|
The Chickenhawk Slur
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: |
by John Hawkins
On Veterans Day, I noticed that more than a few left-wing websites decided it was an opportune time to break out the "chickenhawks" slur again. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the word or who associate it with its more vulgar meaning, when the left uses the term, they are generally referring to a foreign policy hawk who has not been in the military and is not seeking to join up. You see, they're of the opinion that only those who have actually fought in the military or who are willing to do so, should be able to advocate war. Of course, that's not exactly what you'd call a "well reasoned argument," but keep in mind that we're talking about people who think that carrying a giant puppet head at an anti-war rally run by Communists passes for an eloquent statement about the war on terrorism.
But one has to wonder if these same people think of Woodrow "we must make the world safe for Democracy" Wilson as "Chickenhawk" Wilson? After all, Wilson, the man who launched our country into WW1, had been a professor of political science before he got into politics, not a military man. Then there's FDR, a gentleman who certainly couldn't be called a pacifist. In fact, old Franklin "Chickenhawk" Roosevelt led our country into the bloodiest war this planet has ever seen. Was he wrong to have done that since he never served in the military? Most of us would say "no," but you have to wonder if the people who're today hooting "chickenhawk" would disagree. We could even look to Bill Clinton and wonder why a President who not only didn't serve in the military, but once wrote in a letter that he "loathed the military," was not branded with a scarlet "Chickenhawk" for his rather aggressive foreign policy in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, & Haiti.
Moreover, does it not seem a bit hypocritical that the very people who expect hawks to enlist in the military are not willing to make similar sacrifices themselves? For example, whatever you think of Rachel Corrie, the "peace activist" who was accidentally run over by an Israeli bulldozer while she tried to protect smuggling tunnels used by terrorists you couldn't have accused her of being a hypocrite if she had ever called someone a "chickenhawk". Similarly, while you would be wrong to act as a human shield at a North Korean gulag, in front of a terrorist enclave in the West Bank, or at a bomb making warehouse in Tikrit, at least no one could claim that you were asking others to do what you were not willing to do yourself. But if you decry "chickenhawks who advocate war while they're safe at home," please don't claim some sort of moral high ground if you "advocate refusing to prosecute the war on terrorism while safe at home" yourself.
It's also worth pointing out that the people who reproach "chickenhawks" for their lack of military experience don't seem to apply that same concept to anything else. For example, are these same individuals refusing to take a position on the actions of their local police department if they've never been a policeman? Do they believe that John Ashcroft knows best if they have never worked for the DOJ?
Here's an idea that'll allow you to find out where they really stand. The next time you hear someone gripe about "chickenhawks," ask their opinion about how President Bush has done since his election in 2000. Then, if they're intellectually consistent people, you can expect them to say something like, "I really can't properly evaluate what the President should or shouldn't do because I have never been President myself". After all, that's what they expect the people they call "chickenhawks" to do when it comes to the military isn't it?
In addition to that, I think it's worth pointing out that while the exceptional men and women who serve in our armed forces may be experts at combat, that does not mean that ALL of them are geniuses at foreign policy or the best arbiters of how we should handle a situation that might lead to blood being spilled. If you don't believe that, simply think back to "Operation Northwoods," a plan conceived of by the Joint Chiefs of Staff which featured fake terrorist attacks on American citizens that could be used as an excuse to start a war with Cuba. Of course, that mad scheme never came to fruition because JFK wouldn't hear of it, but it certainly wasn't a bunch of "chickenhawks" who cooked the whole thing up.
If you wanted another example of the fallibility of a military man's judgement when it came to war, you could look to George McClellan who ran against Lincoln for the Presidency in 1864 and planned to give up on the Civil War if he won.
I would even go so far as to point out that Wesley Clark, an ex-general with a distinguished military record and a Democratic candidate for President, assured Bill Clinton that just the threat of force would be all that it would take to get Slobodan Milosevic to agree to peace in Kosovo. Not only was Clark dead wrong, but later during the Kosovo conflict, British General Sir Michael Jackson refused a Clark order to block a "Russian advance towards Pristina airport in Kosovo" and famously explained his actions by saying, �I am not going to start World War III". Now if you want to tell people that Wesley Clark is a brilliant strategist whose judgement is far superior to that of the "chickenhawks" when it comes to military strategy, I'd probably be inclined to agree with you. But if you're trying to make the case that Clark's overall judgement about foreign policy is superior to anyone who hasn't served in the military, I'd say that is a very dubious argument indeed.
Summing things up, this whole "chickenhawk" catcall is little more than an attempt to stifle debate and divert attention away from the lack of substance that undergirds much of the anti-war side of the debate. The fact is that many people in the anti-war crowd hold dovish foreign policy views, believe in only using America's military when our interests AREN'T at stake, & are more concerned with world approval than defending America. Because of that, they are simply incapable of taking positions that would allow us to win the global war on terrorism that we are now engaged in. Rather than deal openly and honestly with issues like that, issues that could cost Democrats the election, they'd rather cry "chickenhawk" and hope that, rather than their foreign policy views & how we should proceed in the war on terrorism, will become the subject of the debate.
|
Comments? |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| A chickenhawk is someone who advocates RUSHING to war as a primary option, without having served. Someone who has to go to war as a last option to defend the country would not be considered a hawk or a chickenhawk. I think the term is rightfully used in terms of pundits like Sean Hannity or O'Reilly, because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and downplayed any argument made to the contrary. It's a lot easier to advocate going to war without exhausting diplomatic means when it's not you or your kid risking their lives in battle. |
|
|
| smokeape |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
A chickenhawk is someone who advocates RUSHING to war as a primary option, without having served. Someone who has to go to war as a last option to defend the country would not be considered a hawk or a chickenhawk. I think the term is rightfully used in terms of pundits like Sean Hannity or O'Reilly, because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and downplayed any argument made to the contrary. It's a lot easier to advocate going to war without exhausting diplomatic means when it's not you or your kid risking their lives in battle. |
I hear you. Our sons and daughters are dying in Iraq by the hundreds. But, I still believe we have a just cause and the sacrifice is necessary for long term goals. I believe more force is needed in the effort.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Comments? |
stupid? |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by smokeape
I hear you. Our sons and daughters are dying in Iraq by the hundreds. But, I still believe we have a just cause and the sacrifice is necessary for long term goals. I believe more force is needed in the effort.
:p
[[[smoke]]] |
what just cause?:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Shakka |
| It's a good article that makes several genuinely valid points. |
|
|
| ResonantDrag |
I hardly think that truely valid points can be achieved by comparing leaders caught in tough situations where the use of force is an inevitability to the present leadership producing false justifications and displaying an unnecessary willingness to sacrifice the youth of america. The mere thought that someone out there is trying to compare bush with lincoln, roosevelt and wilson makes me want to go on a "chickenhawk" shooting spree.
what happens if someone wants to start listing other world leaders without personal military experience? [i'll resist the temptation to jump on the hitler bandwagon here] can we consider those points to be valid as well? by the author's shallow reasoning, we can.
btw, i think that john hawkins (if that's his real name) is on the defense department's payroll. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
It's a good article that makes several genuinely valid points. |
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there. I can see where Clinton can be considered one, though not for Bosnia, but FDR? The author claims that he should be considered a chickenhawk for retaliating after Pearl Harbor! Not everyone is a hawk if they advocate war & served or a chickenhawk if they advocate & didn't serve, there are times when it's appropriate and I don't think declaring war after being attacked in addition to the whole Nazi campaign in Europe was a rush to war. Wilson kind of sat on the sidelines for quite some time during WWI as well, not exactly a rush to war until the Lusitania was sunk. I think the entire premise of the article is false, other than the example of Clinton. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by wolverine16
Whoa, whoa, whoa, hold on there. I can see where Clinton can be considered one, though not for Bosnia, but FDR? The author claims that he should be considered a chickenhawk for retaliating after Pearl Harbor! Not everyone is a hawk if they advocate war & served or a chickenhawk if they advocate & didn't serve, there are times when it's appropriate and I don't think declaring war after being attacked in addition to the whole Nazi campaign in Europe was a rush to war. Wilson kind of sat on the sidelines for quite some time during WWI as well, not exactly a rush to war until the Lusitania was sunk. I think the entire premise of the article is false, other than the example of Clinton. |
I said it made several valid points. I didn't say the entire article was ing gospel. What are you trying to do? Put words in my mouth? Christ, might want to pull your panties out of your ass. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
I would have to agree that the author's premise is shaky at best. But it does bring up a certain philosophical question that I've wondered about with this whole "chickenhawk" thingy.
Does one who advocates a position need to be directly involved in that position?
IOW, does one have to be in full participation of a certain position in order to be an advocate of it? I think the obvious answer is, of course, "no". Let's take another issue as an example - gay marriage. I'm personally an advocate for gay marriage and full gay benefits that are given to heterosexual marriages. Does this entail that I need to be a homosexual in order to advocate such a position? I sure hope not.
(and no, I'm not gay, BTW. At least not the last time I checked :D)
Or let's take another example - humanitarianism. I completely support the International Red Cross through annual donations, as well as for immediate disaster incidents like the recent tsunami. Is this enough, or would my full support entail me being a voluntary member working in Indonesia to count? Or even more so, let's follow this to it's logical end - one of the rationales for invading Iraq was for humanitarianism. Would this not logically entail those who advocate humanitarianism, such as myself, sign up and fight for such a cause?
I think by this reasoning you'll see a few more Lefties shy away from the charge, and rightfully so.
So perhaps the "chickenhawk" slur would be best suited for those particular wars that involved a draft only, since this forced many of those individuals to go and fight despite their political or philosophical beliefs of being pro- or anti-war. Perhaps by this means alone that particular label would be best suited for those who successfully dodged the war for their own personal interests that superceded the interests of our country fighting a war. So throw in Bush Jr., Cheney, and anyone else who successfully dodged the last drafting war one way or another but advocated for it.
But for these recent wars, I'm not sure the slur is appropriate. It's just mere punditry and sideline cheerleading to me, and it occurs on both sides. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I said it made several valid points. I didn't say the entire article was ing gospel. What are you trying to do? Put words in my mouth? Christ, might want to pull your panties out of your ass. |
Geez, sorry man. I didn't really see many in there, especially since the main point he is trying to support seems to be inaccurate. ONe would likely assume if you don't elaborate at all that you are saying he's making some valid points that support his thesis and I was disagreeing with several of his main examples. Sorry if I assumed you meant those point & you did not. |
|
|
| wolverine16 |
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 |
I would say it has to do a lot with when we went to war. I think Iraq counts, because it was a war of choice. The soldiers who volunteered to fight are under the direction of the defense dept., not the offense dept. The term hawk is intended to apply to those who advocate going to war as one of the first options in diplomacy. Chickenhawks would be those who advocate this but who sat on the sidelines when they could have served for the same types of policies, which for many today would have been Vietnam. If you watched the coverage of what we saw here of the war, it was basically Geraldo in a remote location or what looked like a fireworks show over Baghdad. I don't think someone like a pundit who disregarded any facts that questioned the war and convinced people to follow, which we now know was for many false assumptions based on questionable information deserves to be relieved of any accountability while 1,400+ kids have died as they sipped their peaceful cup of Starbucks each morning. If you look at how this war was planned for the aftermath and how many troops have lacked vital equipment, it's clear that the welfare of the soldiers was not the #1 priority. |
|
|
|
|
