way who are the hypocrites.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,557 #18 July 31, 2006 QuoteDid Ike have military time? I'm thinking so Well, there was this one tiny conflict he was involved in...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #19 July 31, 2006 I think the term applies to some one who is prowar but doesn't fight themselves . not someone who is anti war but doesn't fight in the war . It doesn't mean that someone in the army makes better decisions about when we should fight or not . .... but I didn't make up the term so I might be wrong._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeryde13 0 #20 July 31, 2006 Poor eyesight kept him from seeing action. your killing me ... thanks for breaking things up ._________________________________________ people see me as a challenge to their balance Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #21 July 31, 2006 QuoteI think the term applies to some one who is prowar but doesn't fight themselves . not someone who is anti war but doesn't fight in the war . It doesn't mean that someone in the army makes better decisions about when we should fight or not . .... but I didn't make up the term so I might be wrong. Yep, I think you are correct. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #22 July 31, 2006 Quote After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. this is most likely rubbish as it applies to the current admin - Powell was the only one military of rank in the 00-04 admin and was by far the most reluctant about the Iraq war. They managed to tarnish his reputaion and leave him no option but to resign. Whatever you call it - what many people have a beef with are politicians that start wars not as a last resort and/or in response to aggression, but as a means of realizing ideological goals. We know since "Mein Kampf" that this is a bad idea. You read some of the PNAC stuff on reordering the arab world and you know why people are upset. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #23 July 31, 2006 I prefer the "101st Fighting Keyboarders" myself, those brave souls who put their honor on the line and risk carpal tunnel syndrome every single day to ensure that some "expendable" US troops get to die for their country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 July 31, 2006 QuoteYea, point understood, but still . . . she hasn't fought anywhere, so how is she more qualified to speak out any more than a "chickenhawk"? She lost her son, but that doesn't give her more knowledge (outside the personal grief) than anyone else. She donatated a child to lay on the alter of sacrifice for this country... NONE of the Administration has put their ass on the line...NOR have they encouraged THEIR children to put themselves in harms way. THAT from a group of self serving neo-cons who strap on the mantle of Ultra Patriot and send off our children to an unnecessay war to enrich themselves and their friends. They are Hawks... just like they were HAWKS during the Vietnam war... yet they did not serve... they are the CRAZY BRAVE.. with other peoples blood Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #25 July 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteYea, point understood, but still . . . she hasn't fought anywhere, so how is she more qualified to speak out any more than a "chickenhawk"? She lost her son, but that doesn't give her more knowledge (outside the personal grief) than anyone else. She donatated a child to lay on the alter of sacrifice for this country... NONE of the Administration has put their ass on the line...NOR have they encouraged THEIR children to put themselves in harms way. THAT from a group of self serving neo-cons who strap on the mantle of Ultra Patriot and send off our children to an unnecessay war to enrich themselves and their friends. They are Hawks... just like they were HAWKS during the Vietnam war... yet they did not serve... they are the CRAZY BRAVE.. with other peoples blood It appears your definition and Kallends definition are in conflict with each other. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
