I see an awful lot of leftists who opposed the recent War in Iraq trotting out the word 'Chickenhawk' to describe anyone who supported the war but didn't immediately volunteer to go fight in Iraq to show how much they supported it. Those who shout 'Chickenhawk' have of course probably also never served in the military - with a volunteer army for the last 30 years very few have served - but they feel that their choice is vindicated because they also didn't support the war or even support our troops who fought in it. They use the term primarily as a way to silence anyone who expresses support for the President or the war so that any kind of meaningful discussion of the topic is stifled.
Those who call others 'Chickenhawks' should immediately be looked at with skepticism, because in addition to being childish name-callers, they're either being deliberately disingenuous or they are fools who don't understand the realities of modern war, how it is fought and how it fits into society as a whole. War impacts the entire society, and everyone in the society has a right to an opinion about it because they are citizens. The opinions of those who have not, cannot or choose for whatever reason not to serve in the military are just as valid as the opinions of anyone else, because their money and their resources and their nation's reputation are still put on the line in that war, even if they physical bodies are not.
Because a country needs more than just soldiers, there are a lot of people in this country who serve the country better by not actually joining the military. They play a role in the economy, in the corporte structure that keeps the country functioning, or in the government. They may be temperamentally unsuited to being soldiers, they may be too old, or have too many other responsibilities, and it's ignorant to insult them just because they don't go off and fight but still support the idea of a just war. War is a job for young men and for professional soldiers. It's not a job for aging politicians, middle-aged computer programmers, school teachers, graphic designers, journalists or any of the rest of us who serve the country by doing what we do best without risking everyone's lives by putting our pasty, pudgy bodies in a uniform in a foreign land.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - SFC SKI
A very well-done article, sure to provoke both well reasoned comments and petty sniping.
2 - Silas Kain
It's hard to argue with the points that Dave has raised. I have no intention of getting petty. He's brought up 4 Democrats who I really do not have much respect for. Jefferson, by today's standards, was a hypocrite. Woodrow Wilson's wife may be more repsonsible for his Administration, than he was. FDR and his policies directly contributed to the demise of the American family structure as it was known then. Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, on the surface, was introduced with good intentions. The Democratic Party is still suffering from his policies, especially in the South.
What's ironic is that the term "chicken hawk" is used quite often in the gay community referring to an older gay man's penchant for younger guys. I don't see Dave's 'Fabulous Four' fitting that bill.
3 - Dave Nalle
>>What's ironic is that the term "chicken hawk" is used quite often in the gay community referring to an older gay man's penchant for younger guys. I don't see Dave's 'Fabulous Four' fitting that bill.<<
That's the first thing that struck me when I originally saw people using the term, and it does add to the insult value. But that's certainly something I didn't want to get into. Plus the only president who might fit that bill - and it's a theory that not everyone accepts - is James Buchanan - but that's another story alltogether.
DAve
4 - SFC SKI
I first thought of the tough little Chickenhawk" character in the WB cartoons, then the Viet Nam book by Robert Mason, then the gay slang.
5 - reggie
You forgot to add BJ Clinton to your list.
He deployed troops all over the map, yet he was a blatant draft-dodger.
6 - SFC SKI
Well, there is somewhat of a difference there in that Clinton's deployments were in the intent of imposing or maintaining "peacekeeping", as opposed to "Warfighting". A semantic exercise to some, but it definitely made a difference in the support Clinton received from the public, the Congress, and the international community.
7 - Dave Nalle
Clinton's troop deployments were pretty limited. He didn't exactly go to war in the traditional sense. I could have also included some non-Presidential leaders and advisers. But in doing some research I found it awfully difficult to find major political figures who had no military experience or obviously bogus military backgrounds in either party.
Dave
8 - Shark
I support the troops. I'm not ashamed to put a yellow ribbon magnet on my car. Cost me five bucks, but Iraq's freedom is well worth it!
9 - SFC SKI
Not to take this thread OT, but I know that most miltary members really appreciate the fact that most Americans are supportive of them, if not supportive of the war itself, it really does have an impact on morale.
History is like a rich meal, it takes a lot time for it to be properly digested.
10 - Mike Kole
Don't forget that one of the reasons Wilson dragged on direct US involvement in WW1 was that he wasn't sure if the US should be fighting alongside the Germans or British. Once the decision was made, the anti-German sentiments and tactics were geared up.
11 - Dave Nalle
Wilson was actually always pro British, it just took him a while to reach the conclusion that if France fell Britain would be next. There was a lot of pro-German sentiment in the country which had to be dealt with as well, with 3.5 million German immigrants.
Dave
12 - RJ
"There was a lot of pro-German sentiment in the country which had to be dealt with as well, with 3.5 million German immigrants."
And there were 3.5 million lamp-posts to hang them all from, so said President Roosevelt...
13 - Dave Nalle
Well, to be indelicate, what it really came down to was that Wilson had no balls. Teddy Roosevelt would have had us in WWI before 1916 and he wouldn't have stopped on the German border, which would have increased the probability of not having a WWII. So blame that bastard Taft for not stepping down and letting Roosevelt be the Republican candidate the way he should have.
Dave
14 - Z.Z.Bachman
Nice article. Dave and RJ bring up some interesting perspectives. Wilson was indeed a wishful thinker and a eunich as suggest by Dave (and history IMHO). The ineffectual "League of Nations" was in effect founded by Wilson as a cornerstome of his 14 Points for Reconstructing Europe -- The League was the DNA and prelude to the U.N. (or as I like to refer to them, the Unresponsive Neanderthals).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ZZ Bachman / ZardozZ News & Satire Portal
Have a Blog? Ring Surf it @ ZZ OpenRing
15 - Dave Nalle
I like Clemenceau's comment on Wilson's Fourteen Point Plan - "If man cannot keep God's ten commandments, how likely is he to keep Wilson't fourteen?".
Dave
16 - Jim Carruthers
I was going to comment, but you gentlemen are too busy sucking each other's dicks, I don't want to interrupt.
17 - SFC SKI
And the first petty sniping makes its appearance, thanks Jim, I knew I could count on you.
18 - Dave Nalle
In our dick sucking did we form a supportive circle similar to the League of Nations, Jim?
Dave
19 - Silas Kain
Hmmm, Jim, this is precisely what I am talking about. People from opposite sides of the spectrum come together and actually agree on some issues. Now you call it reciprocal fellatio. Dude, the only dick sucking that was going on was on our side of the aisle in the Lewinsky case. Let's not start calling the kettle black here. Dave presented his case which is very difficult to dispute. I don't always like Dave's message but when he's right, he's right.
There's no need to be envious of the multilateral oral gratification going on here, Jim. We've found some common ground upon which to build. That's a step in the right direction. (I really hate using the word 'right' here but no other word fits!)
20 - Steve S
I've said before that I think when someone uses the term 'chickenhawk', they make their case much more difficult to win, if their objective is changing minds.
Having said that, I have to say I didn't read the whole post, because I have no interest in disputing anything about the term, but I was struck by the weight given to the word here. All the names/terms I've been called in my life, make chickenhawk sound about as offensive as poopyhead. I'd just roll my eyes and say 'yeah, whatever', but that's just me.
21 - Dave Nalle
Well, if you read up in the comments, Steve - some of us are familiar with it from its original use referring to someone who might be interested in NAMBLA membership. That makes it a very nasty word in that context, and the way that some people are using it today is also pretty ugly.
Dave
22 - andy marsh
Yeah Steve - don't be a poopy head!
23 - MCH
"They use the term Chickenhawk primarily as a way to silence anyone who expresses support for the President or the war so that any meaningful discussion of the topic is stifled."
- Dave Nalle
Actually the term is used more to point out the hypocrisy and phoniness of the so-called "paper" patriots, who, although having never served themselves, espouse the use of military force...as long as someone else has to go over and fight and die overseas in their place while they remain safely at home, pontificating military strategy.
Here is the official definition of the term Chickenhawk, provided by the Chickenhawk data base of the New Hampshire Gazette:
"Chickenhawk - n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that bellicose enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity to serve in that person's youth."
www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks
24 - Silas Kain
If I were to follow up in the spirit of the bleeding heart liberal I have been accused of being I would probably make an inflammatory charge. Like, could it be possible that the creator(s) of the term 'chickenhawk' were trying to subtly say that those with the label are somehow 'faggots'? Sometimes people within one's own group cause more damage than those outside it.
MCH you say, "Actually the term is used more to point out the hypocrisy and phoniness of the so-called "paper" patriots, who, although having never served themselves, espouse the use of military force...as long as someone else has to go over and fight and die overseas in their place while they remain safely at home, pontificating military strategy." I don't mean to be a poopy head but Dave's argument remains valid. He has brought up many examples of how some "paper patriots" are serving their country well just by staying at home and doing what they are doing. Like it or not my fellow left wing radical liberals, Dave has hit the nail on the head.
25 - Eric Olsen
I appreciate Dave summoning the energy to refute the twisted logic of this "argument" one more time. Clearly there are some for whom logic has no bearing on something as fun as name-calling.