Why the 'chicken-hawk' argument is baloney

[Barrett808]

Why the 'chicken-hawk' argument is baloney
Monday, February 23, 2004
By MAX BOOT

THERE ARE good arguments to be made against the war in Iraq. Calling its supporters "chicken hawks" isn't one of them. Yet to judge from an appearance I recently made on a C-SPAN call-in show, it's a favorite of the antiwar crowd. As someone who thinks that ending the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein was a good idea, but who doesn't have a Medal of Honor on my mantelpiece, or even a dusty uniform hanging in the closet, I am, of course, fair game.

Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who had student deferments during the Vietnam War, are much higher-profile targets of these venomous attacks. Even President Bush - who served, but not in combat - is on the receiving end of such criticisms from Democrats who accuse him of being AWOL during his term in the National Guard.

This has led to a familiar round of mudslinging about who did what in the Vietnam War. Although of enduring fascination to baby boomers, this debate is of considerably less interest to those younger than 50, who make up more than 70 percent of the population. To those of us who came of age after the draft ended in 1973 (when I was 4 years old), all this finger-pointing seems about as relevant as Jefferson Airplane.

But lately, the argument about chicken-hawkism has gotten much broader than Vietnam. Its advocates seem to think that leaders (not to mention pundits) have no right to favor the use of force unless they have served in combat themselves. Oddly enough, many of those making this point are "chicken doves" who haven't served either. Have they thought through the implications of this argument?

(more)

http://www.bergen.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk0MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY0OTA2OTkmeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkxNA==

[Burma Jones]

1. I'm with you on this one

Lincoln was in the National Guard

FDR didn't serve in the military

I think the Administration would be crap even if they were all Medal Of Honor vets.

[utopian]

3. FDR and Lincoln didn't start illegal wars with

sovereign nations. Nor did they lie to the American people to go to war. To be certain, other presidents have, but I think that the lack of military credentials highlights buschco's utter lack of understanding of the magnitude of their actions. It's not the sole reason for it, but it sure is a common thread connecting these warmongering assholes.

[trogdor]

6. FDR had POLIO, forchrissake!

Nevertheless, he was about as hands-on a President as we ever had.

[JPZenger]

15. Roosevelt

There is an attempt to attack Franklin Roosevelt for not having served in the military. Read your history - as a young man he was almost running the U.S. Navy during WWI. He was the number 2 person in the Department of the Navy. Because of the personality quirks of the Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt in many ways was running the whole navy.

[Luvpurp]

2. Its valid to a degree

I don't like the military litmus test that seems to constantly dog our elections, but it is fair to point out that thse are guys chicken-hawks when they pretend to be warriors. It is also fair to point out that these are people that are more than happy to send people off to be killed in their stead. The bottom line is that in this country military machismo is an important part of the election fabric, we can wish that it wasn't, but that isn't goiing to change the fact that it is.

My thinking is that as time goes on the military service question will have less relevance, since the draft was abolished the % of people who have actaully served in any cpaicity is very low. We are not at that point yet, but maybe someday.

[Faygo Kid]

4. Guess I'm a "chicken dove" - don't want to kill soldiers for neo-con dream

OK, I had a high lottery number (thank God) and didn't have to go to Vietnam. But, I also think war should be a last resort, not something you turn to in the first days of an administration hell bent on military action at the drop of a hat (thank you, Paul O'Neill). The point here is not whether you served or not; it's your attitude on using young Americans as cannon fodder to advance the interests of a few (Halliburton, et al). The clowns in this administration are more than happy to feed our troops into any sausage grinder they think will line their pocketbooks and advance their power, yet didn't have the cojones to go themselves. Their utter contempt for our troops as other than cogs in their machine is contemptible, especially given their own backgrounds. Hey, neocons - these are human lives you are playing with, and certainly will never be your own families' lives (where are the Twins these days? St. Moritz? Shopping in New York?) You want us to sacrifice? OK, show us the way.

[trogdor]

5. So, how do YOU feel about this?

Does it make any sense at all to argue that the only people qualified to weigh in on Iraq are those who have worn the uniform at one time or another?

This guy confuses the accepted definition of a "chickenhawk" (one who dodged the draft by one means or another, but wants to send YOUR KID to war) with those who were not called, or were too young to fight.

This guy is really out there: Although of enduring fascination to baby boomers, this debate is of considerably less interest to those younger than 50, who make up more than 70 percent of the population. Really? I'm going on 41, and I have a son going on 15. I don't want him getting his ass shot off just so some yuppie bastard can continue driving his spotless, never-been-off-the-pavement Ford Expedition to work. Just because I'm not 19-25 doesn't mean I don't care deeply about this.

[BOSSHOG]

7. The Argument is Haute Cusine

Chickenhawks are those who reap the booty which America offers while insisting they be protected to do so by the sons and daughters of those less privileged. In other words, Chickenhawks are elected republicans. Obviously WAR AND THE DEATH OF AMERICAN KIDS ARE A NECESSITY FOR THESE EVIL PEOPLE - FINE! Then lets ensure bush's daughter's and limbaugh's stepson and the children and grandchildren of all the rich republicans in this country are sent off to bootcamp and expeditiously sent to Iraq to protect the booty which conservatives crave. Then we can chat about what's on the MENU. Meanwhile lets stick TO WHO IS IN THE BODY BAGS COMING HOME TO DOVER WHICH NO ONE CAN SEE. BALONEY MY ASS!!!!

[Faygo Kid]

8. Touche.

Couldn't agree more.

[DinahMoeHum]

9. Better consider the source here. Max Boot is a typical neocon

POS.

BTW, where are HIS dog tags??


:nuke:

[RobertSeattle]

10. It's more about the hypocrisy

As a 6 year Army veteran, I'm sick and tired of RW GOP types constantly using the old "weak on defense" crap against Democrats - especially when it comes from those who had an OPPORTUNITY to serve and in one way or another avoided it their youth.

[Sandpiper]

11. Chickenhawks aren't merely supporters of the war

They are people who are very loudly and very publicly enthuisiastic about wars in which they will not be fighting. They are best described in this quote by William T. Sherman:

"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation."

[Martin Eden]

13. Good quote, and good point

The problem with chickenhawks is that they don't make every effort to avoid war because they really don't know the harsh reality of it.

Sherman was perhaps the most brutal Union commander of the Civil War (with the possible exception of Butler), but at least he came out and said "war is all hell -- you can't refine it."

[TacticalPeek]

12. Tilting at straw soldiers.

It's the character, stupid.

Al Franken and Dennis Kucinich can disparage the absurd Iraq war, same as General Clark and General Zinni.


How can Boot read Shrub's military record or Cheney's peculiar Vietnam timeline and not have his stomach turn when looking at the casualty lists?

[Old and In the Way]

14. No Sale.

If the current leadership (Bush, Cheney, Perle, Wolf, et al) had actually done their duty and served during VietNam, perhaps they'd be less eager to start pre-emptive wars using the lives of others to further their personal social/economic agendas. It's precisely because they've never been in a foxhole or ambushed in a jungle that their lack of experience is important. They were cowards to not risk their own lives, but have no problem risking the lives of other Americans.

Since Bush is running as a "war" President, we can expect this to be the Republican centerpiece of their campaigns. As long as they maintain power, we will have wars and war-profiteering without end. Without war, they have nothing to hide behind....their domestic agenda is exposed.

[joycep]

16. Max Boot

Should know all about baloney. He's full of it.

[MS760]

17. AWOL

Why has it not yet occurred to anyone that the Bush family may have hired a (close look-a-like) surrogate to serve Bush's military duty? It's really hard for me to believe Bush, at 26, known for all night partying and general carousing, could have ever had the mental discipline to fly a delta wing jet fighter, admittedly a very complex and unforgiving airplane of that era.

An "OUTSTANDING" F-102 pilot Yet!

Having used a surrogate, and then having that surrogate become somehow disabled during Bush's duty term, would explain all of the missing gaps in his service records and documentation.

I suspect that Bush suddenly decided flying wasn't for him and quickly left Texas for Alabama before knowing if his request for transfer was approved or not (it wasn't) because he had no choice, he didn't look quite enough like his disabled stand-in to pass muster and he very likely didn't even have a clue as to how to fly even something as simple as a Cessna 172.

[neverforget]

18. Calling them Chickenhawks is totally relevant. When they had the

chance to fight in the war of their time, they chose not too but yet, they supported the war. To me, these guys are cowards who are to chickenshit to put their ass where their mouth is. What they did to avoid the war goes to their character. When they were challenged, they opted not to take the challenge but instead, they used political connections, marriage, student deferrments or "physical disablities" to get out of it. Now, in another time, they have the gall to question our patriotism for not supporting their war. Fuck them and the chickenhawk they rode in on!

:grr: :argh:

[Skittles]

19. SORRY

IF YOU ARE GUNG-HO FOR WAR YOU BETTER HAVE SERVED. PERIOD.

[Warren Stuart]

20. All organizations take their cue from the top down

How can a leader who avoided service, lead a nation to war?

[rfkrocks]

21. has the writer of this piece been to the vietnam memorial?

Not only chickenhawks-but what this guy doesn't get is the fact that the war they bugged out on allowed people to avoid combat by going to college. There was a sick social darwinistic attitude about the vietnam war which they never addressed publicly. Someone died in their place because of class distinction. This is exactly how they treat people today which is why this accustion resonates. Das Boot did not get the moral problem. They didn't care back then nor do they care now.

[enki23]

22. it isn't usually used as an 'argument'

because as an 'argument' it's purely rhetorical. it's more often a cynical observation. it doesn't argue for whether the war in iraq was justified, it simply calls attention to the experience and/or wisdom and/or hypocrisy of those prosecuting it. when it's an 'argument,' it's an argument against the people who pushed us into war, not directly against the war itself. in that use, it's like calling a character witness in a trial.

in any case, it isn't hypocricital to fight for peace without having seen war. it *is* often hypocritical to ask others to make sacrifices you have shown yourself unwilling to make.

[Merlin]

24. Brilliant!

Excellent exegesis.

[Merlin]

23. This is a pile of crap. It ignores the real issues.

The real issues are that an administration full of people who have absolutely no familiarity with war sat in judgement over others who had profound, professional experience and adviced against it. The JCS (before junior began swapping them out), former honored generals, distinguished members of daddy's admin, and millions of veterans of wars all over the world warned clearly that a war in Iraq would not bring victory, but instead would result in a quagmire. The chicken-hawks in this admin--the old men who don't mind sending young people off to die--rejected the wise counsel of the naysayers. And now we're suffering the results. That's the real issue.

And may I point out that every one of these cowardly, rotten, draft-dodging Bush bastards supported the Vietnam war enthusiatically, and still do. So long as others do the dying, they're all for it.

They are vermin of the lowest order. Chicken-hawk is way too mild a term for them.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Why is Max Boot even at Brookings

Does having a right wing neo-con Bush ass kissing hawk at Brookings make them more credible? Why even call Brookings a liberal to moderate institution anymore? When I pick up my LA times lately, his is about the only commentary from Brookings that I find.

[Capt_Nemo]

26. The issue is not that the chickenhaws have not served

The issue is that they advocate war as the priviliged tool to solve
conflicts AND yet when they could have served their nation the way
they would be true to their ideology, they ran away scared.

This shows their absolute hipocrisy, and therefore exposes them as
unfit to make policy. That is why this idiot is so riled up with
this most valid argument. He should get over it... :nopity: