Comments on: Chicken Hawks II

By: One Hand Clapping » Blog Archive » “Chickenhawk” works both ways

Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:49:27 +0000

[...] also Army veteran James Joyner’s destruction of the chickenhawk argument. [link] Comments policy, read and heed! A. No - means no - profanity! B. No personal attacks on meany other commenter or author. C. No commercial commenting, but links to your own blog site or relevant other web pages are fine. D. I rarely answer comments - I justin a comment - Wordpress emails me every comment so I do see it. F. If you include more than two links in your comment, Wordpress automatically slides it into the "awaiting moderation" file. EventuallyI will notice but probably not quickly. G. I reserve the right to delete or edit a comment for any reason I see fit, but it is almost unheard of for me to edit one. If you left a comment and either don't see it or it disappeared, 99.9% of the time it means you broke one of these rules. Do not email me asking what happened; I will not reply. H. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post. I. Remember Rule No. 6! [...]

By: Robert Speirs

Robert Speirs — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

To extend the "chickenhawk" taxonomy, there are men like me who were eligible for the draft in the 60's, but were against the Vietnam war and didn't go, for whatever reason, and yet now are fully in favor of the War on Terror. To call someone like me a chickenhawk is to say that failure to enthuse about one war forever debars one from supporting any war in the future. And the Kerryites are supposed to be so "nuanced"! Even if I didn't think I was wrong about Vietnam, which I now do, I should still be able to distinguish a mishandled, half-hearted war whose effect was to support the continuation of French colonial policies in Indochina from a war to exterminate Islamic fundamentalist vermin who directly attacked America.

By: Gerry Owen

Gerry Owen — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

So if you didn't serve, and you support the war, you are a chicken hawk. By extesion, if you didn't serve, and oppose the war, are you just plain Chicken?

By: Hal

Hal — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

You guys are so clever.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

While it may be a joke at your collective expense, Hal, it certainly emphasizes that in a Republic, all citizens have equal say in the matter, regardless of their military service, or lack thereof.

War is a political entity. The military is merely the tool by which it is implemented.

And for reference, this is from a retired Navy Chief, who has no more say about it than you.

By: Ric Locke

Ric Locke — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

::shrug::

Thirty years ago, Kerry was a fair-to-good junior officer and Bush was a fair-to-good jet pilot. So what? Thirty years ago I was a fair-to-good photo interpreter. I got to see pictures of most of Viet Nam. Maybe I should run for President. There's something to be said for the overall view.

Regards,
Ric

By: Fred Boness

Fred Boness — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Kerry's war experience gave him a tactical perspective on war where a president needs a strategic perspective. Kerry's senate service means more when evaluating his strategic perspective.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Jefferson Davis served well in the Mexican American War, with distinguish service at the battle of Buena Vista.

Abraham Lincoln served an undistinguished tour as captain of militia during the Blackhawk Rebellion, seeing no combat.

Historians generally rank Lincoln's performance as commander in chief as superior to that of Davis' when they faced off during the American Civil War. Even though at the time, Lincoln was berated and vilified unmercifully by the press of his time. Interesting how few of his critics are as honored today, but the man is.

By: Richard Aubrey

Richard Aubrey — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

IMO, "Starship Troopers" was the worst movie ever made from a good book.
Nevertheless, it got some ink for reminding us of Heinlein's view that only veterans should have the franchise or public safety jobs.
That was thought to be a frightening view of the future, an incipient tyranny.
It is, ironically, the easily logical result of following the chickenhawk argument about one more small step.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

I guess I'm confused about the whole "chickenhawk" taxonomy. For example, the attacks on taking educational deferments during the Viet Nam era as somehow dishonorable. Does that mean--by analogy--that if you take an income tax deduction (say for charitable contributions) you're not allowed to express your opinion on matters of taxation and government spending? Or that taking such a deduction is somehow dishonorable?

Following that reasoning it sounds to me like pretty nearly everybody is going to be excluded from voicing an opinion on some subject or other. Perhaps we should start wearing tags which show the subjects on which we're entitled to express our opinions?

By: nobody important

nobody important — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

John Adams agonized over the fact that he was not fighting against the British, but his contibutuions and sacrifices to the cause of independence were as great, if not more so, than those who did.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Richard: I'm not so sure that Heinlein meant it as a "frightening view [of] incipient tyranny". My readings of ST and the rest of Heinlein's corpus make me think he might well have meant it, at least as a plausible way to run a Very Large Republic, if we have to have a government on that scale. (It's been a while, but wasn't non-military "service" acceptable to get the franchise, as well?)

By: furious

furious — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Touche, James! If Matt Yglesias or Frank "the Lout" Lautenberg have video of a younger GW Bush or Dick Cheney standing on the flightline at Travis AFB in the Late 60's cheering and waving flags as the transports lifted off for Indo-China, then I'll concede their point.

crickets chirping...crickets chirping...

The fact that they didn't serve in combat in a previous war no more invalidates them as Commander-in-Chief in the current war than does John Adams not having served as a Continental render him unfit as CiC during the War of 1812, nor Woodrow Wilson not having charged up San Juan Hill the same for WWI, nor Franklin Delano not having slogged through Belleau Wood the same for WWII.

But just for grins, I'll concede the TigerDoves' point that only those who served should have say over defense policy, and carry it to its logical Heinleinian conclusion that only retired or active duty/Reserve/Guard personnel should have the Franchise...

...any doubt as to how THAT popular vote would break?

Yglesias...Lautenberg...Bueller...anyone?

wind blowing...wind blowing...

I think we know the answer, seeing as it was the Democrats who tried to invalidate all those servicemen's absentee ballots in Florida -- a tactic so vile that even Joe Lieberman gagged -- and who de-funded Pentagon initiatives to facilite voting at overseas military bases.

--furious

By: JSAllison

JSAllison — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

On ST for the benefit of Sigivald, if you ever wished to vote, or hold public office you had to show up at your local induction center and present yourself for service. You could list choices but the bottom line was that you'd be put to work somewhere, doing something. You could wind up doing public works type stuff, you could wind up in the military, bottom line was that you didn't get to have a say in the goverance of the country without first demonstrating that you put the corporate good ahead of your own personal welfare. Since it was everyone's right to join, work would be found even if it had to be made-up busywork and even if you were totally physically incapable of pretty much anything.

I've also heard the point made here and there that those who receive public monies should not be allowed the vote. Else what stops anyone from voting for their own payraise? These days this seem uncomfortably close to reality (the voting for thier own payraise part).

By: Steven Den Beste

Steven Den Beste — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Yglesias touched on the true logic behind all these accusations: "...it would follow from this that the country may never fight a war." That's what they're really after. Anyone who advocates war will be subject to some kind of excoriation. (Note, for instance, the way that the same voices who use the "chickenhawk" accusation also tried to discredit Pat Tillman as an idiot for enlisting and going into combat, where he died.)