'Chickenhawk'

Politics International Politics
1

Posting this in IP because I see this term thrown about by some posters in the various threads here.
I’ve had this term derisively toss’ed my way - no big deal, IMO.
But those who use this term, to me at least, seem to revert to it as a desperate measure rather than as part of a measured response.
Anyway…here is one writers comment on this term.

[quote]‘Chickenhawk’
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | July 23, 2006

IT'S TOUCHING that you're so concerned about the military in Iraq," a reader in Wyoming e-mails in response to one of my columns on the war. But I have a suspicion you’re a phony. So tell me, what’s your combat record? Ever serve?"

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.
Boston Globe Online[/quote]

2

I say that war is wrong. That Bush is crazy for going in Iraq and expediting missile funding to Israel and for feeling up another Stateswoman while in the line of duty.

Signed
NamaChic
:cluck: (squawk)

3

A chickenhawk is a gung-ho warmonger (not merely a supporter of a war, or even a national leader who reluctantly goes to war after all other options are exhausted) who wants others to do the fighting for him. It’s a term that, when used appropriately, points out a fundamental hypocrisy. I would never use the term against most supporters of a war, but only against those who are true chickenhawks.

The term “chickenhawk” does NOT assume “that military experience is a prerequisite for making sound pronouncements on foreign policy” or for “the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.” If this is what the article bases its argument on, it is a strawman.

From the article: “The cry of ‘chicken hawk’ is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action.” :astonished: It’s not “dishonest” for that reason: those who oppose war are not hawks. Therefore the term cannot possibly be aimed at people who advocate peace. Barring the dishonest “dishonest” remark, this is a “well, duh” statement.

I supported (albeit with ambivalence, because I see war as one of the ultimate human evils) the war on Afghanistan but have never served in the military. That alone would not make me a chickenhawk.

What’s a “chicken dove”? A person who is too scared to engage in peace-advocating activities?

4

CHickenhawk?! :laughing: Chickenhawk? :roflmao:
That is, according to a late gay friend of mine, a man who goes cruising to pick up young lads.

Googling to confirm this, we find:

5

Jeff Jacoby’s being an idiot here.

“Chickenhawk” (at least when not used for pervs cruising the Port Authority bus terminal for young runaway boys), is best applicable to the guys who are rarin’ for the troops to be put into battle but have evinced no desire or willingness to ever put their ass on the line for anything, themselves. The “chicken” part fits right into the concept of these guys talking big but having a record of scrammin’ when it comes to any possibility of personal sacrifice. The “hawk” part fits right into their worldview as one in which military force is among the first options to be considered in any given situation.

What it comes down to is this: Putting our soldiers into harm’s way is one of the most serious decisions a politician can make. We can expect that somebody who has never been in combat, never been at physical risk personally themselves on behalf of their nation, may not fully appreciate the carnage that can occur on a battlefield. That doesn’t mean that a person who has lived a purely civilian life cannot make an informed decision to go to war or that only vets have the “moral authority” to put us into a war. However, we do expect that somebody who has never been in combat should not be “champin’ at the bit” to go to war. If someone is going to aggressively urge war as an early option, our society takes this better if we feel the person has weighed the decision appropriately. In politicians who have not served in combat or done other extensive national service, they usually have to tell (and show) the public that they have made the decision in the solemn manner that such decisions are made (which usually requires that they show no eagerness for us to enter combat). For politicians who have served in combat, they get a bit of a shortcut – they’re expected to have an informed opinion of the realities and horrors of death, maimings, and even of the effects upon families of extended wartime service. They don’t get a free ride on the decision to go to war, but vets are at least expected not to treat troops as toy soldiers.

The examples he gives are ridiculous strawmen involving presidents (Lincoln and Roosevelt) whose main wars were not started by them. Are we seriously going to call Lincoln a “chickenhawk” when it was the South who fired the first shots at Fort Sumter? Was Roosevelt a “chickenhawk” for the attack at Pearl Harbor and the immediate commencement of U-Boat warfare up and down the U.S. coasts by the Germans? In this bizarre worldview, which I’ve seen echoed by some forumosa posters, somehow we left the poor, widdle Axis with no choice but to attack us – a viewpoint that implies a very strange sympathy, indeed, with peoples who attacked us in the midst of their own efforts to create vast empires.

He also apparently mixes up the notions of a “chickenhawk” president further by trying to suggest Lincoln could be considered one for urging aggressive action against the enemy’s military after the Civil War had already started. After the war has started?? After a war starts, the gloves come off – a president who urges undue restraint in the face of a military butt-kicking is an idiot. (Examples of undue restraint would include things like not committing enough troops to secure Iraq, not ensuring that our troops get the armored vehicles our economy can clearly provide them, etc.) However, the “chickenhawk” issue, at its heart, comes down to whether some lifelong civilian is itchin’ to send troops into harm’s way without adequate consideration of the consequences.

While it is remotely possible that the current Bush administration hasn’t done a good job communicating it’s efforts to consider its options, most Americans have come around to their own conclusions that Bush & crew weren’t honest about their reasons for going to war in Iraq. They’ve spent way too much time using their gunslinger lingo and spent a bit too much time around Kristol’s Project for a New American Century guys (some of them, like Cheney and Wolfowitz, are “those” guys). I bet that Bush would also have done better to avoid smirking while trying to make his case to the American people, should have avoided so much hyperbole from him and his administration about the WMDs, shouldn’t have lied about Saddam supposedly kicking out the latest round of inspectors, etc.

6

It is just another slur, another stupid term that has become part of the info-tainment fest that passes as political discourse in the present era. Bin it with all the other clever put-downs, I say.
Even If Mr/President Bush, Mr/President Clinton, Mr/Vice president Cheney et al didn’t serve in the military they’re still Mr President and Mr Vice President in my house.

7

Using the tem is plain stupid, unless you believe that our government should not be run by civilians.

8

[quote=“Salvatore Armani”]
Even If Mr/President Bush, Mr/President Clinton, Mr/Vice president Cheney et al didn’t serve in the military they’re still Mr President and Mr Vice President in my house.[/quote]

They are war criminals in my house.
And the next president and the one after that and so on will follow a long line of such scum.

WAR IS A RACKET

9

Unfortunately for the members of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, “chickenhawk” is a figure of speech that’s not going away anytime soon, no matter how much they whine about it. I guess it’s because that shoe fits a bit too snugly. “Chickenhawk” entered the popular mainstream largely because it aptly sums up a concept of a warmongerer who’s never been willing to put his own life at the service of his nation – a hawk in ideas but chicken in the flesh.

These guys are the sorts of folks who, given the right opportunity for anonymity, will be glad to shout out stuff to get drunk people fighting or to get a mob of rural Chinese to smash your hotel room. With a similar disdain for America’s troops or good foreign policy, they get pleasure from egging on the nation to military action no matter what the costs. Basically they love the rock-video style recruitment videos but that’s as far as it ever goes – you’ll never catch them within 200 yards of a VA hospital.

10

Some interesting comments so far.
A few even on topic.
Another discussion of this paper I came across.

[quote]Anti-Zionism Equals Anti-Semitism
Filed by Yitzchok Adlerstein @ 5:10 am

What is the likelihood that the op-ed writer, or cartoonist, or university professor who rants about the evils of Zionism is really an old-fashioned Jew-hater? Much better than most of us thought, according to a study in the August 2006 issue of The Journal of Conflict Resolution.

Goebbels was right. Repeat a lie often enough, and people will believe it. This seems to be true even in regard to Jews believing lies about themselves. For decades, so many of us heard pious protestations that strongly held views about Israel had nothing to do with attitudes towards us, that we started to believe it might be true. We didn’t want to believe that classic anti-Semitism was alive and well. It is Israel and the accursed Zionists they were after, not the Jewish people. The Soviets thundered this from the podium at the UN; leftist intelligentsia fed it to their students in the classroom and their readers in the Guardian and listeners to the BBC. Neturei Karta was stupid and/or treacherous enough to fully embrace it.

It isn’t true. Those who hate Israel, hate Jews, according to Yale researchers Edward Kaplan and Charles Small.

Kaplan and Small compared respondents in ten European countries (500 in each) on two series of statements, one that measured distaste for Israel and her policies, the other about the nature and behavior of Jews. They controlled for other factors, such as hostility to all members of “outside” groups. They did find less anti-Semitism in women, and people with better education (with the apparent exception of college profs and French and British politicians). They also showed that hostility to Jews correlated well with negative feelings about immigrants.

Can one be a critic of Israel and indeed not harbor anti-Jewish feelings? Categorically yes – if the criticism of Israel is not particularly pronounced. In their words:

You are reading this prior to its discovery by the general media. Watch for it. It is hard to believe that this study will not make the circuit of print media and talk shows in the coming months.

A complication of this study is that we may not be able to do much with it. Many of our non-Jewish friends tell us that Jews use the anti-semitism charge so frequently, that others mistrust it. They, too, have bought into the idea that you can criticize Israel without hating Jews. Unless the findings of this study become widespread and survive criticism, it may be counterproductive to yell louder about Jew-hatred outside our own community.

At the Simon Wiesenthal Center, we borrowed a bit of phraseology from an unknown donor, and it has resonated with many non-Jews. We have repeatedly talked about “functional anti-Semitism.” This means taking positions that treat Jews differently from others (e.g. Natan Sharansky’s 3D rule: double-standard, demonization, delegitimization), even when no animus of Jews is involved. It is a point worthwhile pondering, and incorporating in conversation with others. Apparently, folks who are uncomfortable about thinking that some of their friends and associates may be bigots are willing to consider that certain positions amount to the same, even absent the sentiment.

Sometimes those of us involved with non-Jewish groups must make hard decisions even without invoking labels. Consider the reactions of liberal Protestants to the war, and the undeniable and unfortunate suffering it has caused to civilians on both sides. (Denying that is both morally wrong, and damaging to our cause.) For many historical and theological reasons, it is not at all unexpected that liberal churches should lean towards the Palestinian side; should seek an early end to hostilities; should offer assistance and succor to the Christian community in Lebanon. While many Jews unacquainted with Protestant thinking might be horrified at the lack of overt support for Israel, I can live with it without liking it. At least, that is, if they do not turn a blind eye to Israel’s plight, and her right to defend her citizens from a storm of rockets aimed at her citizenry. When each of the denominations issued statements tilting towards the other side, I did not get all exercised over it, since they also did acknowledge that Israel was entitled to some sympathy as well.

Each denomination, except one. John Thomas of the UCC has a long record of hostility towards Israel, and his letter was so over-the-top (it was called to our attention by people in his own church), that we took our gloves off, which we rarely can do, but felt that we had to in this case. The response has been unexpectedly positive. (We were even linked by Little Green Footballs!) We apparently touched a real nerve in people in both the UCC and other liberal denominations, who have long been unhappy with the political extremes of their leadership that have sounded more and more like leftist dogma, and less and less like balanced moral thinking. They were tickled pink that we said things that they have felt, and never had the opportunity to publicly express. My favorite (Admission: I composed it myself) was a question about whether John Thomas’ theology had replaced G-d with Che Guevara.
cross-currents.com/archives/ … -semitism/[/quote]
Some very good comments to the article are posted.

11

Yeah fuck it, I hate Zionists, I hate them for their crap logic that equates cristicism of the vile deeds of Israel to approval for the holocaust. As pointless a fucking exercise as ever there was one.

You can attempt to tie up your hand-wringing American liberals with this fear of crossing some bullshit imaginary line, but it simply don’t cut no mustard with me.

Smells like a dog, looks like a rabid dog, it is a fucking rabid dog and oughtta be shot. Simple.

HG

12

[quote=“Huang Guang Chen”]Yeah fuck it, I hate Zionists, I hate them for their crap logic that equates cristicism of the vile deeds of Israel to approval for the holocaust. As pointless a fucking exercise as ever there was one.

You can attempt to tie up your hand-wringing American liberals with this fear of crossing some bullshit imaginary line, but it simply don’t cut no mustard with me.

Smells like a dog, looks like a rabid dog, it is a fucking rabid dog and oughtta be shot. Simple.

HG[/quote]HGC -
It appears you have had a “Cleansing Moment”.

Remember, the job isn’t finished until the ‘paperwork’ is done… :laughing:

13

[quote]HGC -
It appears you have had a “Cleansing Moment”.

Remember, the job isn’t finished until the ‘paperwork’ is done… [/quote]

Bastard! I’m still feeling awfully bilious and frankly I prefer water to paper as nothing really beats mechanical cleansing with running water. :slight_smile:

HG

14

I find it interesting that the Kaplan and Small paper shows that anti-Semitism was asociated with older males who strongly oppose multi-culturalism and illegal immigrants. Sound like anyone we know?

Seriously, the study shows that anti-Semitism rises with age, lower educational levels, lower income levels, opposition to other cultures and anti-immigrant feelings. One thing the authors don’t mention, but their tables show: anti-Semitism is much higher in Catholic countries (Spain, Austria) than in Protestant countries (Denmark, Britain). (They asked about religion, but lump all Christians together).

So the prototypical anti-Semite is an older lower-class less-educated male in a Catholic country who dislikes people of other races and religions, and is strongly opposed to illegal immigrants.

More Francoist than Foucaultian, seems to me.

15

William F. Buckley once devoted an issue of “National Review” that he later published as a book with a title along the lines of “In Search of Antisemitism” (reminiscent of the title of that old TV show featuring poor Leonard Nimoy). The starting point was a columnist he’d fired for what he felt was a case of anti-semitism – the evidence had mounted up that the columnist felt that there was nothing Israel could do that could make him happy, thus crossing over from the ability to separate his views towards Israel policies from his feelings toward Israel. The book was a rare departure back to a time when the GOP was the party of Lincoln instead of George Lincoln Rockwell.

What any of this has to do with the “chickenhawks”, I’m not sure. The Israelis have a national-service system for their military that basically has most women and men serving. There are some exceptions allowed for some of the ultra-orthodox groups not to serve, I think, and my recollection from discussions with Israeli army vets does indicate that this is a source of some bitterness where representatives of groups with excemptions then go on to speak actively about what the army should or shouldn’t do.

16

Speaking of anti-Semites:

[quote]Once inside the car, a source directly connected with the case says Gibson began banging himself against the seat. The report says Gibson told the deputy, “You mother f*r. I’m going to f you.” The report also says “Gibson almost continually [sic] threatened me saying he ‘owns Malibu’ and will spend all of his money to ‘get even’ with me.”

The report says Gibson then launched into a barrage of anti-Semitic statements: “F*****g Jews… The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” Gibson then asked the deputy, “Are you a Jew?”[/quote]

tmz.com/

Must be another of them Hollywood liberal types, yes?