"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.
That is simply not what "chicken hawk" means, and it is less than forthright of Jacoby to mis-define the concept in order to argue against it. Although there is no formal definition for it, the "chicken hawk" criticism is not typically made against someone who merely (a) advocates a war but (b) will not fight in that war and/or has never fought in any war (although, admittedly, there are those who mis-use the term that way). After all, the vast majority of Americans in both political parties meet that definition. The war in Afghanistan was supported by roughly 90% of Americans, as was the first Persian Gulf War, even though only a tiny fraction of war supporters would actually fight in those wars which they advocated.
Something more than mere support for a war without fighting in it is required to earn the "chicken hawk" label. Chicken-hawkism is the belief that advocating a war from afar is a sign of personal courage and strength, and that opposing a war from afar is a sign of personal cowardice and weakness. A "chicken hawk" is someone who not merely advocates a war, but believes that their advocacy is proof of the courage which those who will actually fight the war in combat require.
Just this week, Bill Kristol, writing in the Weekly Standard in order to urge U.S. intervention in the Israeli war, argued that those who want the U.S. to intervene in that war are "strong horses" and those who oppose such intervention are "weak horses." Accordingly, to Kristol, E.J. Dionne, Richard Cohen, and George Will are all "weak horses," because they wrote columns arguing against increased U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern wars. By contrast, Kristol is a "strong horse" because he wants to send other people off to fight in more wars.
Kristol believes that his desire for other people to go fight more wars in the Middle East makes him not only wise (which it might), but also courageous, resolute and "strong" (which it most certainly does not). The flaw in Kristol's perception is not that he wants the U.S. to fight a war which he does not plan to fight himself, but rather, that he assigns to himself the courage and strength of those who will actually fight the war, simply because he sits in his office, protected and safe, and advocates that the war be fought.
Over and over again, those who simply advocate a war in which the lives of other people will be risked label themselves strong and courageous. National Review's Cliff May this week argued that those who advocate wars are warriors every bit as much as those who actually fight them. Conversely, pro-war advocates frequently ascribe qualities of weakness, spinelessness, cowardice, hysteria, and anti-American subversiveness -- not to mention being “small hollow men [who] are the equivalent of those grubby little Nazis” -- to anyone who is against the war in Iraq or who favors an end to our occupation there sooner rather than later.
This dynamic requires criticism because it is so irrational, false and manipulative. There is nothing courageous or strong about wanting to send other people to war or to keep them in wars that have already been started. And there is nothing weak or cowardly about opposing the commencement of a war in which others will bear the risks. To the extent courage and cowardice play a role in war advocacy at all, one could argue that those who blithely want to send other people off to war in order to protect themselves against every potential risk are driven by fear and weakness. And those who are less fearful will require a much higher level of personal threat before believing that it is desirable and just to send other people off to risk their lives.
It is certainly true, as Jacoby argues, that whether someone has fought previously in a war neither proves nor disproves the wisdom of their foreign policy views, nor is prior military service a prerequisite for participating in debates over whether the U.S. should go to war. But one's views about whether the U.S. should fight a war that will bring little or no risk to the advocate has nothing to do with personal courage or strength. The term "101st Keyboard Brigade" mocks not those who merely support wars, but who strut around as though their support for the war means that they are fighting it, and who consequently apply the warrior attributes to themselves (and the coward/deserter attributes to war opponents).
A "chicken hawk" is one who strikes the pose of a warrior, who imputes the personal courage of a soldier in combat to themselves by virtue of the fact that they are in favor of sending that soldier off to war, or who parades around with the pretense of personal courage and resolve while assuming none of the risks. And a "chicken hawk" will, conversely, attempt to depict those who oppose such wars as being weak, spineless and cowardly even though the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.
There certainly is an argument to make that those who will incur the risks of war are more likely to think carefully and soberly about whether to start one than those who can urge on wars without risks. It is, for instance, much more difficult for Israelis to urge war with Lebanon than it is for Americans sitting comfortably out of reach of Hezbollah rockets to do so. And it was much more difficult for European monarchs to choose war when their own children would fight on the front lines than it is for American Senators and administration officials whose family members won't fight to make the same choice. And indeed, the Founders mandated in the Constitution that only Congress could declare war because they knew war would be less likely if those who bore the burden (which they assumed would be the nation's citizens) were required to approve of any wars. Despite all of that, one can still advocate a war in a risk-free position without being a "chicken hawk."
A "chicken hawk" is one who fails to recognize these logical principles by desperately equating advocacy of wars with fighting a war itself, or opposition to wars with running away from risks. "Chicken hawks" are not those who simply urge war without fighting in it, but who urge war and then pretend that doing so makes them courageous, powerful and strong. They are the ones who use dichotomies such as strong/weak, resolute/spineless, and courageous/cowardly to describe not those who fight or run away from wars, but those who encourage or oppose wars from a safe distance.
Yet another example of the intellectural fallacy of the black versus white distinctions that characterize the Bush administration and its strongest adherents.
ReplyDeleteThat's the best explanation of "chickenhawk" I've seen to date. I would add one thing: among the class of people you describe, "chickenhawk" is particularly applicable to those who had ample opportunity to fight in war and deliberately avoided it. To name a few examples, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, and Rush Limbaugh all sought deferments during Vietnam, yet today they pratically equate themselves with soldiers.
ReplyDeleteAh, the mis-states the opponamt's argument then aegue against the misstatment. A Republican classic.
ReplyDeleteWhile the depiction of chicken hawks doesn't exactly match the definition here, this classic This Modern World comic absolutely must be linked to somewhere in this conversation. :-)
ReplyDeleteAnother Chicken Hawk example:
ReplyDeleteMean Jean Schmit(spelling?) calling John Murtha a coward.
The other thing about this dynamic is that it's symptomatic of the on-going devaluation of the term "war." When everything is a war -- the "war" on drugs, for example, and yes, the "war" on terror -- we're all in the war if we support the cause. That rhetorical trick allows the "war" supporters to wear the mantle and share the courage of the warrior, I suppose. But really the term just loses its meaning.
ReplyDeleteUgh, more strawmen for these cowards to burn with a mix of righteous glee and solemn concern. What an accomplishment. Next time, he should visit reality and pontificate on that.
ReplyDeleteWiki, a collaberative effort, defines it thusly...
ReplyDeleteChickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.
Originally it was reserved for those who avoided combat but were pro-military and pro-war. All draft-dodgers could not by definition be considered chickenhawks.
There are civillians in Iraq and Lebanon and Vietnam and many other places that have seen more combat than any of the chickenhawks ever will. We all know what a chickenhawk is when we see one, even if it's hard to define.
Good essay, but it's worth noting that it's not exactly rare for Jeff Jacoby to distort something in order to attack it. Given the general weakness of his attacks, it's practically required.
ReplyDeleteIt's kind of sad that Jacoby is the Boston Globe's regular righty columnist. It'd be better for lefties in the Boston area to be challenged by an honest and intelligent conservative columnist. Even given the lowest-common-denominator echo-chamber nature of much of what passes for conservative commentating these days, Jacoby is strictly third-rate.
In my own views, I note two things:
ReplyDelete1) I've considered chickenhawks those types who not only ascribe personal strength to themselves in political positions that cost them nothing in terms of potential personal sacrifice, but also those that are not seemingly willing to put their money where their mouth is so to speak. The kind of person in a bar fight that stands at the edges egging on the fighter, but who would not jump into the fray to actually help.
2) Showing my age, I thought the term came from the Bugs Bunny cartoon with Foghorn Leghorn. "I'm a chickenhawk and you're a chicken!" The term being something that describes someone who can't see straight and yet makes proclamations that are false but believes in them simply because they are some proclaimed expert. It just so happens that the metaphor works well because in terms of political debate, chickenhawks make proclamations that others are weak (the "you're a chicken" part) when they in themselves are also weak when it comes to personal sacrifice for the cause.
As always though, a good essay to get me thinking to start my day from Mr. Greenwald.
Brilliant characterization. It neatly explains how the bedwetters at NRO and Pantload Media attract the chickenhawk label, but other pro-war columnists like Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan avoid it. Whether you agree with them or not on the issues, they don't affect the false glow of a roman centurion facing the barbarian hordes as does, say, a David "macho man" Frum or Mark Steyn, safe under their little beds.
ReplyDeleteJeff Jacoby has long been a jackass, and is obviously the Boston Globe's "affirmative action" showcase for the mentally impaired.
ReplyDeleteEaliest citation from wordspy
ReplyDeleteIn England during World War I, as thousands were dying pointlessly in the trenches, pretty girls went around handing white feathers — a symbol of cowardice — to men who weren't in uniform. The one group currently being handed white feathers who may deserve them are the so-called "war wimps" or "chicken hawks" — prominent Americans helping to spread war fever today who avoided service during Vietnam.
—"No white feather, please," The New Republic, June 16, 1986
There's also an earlier war-related sense that has a slightly different meaning: Someone who willingly goes to war, but who is also afraid of combat. This sense appears to have been coined by the writer Robert Mason in his 1983 Vietnam memoir, Chickenhawk:
It is to combat that Bob Mason is always drawn, no matter how frightened he feels (which is why he is both ''chicken'' and a ''hawk,'' therefore a ''chickenhawk'').
—Christopher Lehmann-Haupt, "Chickenhawk," The New York Times, August 4, 1983
http://www.awolbush.com/whoserved.html
ReplyDeleteCheck out the link above for an examination of who served in the military and who didn't.
Heh. Belligerati
ReplyDeleteDespite your definition, it would be hard to argue that the context of its use doesn't define the word. The only time the term seems to come up is during an argument/discussion about the war when an antiwar advocate seeks to end the argument with the following question, "If you support the war so much, why aren't you over there?" It seeks to paint a negative picture and nullify an argument as baseless. It's basically Bush's "more liberal than Ted Kennedy" argument from the 2004 election with a different coat of paint.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm not a linguist or professional writer, so that pretty much nullifies my opinion right there.
:)
... the war opponents are not seeking to avoid any personal risk to themselves, but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but to be complete it should have said: but instead, are arguing against subjecting their fellow citizens and other innocent people(s) to what they perceive are unnecessary dangers.
The only time the term seems to come up is during an argument/discussion about the war when an antiwar advocate seeks to end the argument with the following question, "If you support the war so much, why aren't you over there?"
ReplyDeleteI acknowledged that some misuse the term as you describe, but I think you will find that, more often than not, the term is used against those who merely advocate a war, but against those who state or imply that their support for the war makes them strong and resolute and those who oppose the war are weak, spineless appeasers.
Glenn, you're one of my favorite bloggers. But you need to get in touch with your inner editor. This is intended as constructive criticism. This post is 5 times longer than it needs to be and simply repeats itself for impact. Many of your posts exhibit this trait. They will have more impact if they are briefer and less redundant. Just my 2 cents.
ReplyDeleteI had to pause while reading Jacoby's piece to note that he offers a particularly snide false choice about civilian control of the military: "On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust [the troops'] judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Jacoby says that because he's too dumb to understand the concept of civilian control of the military (hint: it's a building block of democracy, so probably not) or because he wants to sound like an asshole, but I think it's another brick in the wall the Right is building between themselves and their domestic opponents, and they're trying to keep Democrats from making any inroads on national security issues even when the golden boy of conservativism has screwed things up so badly, so thoroughly.
Or maybe Jacoby just saw Cliff May's claim that writing about the war is just as much a part of the fight as serving in the military, and wanted to qualify for an enlistment bonus by enlisting his pasty fat ass from the op-ed pages where he's risking nothing but heartburn as he reviews reader responses.
Chicken hawk describes the Bush/Rove smear of Kerry, swiftboating lies that went way over the line. Bush was snorting coke at some keg party while Kerry was in combat. And as posted above it seems as though all of the cheerleaders of our adventure in Iraq did everything possible to not serve in South East Asia when they had a chance and those that chose to go without getting drafted are now cowards. The wacko right wingers are just experts at framing the message and now wish to frame "chicken hawk" as an insult when it is the perfect description of these cowards.
ReplyDeleteWell said... it also helps show what's wrong with people proclaiming Bush to be a strong, courageous leader.
ReplyDeleteInitially "chicken hawk" was used to describe the chest beating pea brains who took a walk (or flew a desk from the safety of stateside) when it was their turn to defend our country, but now that their ass is safe and sound, they're in a blood-lust frenzy about sending other people to die.
ReplyDeleteIt's also been expanded to people who do their flag-waving from a comfy chair in front of Fox News.
If they ever were actually called up to serve, they'd be hidden so far under their bed that you'd have to tear the house down around them to get them out.
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteI think you're unnecessarily constricting a perfectly good slur. My understanding of "chickenhawk" is that it describes a peculiar species of "hawk" (advocate of war) who revealed that he (or sometimes she) was "chicken" when faced with his or her own opportunity to do some fighting.
The most prominent example, even after Dan Rather's implosion, is the president of the United States. He advocates war, but he and his daddy and a host of enablers made sure that his military service would be safe, warm, and short. He's a chickenhawk.
The slur also applies quite accurately to the vice president of the United States, who unashamedly cites "other priorities" as the cause for his detour from a chance to demonstrate his heroism.
You'll find more fully qualified chickenhawks throughout the current administration and among those egging it on from the even-more-profitable sidelines. Where were the PNACers when they had a chance to participate in a shooting war that they supported?
If you are of military age (up to 42 now?) and you're an advocate of any war, it is incumbent on you to explain why you're not over there helping out. You're not a chickenhawk if you simply support the troops. You're not even a chickenhawk if you support the war but keep quiet about it. But if you support the war and you won't serve, or didn't when you could, maybe you need to shut up.
The reasoning is simple and familiar: Only a selfish, unfeeling, spoiled, scheming ass tells others to take risks that he is unwilling to assume himself. "Chickenhawk" is actually kind of gentle.
I agree with the comment about your inner editor. I was thinking the same thing when I finished reading this, way, way too redundant. You restate the distinction between risk free advocate and chicken hawk multiple times. Because I was curious and wanted to know if my criticism was warranted or not, I edited it down myself in word. It went from 1242 words to 912 without losing any concepts or points. (approximately a 25% reduction)
ReplyDeleteI have always maintained that those who advocate the rush to war (or other violent military action) have serious misconceptions, or even misguided romantic notions, about what inevitably occurs during such actions.
ReplyDeleteWar really is hell -- and until the U.S. government is run by those who possess true respect for its consequences the U.S. military will continue to be misused and abused by its civilian leaders.
I humbly submit that possession of these romantic notions, including 'noble' wars, be included in the definition of Chickenhawk. It is these romantic notions that contribute to the delusions of bravery and strength these individuals clearly espouse.
Divorced from reality, anyone?
MSNBC online first reported that Hezbollah had captured Israeli soldiers "inside" Lebanon, only to change their story hours later after the Israeli government gave an official statement to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteHold on here. Were the two Israeli soldiers really "kidnapped" in Israel or were they "captured" in Lebanon? Seems like that is something the Israeli people deserve to know before they throw away the lives of their own citizens because they have been bamboozled by the caravan.
Joshua Frank is to my mind another rising star in the legion of truth tellers as in Glenn. Glenn is a lawyer and Joshua Frank seems to be a crack investigative reporter.
Remember the days when there were investigative reporters before the field became obsolete and was replaced with stenographers?
As for chicken hawks:
I have always been vehemently opposed to a "draft" which I always considered an obscenity.
I might reconsider now however if instituting a draft is the only way to stop the insanity. Perhaps a draft would quickly sober up these Americans who are so quick to holler "nuke 'em."
The problem of course is the collateral damage of innocent people being drafted, too big a problem to argue for a draft no doubt. But if it were all the children of our politicians and pro-war pundits, I'd say 'right on'.
BTW, has anyone been reading the articles of high school students being contacted privately by the Government seeking to enlist them? How did the government get those names, it is asked. There are procedures for recruiting that the government apparently is now going around.
Some have speculated that illegal spying is being used to collect such names of possible recruits.
Glenn, I thought you'd be interested that you describe exactly what John Randolph of Roanoke identified almost 200 years ago:
ReplyDelete"There are not wanting men so weak as to suppose that their approbation of warlike measures is a proof of personal gallantry, and that opposition to them indicates a want of that spirit which becomes a friend of his country; as if it required more courage and patriotism to join in the acclamation of the day, than steadily to oppose one's self to the mad infatuation to which every people and all governments have, at some time or other, given way." Public letter, 30 May 1812.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteGlenn, you're one of my favorite bloggers. But you need to get in touch with your inner editor. This is intended as constructive criticism. This post is 5 times longer than it needs to be and simply repeats itself for impact. Many of your posts exhibit this trait. They will have more impact if they are briefer and less redundant. Just my 2 cents.
Maybe you've noticed that Glenn doesn't use Photoshop. Maybe you can show him how it's done someday, by inviting us to your blog.
Paul Rosenberg said...
ReplyDeleteAs An Editor...
I'm a newspaper editor. You're free to disagree with me, but from my perspective, those who say Glenn needs an editor are mistaken.
Paul,
You have to give him credit for the most unique attempt to silence someone or lessen the impact I have yet seen.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf you are of military age (up to 42 now?) and you're an advocate of any war, it is incumbent on you to explain why you're not over there helping out.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't this apply, then, to the vast majority of Americans -- Republican and Democrat -- who supported the war in Afghanistan, or the first Persian Gulf War, without having fought in those wars?
Glenn Greenwald said...
ReplyDeleteIf you are of military age (up to 42 now?) and you're an advocate of any war, it is incumbent on you to explain why you're not over there helping out.
Doesn't this apply, then, to the vast majority of Americans -- Republican and Democrat -- who supported the war in Afghanistan, or the first Persian Gulf War, without having fought in those wars?
Up to 42 and much lower standards. No thank you. We need higher standards for our professional military, and law enforcement. There are far too many people now in uniform who we will come to regret having given them this awful responsibility, and in the case of the military, the specialized training. You advocacy for or against is irrelevant unless you have used undue influence in the past to avoid service and now advocate that others go in your stead. It was more of an issue when we had a draft. The all volunteer army was working just fine until these chickenhawks decided to play games with it that they themselves wouldn't partake in.
Mr. Greenwald's description of a chickenhawk also seems to meld quite well with the, "support the troops," bludgeon the right likes to wield. Supporting the troops is just a phrase to be bandied about or stuck to the back of your car. It needs no substantive actions tied to it.
ReplyDeleteAbout the EDITORS/Redundancy point - I was going to address this because it raises some interesting issues, but Paul Rosenberg made many of the points I wanted to, but I will add this:
ReplyDeleteMost bloggers create content on a daily basis without an editor. Some produce multiple short posts that are easier to edit, and some write long essays that are much more difficult to edit. The blog format means that the language is likely to be less clean, crisp, and perfect than, to use Paul's example, a newspaper columnist who produces 1 or 2 heavily edited 300-word columns each week.
Beyond that, blogging is often a way to work out ideas before they are ready to be perfectly expressed. The point made in this post, for instance, is something I've been thinking about for awhile, and I alluded to it in several different posts in the past, but never really sat down and tried to articulate this idea until today.
It's not an easy point to make with precision - and I haven't really seen it made in the way I wanted to make it - and so I tried to get at it several different ways.
Granted, the risk of that is redundancy or a post that is longer than it needs to be. But I prefer that risk to the risk of skipping over premises to get to a conclusion quickly, or reasoning incompletely, or cheating in the argument by omitting ambiguities or opposing arguments, or failing to make a point clearly.
Could I posts be shorter at times? Sure, of course. No writer is perfect and everyone could benefit from an editor. My book, for instance, is concise because it had the benefit of rigorous editing over several weeks.
But the blogging format is sometimes impressionistic and rough and doesn't lend itself to unveiling perfectly carved products on a daily basis.
I generally assume that the people who read my blog prefer longer posts (or, in this case, comments) that emphasize the reasoning behind the conclusions to shorter posts which are designed to rally the converted, or make quick snarky insults, or assert conclusions which most people already agree with in advance. Each blogging styles has benefits and risks but I prefer this style, even at the risk of being vebose and redundant at times.
White supremacists enlisting in military, watchdog report says
ReplyDeleteAryan Nations graffiti in Baghdad
The NYTimes or the WaPo covered this as well. We are going to have serious blowback again, like OKC.
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range.
ReplyDeleteGlenn the length of this post or any other you have written has never been a problem for me and I would imagine many others that lurk or contribute to your blog. Many thanks for your great efforts, the format doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteMatthews on Imus: Pencil Neck Foreign Policy
ReplyDelete"even at the risk of being vebose and redundant at times."
ReplyDeleteHey, it's just your legal background shining through. I don't think anyone should complain unless you start including 400 pages of exhibits and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities.
;-)
In response to my anonymous
ReplyDeleteIf you are of military age (up to 42 now?) and you're an advocate of any war, it is incumbent on you to explain why you're not over there helping out.
Glenn asks:
Doesn't this apply, then, to the vast majority of Americans -- Republican and Democrat -- who supported the war in Afghanistan, or the first Persian Gulf War, without having fought in those wars?
My anonymous response:
In a word: Yes.
At more length: I'm not saying that you must participate, share the risk on the front lines. I'm saying you should explain. If you can't explain, then maybe you should take another look at your advocacy.
More colloquially: Are you saying that you want to start a war in Afghanistan, Iraq . . . hell, the whole damn Middle East, that others should fight it, but that you're too old, too weak, too rich, too smart, or too frightened to go yourself?
The issue becomes particularly awkward when you're talking about attacking a nation that has not attacked you. More so when you're advocating attack under false pretenses (causes as well as objectives).
Kung Fu Monkey has another take on the Chicken Hawk phenom that I find to be useful and very satisfying, if not quite so sincere as Glen's. It's worth the trip.
ReplyDeleteOuch. You smacked 'im, Glenn. That was fun to read.
ReplyDeleteAll I can say is must suck to be almost smart, and yet a nimble typist. That, and He had to bring it up, d'int he?
Anyway, I take that all back. I'm a nimble typist, too. I think the 37 year old Black Sabbath tune War Pigs still paints the story as clearly as I ever could.
Generals gathered in their masses
Just like witches at black masses
Evil minds that plot destruction
Sorcerers of deaths construction
In the fields the bodies burning
As the war machine keeps turning
Death and hatred to mankind
Poisoning their brainwashed minds...
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor!
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait till their judgement day comes, yeah!
...
Glenn, good words in the comments on posts, the blogging format, etc. I agree. We here understand your style. It works. And we understand the drawbacks of blogging on a regular basis. And there are totally different styles. Like Manuel Valenzuela's! He posts every few months and I wait for his posts like candy. Eschaton is pure snark and links and Digby is a lot of quoting and smart thought out commentary (but not as chewed over and well phrased as yours, which also has the scholarly, Queens-English, Constitutional law tint) and with fire. Sorry for that poor grammar.
ReplyDeleteI love that there are so many different styles out there. And when you find bloggers who have styles that don't mesh with yours, you move on. Find some who do.
Mark Field said, "Glenn, I thought you'd be interested that you describe exactly what John Randolph of Roanoke identified almost 200 years ago:
ReplyDelete'There are not wanting men so weak as to suppose that their approbation of warlike measures is a proof of personal gallantry, and that opposition to them indicates a want of that spirit which becomes a friend of his country; as if it required more courage and patriotism to join in the acclamation of the day, than steadily to oppose one's self to the mad infatuation to which every people and all governments have, at some time or other, given way.' Public letter, 30 May 1812."
Here's an even earlier citation of the whole phenonemon we're witnessing today:
"The meaning of words had no longer the same relation to things, but was changed by them as they thought proper. Reckless daring was held to be loyal courage; prudent delay was the excuse of a coward; moderation was the disguise of unmanly weakness; to know everything was to do nothing. Frantic energy was the true quality of a man."
Thucydides, "History of the Peloponnesian War"
Never seen it explained so clearly.
ReplyDeleteDamn you must make your ennemies nuts.
I am so ashamed that I wasted my vote on George Bush. What was I thinking? Why did I let my right wing extremist, neo-conservative, neo-evangelical thinking get in the way of exercising sound personal judgment when I entered that voting booth?
ReplyDeleteGrowing up, I was led to believe that the Republican Party was a grass roots party of the people & for the people. In retrospect, it is clear that the last 3 presidents produced by the Republican Party were nothing more then the rich man’s rich man hiding under the disguise of the jingoistic patriotism and the lie of conservative values. The economic dark ages of reagonomics fleeced the middle and lower classes of this county simply to benefit the rich and wealthy and waste money on unnecessary unconstitutional military actions. George Sr. carried that same self-serving torch. George Jr. has quietly shifted this country back to those dark ages. Bush inherited a strong economy and squandered that real quick. And even though 9 -11 did happen, none of bush’s reckless decisions are in any way justified by that day in history. It is clear that he never had any real salient foreign & domestic policies when he became president in 2000. Bush and Cheney have pimped the Presidency and turned the senate into an auction house for legislation to the highest bidder.
Now we have 3 more years of neoconservative republican lies and a growing body count overseas. When are people going to wake up to the truth that neoconservative political philosophy does not work for anyone but the rich and wealthy at the top? When are people in the USA going to wake up to the fact that neoconservative republican political philosophy does not even cross paths with reality? Anyone who believes George war bush’s lies about promoting democracy in these Middle Eastern Islamic states is living in serious denial of reality. Those who believe bush’s lies are simply easy pickins and victims of logical fallacies. Historians and political scholars realize that to impose such changes on another country takes decades and that is only if it seriously adopted. Also, the very definition of democracy is not something that the United States has any claim of ownership to. But then, if one looks at Bush’s view of democracy, it more closely resembles Mexico where you have a small richt elite ruling class and no middle class. In short, a plutocracy.
If we ever actually do get out of Iraq, nothing will have changed and nothing will have been gained. The American people have never been given a specific objective in Iraq or a clear definition of exactly what “victory in Iraq” is from the president. Invading Iraq never had anything to do with, WMD, freeing the Iraqi people or making Americans safer and secure. Statements about WMD, Freeing Iraq or Making America Safer are nothing more then a neo-conservative marketing spin used to hide the ugly truth and make the lies palatable to the American public and justifiable to the red necks who voted for him. Bush likes to make statements such as “It’s worth the price” but he never says just what exactly “it” is. If he really believes that all of his waste of human lives and our tax dollars are worth it, then he should put his money where his mouth is and send his little party animals to go fight in Iraq. Isn’t it strange how all these young republican youths that get interviewed claim to be for Bush’s private pseudo war, but very few if any at all are willing to enlist in the military???
I for one am tired of our political party making all these huge messes that have historically fallen to Democrats to clean up. Clinton took the 2 trillion dollar deficit economy that he inherited from our boys Reagan & Bush Sr. and prospered the country into one with a surplus without overtaxing the middle and lower classes.
The republican party claims to be for smaller less wasteful government but the current administration is responsible for the waste of more money, resources and human lives then any past democrat presidency. I have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that the blood of Americans and innocent Iraqi civilians is on my hands and the hands of those who voted for Cheney….I mean Bush. The real legacy of the bush administration is going to be one characterized by lots of wrongful deaths, lots of money and resources wasted, unnecessary tax increases for our children and grandchildren and the unnecessary destruction of various social programs that were never in need of fixing or eliminating to begin with.
Thanks to bush and his power hungry cabinet who all want to control congress, the senate & the Supreme Court, the USA is now a third world country hiding behind a lie of prosperity and so called personal ownership. In retrospect, I seem to own less now under this administration of “personal ownership” then I did during Bill Clinton’s presidency.
Thanks to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their puppets, the USA is now a huge debtor country. The only ones with real ownership as a result of the current presidential administration are the rich and elite. Now that the USA owes all these hundreds of millions of dollars to countries like China, Germany, Russia & Japan, I wonder which language I need to learn for the day when these countries come to collect…
Respectfully,
Leroy
PS: Farwell Party…I’m now an independent.
It's really quite simple.
ReplyDeleteA "chicken hawk" is someone who cheers the use of military force both overt and covert, yet is unwilling to take a part in the dirty work and expects others to do it for him/her.
Typically such "chicken hawks" also will criticize any view which opposes that use of military force as an "appeaser" or "terrorist sympathizer" or "weak, spineless simp" or suchlike. Where the critic is of suitable age and fitness to perform military service in the desired theater, this only serves to amplify the applicability of the "chicken hawk" label.
Jacoby was trying to re-define "Chicken Hawk" to make the argument suit his own perspective. Jacoby is obnoxiously defining a term that he himself would not use, but instead might find used against him. The fact that anyone could take Jacoby's recasting seriously is indicative of the sad state of the collective American intellect.
Thanks for posts like this Glenn. I read UT daily, and posts like this--and the legal insight into the stuff the current administration is trying to slip past us--are the primary reason I keep coming back.
ReplyDeleteI don't know the ettiquette of linking to other blogs in the comments of a blog, so if this is gauche, please forgive me. John Rogers has posted on this same topic a while back, and I think would make a nice bookend to this post. It's far angrier, and quite a bit funnier (John is a comedian by trade), than this post...but no less reasoned. Sometimes you need the calm, dispassionate approach (which is why I keep coming back here), but sometimes you need to just go all Network on something and let everyone know you're not going to take it anymore.
The following definition was the first one I ran across, at the New Hampshire Gazette, which maintains a database of chickenhawks at this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nhgazette.com/news/chickenhawks/
Chickenhawk n. A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI'm an editor as well, and while I appreciate the need for a good editor, particularly in certain contexts, I just wanted to chime in and say I have had no problem with the length of your posts (not that you need my approval), not only for the contextual reasons already mentioned (Intarweb), but also because a lot of the complicated discussion sometimes zips right past my (admittedly) slow uptake, so I like the full explanation as I sometimes need several reads to digest it all.
Thanks for your time and effort.
Rob
The post by John Rogers is superb.
ReplyDeleteYeah, The Argument Against a Misdefinition™ is one of the classics of Right-Wing Republican Debate. But I also love The False Dichotomy™, The Loyalty to the Commander-in-Chief™, The Appeal to Tradition™, The Stunningly Hypocritical Charge™, Thinly Veiled Racism™, The Appeal to Patriotism™, The Extrapolated Anecdote™, The Appeal to Religion™, Us vs. Them™, and Outright Bullying™.
ReplyDeleteI think that Kristol, Krauthammer and others who advocate that we open a new front in the Middle East, should be required to visit Iraq before they open their pie holes.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they'd learn something!
Glenn
ReplyDeleteAs a non-english reader of your blog I can assure you that the lenght of your post is perfect for the concepts you always deliver so clearly.
Keep up the great work !
I tend to also apply the term to another category of folks - those who denigrate the service of former servicepeople - John Kerry, Max Cleland, John Murtha, etc - but have never served themselves.
ReplyDeleteI think, though, I'm using the term incorrectly. The putrid maggots who do this deserve a much stronger label than chickenhawk.
Maybe something like, hmm, "putrid maggots"?
Two points:
ReplyDeleteGlenn, redundancy can be a good thing, especially when you're emphasizing a point. As a ghostwriter and editor myself, I can appreciate the time it must take you to craft your postings. They are usually always clear, well thought out, and articulate. And while they sometimes could be shorter, well, it's a blog, not a graded essay or a newspaper column.
doodleflicker:
I take some issue with your comments about the Support the Troops bumpersticker. Not all of us "bandy it about" in a chickenhawkish kind of way. I am anti-war, but have a stepson who is a Navy chaplain and was with the Marines in Ramadi in 2004-05, and I have a grandson who is a Marine scheduled for deployment at Al Asad in September. I have that bumpersticker on my car because I'm proud of my guys even tho' we're at loggerheads politically. I think that the current administration is using our volunteer military in thoughtless, careless, and stupid ways, and I'm totally disgusted with the Iraq adventure, but I have a good idea now of what our troops face over there everyday--at least the ones stuck in Al Anbar province--and for trying hard to do a thankless task, they have my prayers, love, and admiration. And I guess I'm not afraid to show it, even tho' I run the risk of sane folks like you associating me with those disgusting chickenhawks!
Glenn,
ReplyDeleteThis is some damned post! Yes, yes--clear logical, thoughtful, all that.
But did you notice--no bart, no al, no major! Your detractors can't think of anything to say. . . . Now THAT's good blogging!
To borrow from the billboard blogger, (paraphrased) "I refuse to go to a war conducted by people who refused to go to war."
ReplyDeleteAnother vote for the inner (or outer) editor to be given a promotion.
ReplyDeleteA quick edit, just the basics, took that post down to about 650 words.
For me, there's a second axis that helps define the chickenhawk position, and that's how important the speaker claims the war is. If someone says that this war is a uniquely important one, that Western civilization itself will be destroyed if it isn't won, but doesn't join the fight, then the resulting disparity between word and action will bring to mind the fake-macho blowhard.
ReplyDeleteAnother vote for the inner (or outer) editor to be given a promotion.
ReplyDeleteA quick edit, just the basics, took that post down to about 650 words.
My blogging style isn't up for a vote. I explained why I prefer that style because it raised what I think is an interesting discussion about the blogging format, but if you like short posts - "just the basics" - there are plenty of blogs to satisfy your taste.
Glenn, It's getting late in the thread, so I don't know if you're still checking in, but, off topic, I'd love to hear your opinion of this story, linked to today on HuffPo with the headline:
ReplyDeleteSPECTER PREPPING BILL TO SUE BUSH
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060724/D8J2LC50B.html
Considering how Specter predictably caved in to the administration on the NSA bill, it seems an almost certainty that this bill that he is "prepping" will only serve to protect the administration from lawsuits.
Again, I'd appreciate your professional opinion.
--Todd A.
I, too, was wondering where the resident Bu'ushists are.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they're too busy watching Fox and having another wargasm.
Excellent post, perfectly first-rate.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, Glenn's long-post style is fine considering there are plenty of short-post alternatives.
bukctheliberaldog said: "I am anti-war, but have a stepson who is a Navy chaplain and was with the Marines in Ramadi in 2004-05, and I have a grandson who is a Marine scheduled for deployment at Al Asad in September."
ReplyDeleteI hear ya. One of my brothers was in the first Iraq go-'round in '90-'91, and one of my best friends just got back from a tour flying helicopters over there. Hang in there. Tell your grandson and stepson, "Thanks for serving" and what I close my emails to my pilot buddy with: "Fly low, fly fast, fight hard, stay safe, come home."
Rob
Bucktheliberaldog,
ReplyDeleteI believe you might be an exception.
I was referring to what I believe to be a bit of jingoistic bandwagoneering. A person slaps a sticker on their car and that's all they do. They don't actually care when VA hospitals are closed. They don't care when troop benefits are cut. They don't care when our troops are using inferior equipment. They just don't care. It's difficult to care.
ouish said: "If someone says that this war is a uniquely important one, that Western civilization itself will be destroyed if it isn't won, but doesn't join the fight, then the resulting disparity between word and action will bring to mind the fake-macho blowhard."
ReplyDeleteOh, that's good.
Rob
damn that FDR. what a chicken hawk.
ReplyDeleteWe need more Teddy R.'s!!
I agree absolutely!
Glenn:
ReplyDeleteA side benefit of the length of your posts is the quality of your commenters. You've managed to build a fascinating community here. Don't change a thing.
I think the fact that even Glenn's supporters here can't seem to quite agree about whether his definition of "chickenhawk" is right or not illustrates the problem nicely. What's the straight answer? I don't see one here.
ReplyDeleteIf you're a chickenhawk any time you vocally support a military action (whether publicly or privately) that you didn't fight yourself, then what good is civilian control of an all-volunteer military? Why do we even have such a thing, if it's considered despicable to participate in the civilian side of the process? Do we really need to mobilize the entire nation in order to perform any military action whatsoever? (This is not a rhetorical question. And yes, I'm well aware of the military's recruiting tacics and the monetary and vocational needs of many young men and women.)
For example, I support my local police department. Am I a coward for failing to sign up for the force? (This is not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.)
Glenn says you're only a chickenhawk if you leech off the bravery of others. Others say you're a chickenhawk any time you take deliberate steps to avoid service. Others say you're a chickenhawk any time you don't "keep quiet" (? what does that mean?) about supporting a military action. And others say you're a chickenhawk any time at all that you support military action in any way and haven't signed up for the military. So, which is it? How come I can't find a straight answer here?
If anyone cares, my two cents is, in the current environment (no draft), Glenn's position is basically the right one--that is, it's an attitude thing. In other words, constant, public, and vocal humility and gratitude for our volunteer military go a long, long way, if you're advocating military action.
ReplyDeleteIn a draft, it's different, and then I think maybe you could start telling people they might need to put their money where their mouth was, even if they had the right attitude.
I think "Chickenhawk," too has had a very specific Vietnam Era definition that doesn't exactly apply today, what with different styles of media and rate of communication, and O, just everything that has changed. So, I can appreciate that it needs to be redefined in regards to the "Fighting 101st" etc type of chickenhawkery
ReplyDelete...this is mostly a reply to the person above who dissented. I feel I can understand their difference of opinion on the "classic definition" (quoting my own mind here), with what Glenn now offers.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteGlenn says you're only a chickenhawk if you leech off the bravery of others.
ReplyDeleteGathering what I can from Glenn's post, I would say that bravery is the issue. What takes bravery is bucking the tide of popular opinion when it matters. To oppose the Iraq war now is smart but not necesarily brave. To oppose it in 2003 when it actually mattered and when the bandwagon was rolling required courage. To cheerlead from the sidelines was always the safest choice.
From some guy at 6:43pm:
ReplyDeleteHow come I can't find a straight answer here?
Because, quite honestly, there isn't one.
All the definitions you cite are accurate, depending upon circumstances, context, and POV.
May I suggest a useful rule of thumb: those who call for war but decline to fight it are worthy only of ridicule. "Chickenhawk" is perhaps the gentlest name they've earned.
"those who call for war but decline to fight it are worthy only of ridicule."
ReplyDeleteYeah, but yankee, again: I call for the police to protect my neighborhood, with guns if necessary. Am I a coward for not being a police officer myself?
I mean, it's not a bad rule of thumb, but I just don't see it applying in a lot of cases.
For that matter, what about the case of those who didn't call for war but who now support "staying the course" or whatever they want to call it (like some Democrats, for example)? Are they chickenhawks?
ReplyDeleteOr, what about someone who supported the peacekeeping mission in Kosovo? (After the bombing campaign, I mean.) Is that calling for war or not? I'm not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just saying a lot of situations seem more complicated than a simple "call for war", that's all.
How come I can't find a straight answer here?
ReplyDeleteHow come you can't pose a straight question? All I see is you running through the strawmen to cover the fact that you may be a coward.
Is your police department volunteer? No? It's not the same thing then - is it?
I've heard Yellow Elephants make the excuse that they can root for a baseball team without playing the game. See? It's all a giant game to them they can cheer safely in front their television set. They do the cheering and the armchair quarterbacking while someone else does the bleeding and dying.
If you can come up with a dozen bunch of excuses why you're too precious to spill your own blood in defense of the country you claim to "love". Then YES you are a chickenhawk in it's purest form - to wit, a coward.
I have to disagree with Glenn. A chickenhawk is someone who advocates war but is unwilling to sacrifice ANYTHING for it. That sacrifice can be (1) military service OR (2) a willingness to pay higher taxes (instead of borrowing the $BILLIONS from the Chinese).
ReplyDeletePEACE-keeping missions: hideous muddles started by other people. Not this cluster fuck Chimpy lied us into.
ReplyDeleteFrom some guy at 7:05pm:
ReplyDeleteYeah, but yankee, again: I call for the police to protect my neighborhood, with guns if necessary. Am I a coward for not being a police officer myself?
No, its not a matter of cowardice. First, you would not be likely calling the police to do something like, say, attack and destroy the house of a neighbor who, while perhaps unpleasant in personality, has yet to show themselves to be a danger to you or yours.
No, when you call the police it is presumably so the professionals can deal with a situation they are specifically trained for. That you yourself have not elected to train to be a policeman, for whatever reason, is a personal choice that you yourself must live with.
Similarly, we do expect our soldiers (trained professionals all) to fight when called, risk their lives to achieve whatever objective they are ordered to seek. That is the profession they have chosen, complete with its inherent responsibilities.
Which is why it is all the more important their lives not be wasted pursuing wars of choice or crusades for the personal or emotional vanity of old men. Those who encourage either without being equally willing to share the risks are, again, worthy only of contempt. Their consciences, if they have one, clearly don't bother them overmuch.
"All I see is you running through the strawmen to cover the fact that you may be a coward."
ReplyDeleteHey, back off--and don't make so many assumptions, either.
"Is your police department volunteer? No? It's not the same thing then - is it?"
I don't get it. Of course my police department is volunteer. They all are. So how does that make it different?
"I've heard Yellow Elephants make the excuse that they can root for a baseball team without playing the game. See? It's all a giant game to them they can cheer safely in front their television set."
Obviously this is totally lame and completely against my position, which I've stated.
"If you can come up with a dozen bunch of excuses why you're too precious to spill your own blood in defense of the country you claim to "love". Then YES you are a chickenhawk in it's purest form - to wit, a coward."
Fair enough. But let's say someone doesn't support the war (or any war, for that matter), even though they love their country. Are they still a chickenhawk?
Or, let's say they admitted it--"I'm a coward, and I support the war." Ok, so...how am I supposed to feel about them?
Glenn, a few related points. I do agree that this particular post does get repetitive, and to some of the other commentators, I hardly think it makes one a troll to mention that in a respectful act of constructive criticism.
ReplyDeleteBut that's a minor issue. The post itself makes a number of great points, skewering Jacoby for his straw man argument and painting a very accurate and useful picture of chickenhawks.
Lastly, as you mention, one of the reasons I come to this blog is precisely because you tend to write exhaustive, definitive essays versus short blurbs or merely linking to some other piece. Blogging is especially tough for perfectionists. But if anyone writes a substantive blog entry every day, especially if he or she has to work some other day job as well, it's unfair to compare his or her work to that of a newspaper columnist. For god's sake, Richard Cohen is often clearly struggling to come up with a subject and will produce inane drivel, despite the fact that he doesn't write as much or as frequently.
In the blogosphere, content takes precedence over style - and newspapers could take a pointer from the best blogs as to content, at least for their columnists.
(That being said, frankly I find your prose quite tight, focused and eloquent much of the time, all the more so in your book with the benefit of greater time to revise.)
"Which is why it is all the more important their lives not be wasted pursuing wars of choice or crusades for the personal or emotional vanity of old men. Those who encourage either without being equally willing to share the risks are, again, worthy only of contempt. Their consciences, if they have one, clearly don't bother them overmuch."
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more. But let's say that Saddam Hussein had appeared on TV live holding a nuke and yelling "Don't make me use this!" and then he went out and threw some poison gas around which we caught on satellite, and the UN passed a unanimous resolution begging the nations of the world to stand together against this tyrant and invade, so we joined our forces together and invaded...
Would someone be a chickenhawk if they supported that action, but didn't sign up? Seriously--I'm interested in knowing.
Another excellent analysis, Glenn. I've encountered similar attempts by the wingnuts to change the definition of "Chickenhawk".
ReplyDeleteThis post is as good an actual definition as any I've seen...
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnother vote for the inner (or outer) editor to be given a promotion.
A quick edit, just the basics, took that post down to about 650 words.
Jeebus! Who are you people? No one gives a shit if you have the attention span of two year old. If you can't follow along or don't like the posts then don't read them. Either way take your ADD meds and keep your petty whining to yourself.
Is that all Americans know how to do nowadays - bitch? Glenn owes you what exactly? Grow up.
Ladies and gentlemen, in the odd event that you've never seen this, I present Commander Chickenhawk. (The Commander Codpiece moniker also came from this series of pictures.)
ReplyDeletehttp://josemarquez.com/mission_accomplished.jpg
I'm shocked - shocked I tell you - that Jacoby based his whole argument on a misleading definition of chicken hawk.
ReplyDeleteNext you'll tell me that, in writing this masterwork, he tapped into rage disproportionate to the topic and perhaps even puts forth opinion as quantifiable fact.
I'm sure Hugh Hewitt, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg and the rest will bring him to heel.
Since the right does such a smashing job policing itself.
Seriously, your definition is a good one. I'm of the mind that, if you constantly need to point out how courageous and tough-minded you are, then you probably aren't.
From some guy at 7:37pm:
ReplyDeleteWould someone be a chickenhawk if they supported that action, but didn't sign up? Seriously--I'm interested in knowing.
Leaving aside the sheer ridiculousness of your counter-example, I personally wouldn't call it cowardice to support military action under those circumstances even if you didn't immediately sign up. Now if things went south during the invasion or afterwards and the threat was still there, that might be a different story, but I'll leave that alone for the moment.
Ultimately, its less a question of simply calling for war but refusing to sign up to fight it. The cause itself should be considered equally from the start. Are our vital interests going to be served by the call to war at a particular time and place in service of a particular cause, or further undermined?
You can see where I'm going with this, yes?
Some Guy said...
ReplyDelete"Yeah, but yankee, again: I call for the police to protect my neighborhood, with guns if necessary. Am I a coward for not being a police officer myself?"
I think this is a flawed analogy, far to simplistic to describe the situation in the Middle East.
A better way to put it would have been: "I call for the Minneapolis police to attack the St. Paul police because someone said they have some sort of massive weapon pointed at us, even though all evidence points to the contrary. If innocent local residents in St. Paul get killed or injured in the attacks, then that is the fault of the St. Paul police for not turning over the massive weapon, which we now acknowledge never existed. Nevertheless, it is clear that St. Paul police are really corrupt, so the city will be better off being patroled by Mpls cops, even though we will no longer have enough cops on the streets to control crime in Mpls.
Anyone who disagrees with this is a weak, moonbat, spineless traitor!"
I don't mean to be a jerk either, some guy, but I just don't think your analogy is relevant.
That said, I think this is a somewhat pointless debate, arguing about what an insult really means.
BTW, bonus points if you guess what city I live in:)
yankee--
ReplyDelete"You can see where I'm going with this, yes?"
Sure--I guess I would just call that a question of attitude. But maybe that's just my own way of seeing it. I'd agree I'm kind of splitting hairs at this point.
anonymous--
"I don't mean to be a jerk either, some guy, but I just don't think your analogy is relevant."
Well, see what I said to yankee--I think your answer makes it a question of attitude, but you're right, it's probably not worth arguing about at this point.
If Kristol actual sacrificed something for this war (money, a child, etc) then you could say he had courage to support it. It takes no courage if he has nothing to lose. Seeing as he likely was a beneficiary of the tax cut largesse of this administration, more than likely he has only gained from the policies these fools have promoted.
ReplyDeleteO/T Important
ReplyDeleteNSA Lawsuit dismissed ("National Security" reasons)
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8J37TP00.htm?sub=apn_tech_down&chan=tc
7:58 PM
Can I post some good things about you here?
ReplyDeleteJust call me Al.
Nice post. Good points. However, I like Jacoby's definition of chickenhawk because its more inclusive.
ReplyDeleteMy definition of chickenhawks are those that advocate sending others to figt a war that they wouldn't fight themselves if they were otherwise qualified for military service.
That includes the College Republicans and pundits such as Jonah Goldberg, most of whom are qualified by age to enlist and who come up with all sorts of ridiculous excuses (most of which revolve around being "homefront warriors"); as well as the older generation (Cheney, Rove, Kristol, et al) whose personal history strongly suggests would not enlist were they age-qualified.
BTW, bonus points if you guess what city I live in:)
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing Green Bay WI. /snark
PS> Your actual post makes very clear what we're really trying to describe here. Now that Israel is actually involved in military conflict, the mood here has become much less antiwar in general and much more specific about what it is we want to accomplish and what would make the world a safer and saner place.
This of course has resulted in mass confusion among the trolls whose "cut and run" sloganeering fails to accomodate the fact that A: the world is complicated and B: they've been defending a truly idiotic position relative to the ACTUAL War on Terror.
To me, the best definition of a chickenhawk is this: Those without military service records who not only advocate sending other people to fight and die in wars, but smear or "swift boat" those with military records who caution against such wars.
ReplyDeletePaul Rosenberg:
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen you comment here before, but that may well be because I'm a relatively new reader of Glenn's blog.
In any event, I've very much appreciated your cogent contributions to the discussion today, and hope you'll consider commenting here more frquently.
Thank you.
"'only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force.'
ReplyDeleteThere is, quite flatly, no such implication."
Actually, I have seen this, but I'd agree with you that it's not a helpful attitude.
"the military were opposed to this war, from everything we can tell."
Assuming this is true (I certainly agree there's evidence of this) I'd also agree that makes a big difference in this situation. And like you say, "honesty" (in the largest sense of the word anyway) makes a big difference here, too. I think this again points to attitude as an important factor, but if I've muddied the discussion, I'm very sorry--I was actually trying to clarify it.
bamage said...
ReplyDeleteO/T Important
NSA Lawsuit dismissed ("National Security" reasons)
American people dismissed
Yeah we are fucked. The American people have no say in anything anymore. You want phone service? You have to allow us to spy on you. We are cattle being led to the slaughter. Nothing to see here - just go about your business (which is whatever Big Brother says it is) - do some more shopping, go to McDonald's for dinner and make sure to make it home in time to watch American Idol. Close your eyes, plug your ears and shut your mouth. Go along peaceably - Big Brother has everything well in hand and you do not need to know - you are not worthy of knowing. Besides if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about, right? The Constitution is just a piece of paper - it isn't s suicide pact or anything, right? You don't have any civil liberties if you are dead after all! Just keep consuming. Just keep working those three jobs in order to survive. Just keep paying those taxes so we can redistribute them to the wealthy and the corporate. Let us have our secrets, our corruption and our wars of choice and no one gets hurt.
Fuck this piece of shit country.
I was actually trying to clarify it.
ReplyDeleteThe best way I think I can clarify things is by pointing out that the "chickenhawk" label is a very powerful tool for the same reason that the "traitor" label is so effective on the other side. Both imply that someone is getting benefits without paying costs and that cuts right to the core of how humans judge fairness.
So all the semantic jousting between what the word actually means just comes down to who's taking unfair advatage of whom.
Jeff Jacoby, you've been Greenwalled beeyotch!
ReplyDeleteI live in the Boston area and have been reading Jacoby in the Globe for over a decade.
ReplyDeleteHis reputation is so poor that when I find myself agreeing with him, I often re-check my assumptions. [Sometimes, he does agree with me...]
At any rate, thought you might be amused by another Boston blogger (and long-time media critic)'s response to the Jacoby editorial.
More often than not, a "chickenhawk" is used as an epithet to quell an argument -- end of story.
ReplyDeleteI was called a chickenhawk in the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan by multiple commenters on Washington Monthly.
"Why don't you sign up, then?" is the common refrain for those who wish to "Deux Ex Machina" the debate.
Kovie said...
ReplyDeleteI.e. how serious a blow to the attempt to rein in the administration's illegal wiretapping programs is this ruling, can and will it be appealed, and how does this affect similar cases.
How serious of a blow is it? Are you joking? At what point will people stop asking idiotic questions like this?
Get a clue Kovie. This is just another nail in the already closed coffin. You still believe there is a chance that BushCo will be held accountable - for ANYTHING? You still think "the law" is going to save us? Look around you for God's sake! The law is the fucking problem at this point. The law consists of whatever BushCo and Specter says it does. You are not entitled to know anything. You are rabble. You exist to slave for them. To make them rich and to pay for their wars. The "law" is now something instituted solely for the purpose of CONTROL. The law no longer protects "the people" (if it ever did) The law exists to protect greed and lawlessness of the wealthy and elite political classes. No one is listening to Glenn. No one is listening to you. No one is listening to the ABA or John Dean or Bob Barr. No one is listening. And if they are they are not willing to DO anything about it.
The American people are a bunch of sheep. Half of them too stupid to see what is happening and the other half too cowardly to protect themselves. There will be no saving us. We are not prepared to save ourselves.
Obviously more than Paul can handle.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous:
ReplyDelete"No one is listening to Glenn."
"The American people are a bunch of sheep. Half of them too stupid to see what is happening and the other half too cowardly to protect themselves."
I am listening to Glenn. So are many others.
I am an American person, and so are many others.
I am not stupid or cowardly, and neither are many others.
OFF TOPIC:
ReplyDeleteH.R. 5878, The Iraq War Powers Repeal Act of 2006
has just been introduced.
I'm not sure it's been brought up yet, but how about a take from a Capitalist?
ReplyDeleteA certain good chunk of my paycheck goes to the government. Some of that goes to the military. Are you suggesting I have no say in how this should be spent? How it should be used, or when?
If one would consider that a wise use of capital would be to utilize it in a war, which by definition will cost lives, is it chickenhawk to spend it, if you think either socially or capitalistically that it will better the world?
For your consideration. I'm not even close to going with that argument, just came to mind.
I read Roger's essay about chickenhawks and he leaves out a crucial point. Becoming a police oficer to fight crime is a career choice. No one is asking the chickenhawks to enlist as a career. They are asking them to serve their time in a war of their choice. No one chooses to fight the "war on crime." It is a necessity. However choosing to attack another nation in a war of choice and asking others to do the fighting for them, makes chickenhawks nothing but snivelling cowards who are asking other people to sacrifice their lives for their choice. In other words people well deserving of the chickenhawk label.
ReplyDeleteTwo things:
ReplyDelete1. It's "Deus Ex Machina".
2. You're full of crap.
Q.E.D.
From the major at 11:00pm:
ReplyDeleteSomeday these fine troops will come back home an there going to want to know why you stabbed them in the back at a time of war.
Guess that means Rumsfield, Cheney, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Bush should all emigrate somewhere safe...like Antartica.
HA HA HA!
ReplyDeleteThe other day someone proclaimed that the Major is a fake wingnut...what's the blogosphere term for it? I forget.
But it's true! Nobody would seriously claim that Bush was a Vietnam war hero.
You're busted, major.
Something changed and now your template is hard to read...
ReplyDeleteWhat could be more cowardly than choosing war that is not a necessity and then asking others to die for the sake your choice? Chickenhawks indeed, there really is no name for something so vile.
ReplyDeleteI have to say I'm with the Major on this one. Although, I think I'm going to have to rename myself.
ReplyDeleteI'm a chickendove.
Which, I think, would mean that I'm for sending brave neocons and culture warriors into the peace corps.
ReplyDeleteAny further fleshing out of the definition of 'chickendove' would be of great help.
;-)
I think there is another dimension of chickenhawkery we have ignored. We now have Ethiopia invading Somalia, Turkey contemplating Iraq and Israel back in Lebanon because somebody provoked somebody into provoking somebody. Clinton's effort in the Balkans was text book mastery combining force with diplomacy in region that has historically been a powder keg that set off the two great wars. Clinton chose not to serve in Vietnam. That took courage at that time. More courage than Bush's attempt to look like a warrior when in fact he is just an incompetent and pampered coward. If this is the beginning of WWIII, Bush is this war's Gavrilo Princip, the 19 year old assassin of Archduke Ferdinand and his wife Sophie.
ReplyDeleteMadison's Warning and the Israel Lobby
ReplyDeleteOne of the preoccupations of the authors of the American constitution was defining the danger posed to the new body politic by political, social, and economic factions. "By faction," James Madison, the Constitution's father, wrote in the justly famous Federalist No. 10,
"I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent interests of the community."
Now, one must presume that Mr. Madison never imagined that the two houses of the United States Congress and the federal executive branch could conceivably combine with what today is called a "private interest group" – namely AIPAC – to be exactly the sort of faction that would threaten both "the rights of other citizens" and "the permanent interests of the community." And yet today, that is precisely the spectacle we behold as the Bush administration and both houses of Congress – Republicans and Democrats – continue a bipartisan, three-decade-old policy of supporting Israel without qualm or stint, and without the least concern about what such support means for the welfare and security of American citizens and their families.
In the last week, Americans have seen their president, his advisers, and their elected representatives behave as a pack of well-groomed Pavlovian dogs, while exhibiting equivalent IQ power. Not unlike automatons, Mr. Bush and Secretary Rice spoke the traditional mantra: "Israel has the right to defend itself." Then, the popularly elected protectors of American interests passed resolutions repeating that mantra with majorities strikingly similar to those Cold War communist rulers could always count on receiving from their so-called parliaments. Finally, this two-branch, AIPAC-funded, mid-term-election-minded faction agreed on the weekend to very publicly dispatch large consignments of U.S.-made precision weapons to fill the recently depleted stocks of the Israeli military. All of these actions were, of course, played out against a backdrop of editorial screeches, claiming "Israel is bravely and nobly fighting America's and/or the West's war," from the likes of such noted U.S.-interests-be-damned voices as Ann Coulter, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, William Kristol and the Weekly Standard's crew of certifiable zanies, and the reliably hysterical FrontPageMag.com.
Well, I think no one – least of all myself – will deny the basic truth that Israel has the right to defend itself; indeed, our own Constitution captures the spirit of the British jurist Blackstone's argument that the right to self-defense is "the first law of nature" – advice Washington too often ignores when the need arises to protect its own citizens. Moreover, Israel's military campaign in Lebanon serves the decidedly useful purpose of graphically portraying for Americans the type of war that must be waged when a nation has only its intelligence and military services in its self-defense tool box. Clearly, Israel has no credible diplomatic, public diplomacy, ideological, or economic tools to complement or moderate its use of force. This object lesson is particularly pertinent for Americans, for the bipartisan faction outlined above is very close to putting the United States in the same predicament.
No, the real question of moment is not the red-herring of Israel's right to defend itself, but rather what possible U.S. national interest is at stake that requires America to put its security at risk on Israel's behalf....
BTW, what is clearly in the interest of anyone with half a brain would be to convince Christine Amanpour to volunteer to take a slow boat to China.
Pas de Deux ex Machina.
ReplyDeleteChuckle. Wingnuts. Guffaw!!!
Wingnut,
Deus ex Machina doesn't mean what you think it means. Deus ex Machina is the "god out of the box" that keeps your chickenhawk's ass safe at home while the poor kids go off to die for the rich kid's wars.
The South is a big Indian reservation populated by ex-Confederates who are bred like cattle to die in Yankee wars... In
Alabama there is no circus to run off to, so we join the Marines.
Gus Hasford, USMC,
jao, btw your ability to comprehend language continues to underwhelm me.
ReplyDeleteYou say I lied about what you said about Specter. I did not.
So to spell it out for you because you appear to have no ability to understand the thrust of an argument, I never even commented on what you said about Specter so I could hardly have "lied" about it.
My argument was this:
What are you doing on a thread about Specter was said with a tinge of irony in it, as my subsequent comments revealed. You mistook that in your own inimical style to mean I thought you were a supporter of the actions of his being discussed. I never thought or said that.
I then commented he is essentially a water carrier.
I said I thought you were a water carrier too.
ERGO, what are doing on a thread about a water carrier when you seem to have no problem with water carriers as you yourself could be described as such.
That's what we call the "point" of a post, and that point was not what criticisms you have or don't have about specifics about Specter.
Next time (if ever) I address you, I'll eliminate all traces of subtlety or irony as I see those are not languages you have mastered yet.
If you think I am being rude to you, you started the rudeness by attacking me with increased hostility every time I post a comment about your hero Orin Kerr.
What do my comments about Orin Kerr have to do with you?
You never defend him by addressing the merits or lack thereof of my criticisms of him or other Federalist Society members. You simply attack me.
That type of blind loyalty makes for a very good water carrier.
Let's see: what's this thread about? Chicken hawks? Oh, I see you are not on it:)
Major,
ReplyDeleteTell us about Sun Tzu. What would he advise if he were here today?
"it is less than forthright of Jacoby to mis-define the concept"
ReplyDeleteLess than forthright for Jacoby to mis-define?
You must be joking - that's his stock in trade! That's how he makes his living. I would bet he's guilty of that rhetorical fallacy in more than 50% of what he writes.
anonymous: Tell us about Sun Tzu. What would he advise if he were here today?
ReplyDeleteSun Tzu is less relevant than von Clausewitz:
Satire is merely the continuation of policy by other means.
The [Federalist] Society provides a "forum for legal experts of opposing views to interact with members of the legal profession, the judiciary, law students, academics, and the architects of public policy,... [and] has redefined the terms of legal debate.... Overall, the Society's efforts are improving our present and future leaders' understanding of the principles underlying American law."
ReplyDeleteBwahahahaha!! Then again, maybe not!
Sun Tzu is less relevant than von Clausewitz:
ReplyDeleteSatire is merely the continuation of policy by other means.
Hardly. Clausewitz is irrelevant now, since diplomacy is non-existent and war is a continous and permanent state, making Sun Tzu and the other ancients all the more relevant as mankind enters a period of distinct retrograde motion.
Boy oh boy. Just checked the headlines. Like this one:
ReplyDeleteUN attack looks deliberate: AnnanFrom correspondents in Rome
July 26, 2006 08:33am
Article from: Agence France-
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan today said he was "shocked" at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting" of a UN post in Lebanon, in which up to four UN observers were killed.
Mr Annan described the strike as a "co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post."
He said it took place "despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."
"Furthermore, General Alain Pelligrini, the UN Force Commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers throughout the day on Tuesday, stressing the need to protect that particular UN position from attack.
I'm afraid that pretty soon our problems here in America with those who are trying to abandon our protection, The Constitution, are going to be the least of our worries.
Israel's wanton actions especially the targeting and massacre of innocent civilians are no doubt going to really incite most of the Arabs in that region. Those Arabs, Muslims and others, are going to be looking for revenge, and they're going to be looking right at us.
If things continue like this, no American will ever really be safe in Europe or the Middle East again. You can't p*ss off hundreds of millions of people and expect there to be no reprisals.
And from what I am reading, this never had to happen to us. We could have gone on to be the most admired nation in the world. Now a good deal of the world really hates us.
anonymous: Hardly. Clausewitz is irrelevant now, since diplomacy is non-existent and war is a continous and permanent state, making Sun Tzu and the other ancients all the more relevant as mankind enters a period of distinct retrograde motion.
ReplyDeleteComment?
eyes wide open quotes a news report:
ReplyDeleteMr Annan described the strike as a "co-ordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked UN post."
He said it took place "despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that UN positions would be spared Israeli fire."
"U.S.S. Liberty"
Cheers,
"UN Secretary General Kofi Annan today said he was "shocked" at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting"
ReplyDeleteIf anyone here fully or even partially believes that Israel targeted UN troops, you are mistaken. Really, you are. That would be so counterproductive on Israel's part.
Certainly the best writing I've seen regarding the definition of "chickenhawk." If Glenn's isn't the official definition, it should be.
ReplyDeleteI'm particularly impressed with the essay's demonstration that those who argue in favor of sending others to fight and die for their protection are actually less courageous than those who oppose the war and would not so blithely send strangers' kids into combat to buy us a greater illusion of security at home.
It has a lot in common with the revelation that, hey! -- maybe those who can't wait to send more soldiers into harm's way don't really "Support Our Troops" nearly as well as those they accuse of undermining the military by suggesting that they ought to stay home with their families, alive and intact.
Alear said:
ReplyDelete"UN Secretary General Kofi Annan today said he was "shocked" at Israel's "apparently deliberate targeting"
If anyone here fully or even partially believes that Israel targeted UN troops, you are mistaken. Really, you are. That would be so counterproductive on Israel's part.
Snark?!?!? Who can tell nowadays....
You know: They may have wanted the U.N. out of there for the same reason they wanted the Liberty out of there. I'd note that they were leafletting towns in Lebanon prior to bombing, telling the occupants to leave. I suggested that they were just trying to clear the playing field....
Cheers,
I am a United States Army Infantry Veteran.
ReplyDeleteGlen, you brilliantly nailed the definition of a Chickenhawk. I salute you sir!
I enjoyed every word. The only thing I could add to the term is what others have said regarding war advocates who never served yet disparge the service of veterans that are opposed to a war the advocates support.
My service to my country has been questioned and I've been a recipient of the attacks by these chickenhawks because of my views. A term that is to light for the scum that they really are.
Peace,
Cornbread
B Co 1/314 Inf
A Co 2/34 Inf
A Co 3/8 Inf
Wow Glenn,
ReplyDeleteI took a small tour around the RW blogosphere just now. (I ususally can't last too long) Many of them have suddenly took an intense interest in whatever it is you have to say.
You've kicked over the swiftboat hornets nest and they are gonna be merciless with their attacks.
I salute your efforts and back you 100%.
"Although there is no formal definition for it"
ReplyDeleteHmmm. That got me looking to see if there is:
dictionary.com says:
chicken hawk
n.
1. Any of various hawks that prey on or have the reputation of preying on chickens.
2. Vulgar Slang. A man who seeks out boys or young men as his sexual partners.
I wonder if the use of this particular pejorative against pro-war people might have been intended to imply that they're gay and possibly pedophiles to boot, under the assumption of a large intersection between pro-war and homophobe.
Arne said:
ReplyDelete-- Snark?!?!? Who can tell nowadays....
-- You know: They may have wanted the U.N. out of there for the same reason they wanted the Liberty out of there. I'd note that they were leafletting towns in Lebanon prior to bombing, telling the occupants to leave. I suggested that they were just trying to clear the playing field.
"
Not snark. Not even gonna wonder if you're pulling a conspiracy theory outta somewhere. Let's go with the leaflets.
It's been said, 'lead, follow, or get out of the way.'
The UN aren't leading or following, and were a touch late on the getting out of the way part.
Noone wants innocent deaths, noone (except perhaps, a certain faction).
The Israelis above all know that every misguided weapon in this war will reflect much more poorly than a properly guided Hezballoh rocket ever would.
xcWell, the first time I ever used the term "chicken hawk" was in 1966, to describe the president of the University of Colorado Young Americans for Freedom, who was saying that I - a Vietnam veteran who was speaking against the war - was somehow "less than a patriot" (he wanted to say "traitor" but didn't) for my opposition to the war.
ReplyDeleteTo which I responded:
"So, since you're such a patriotic supporter of the war, why don't you drop out of college - the way your dad probably did in World War II - and volunteer to go fight? Unless the truth is you're a chicken hawk."
Evidently he was a chicken hawk, because he shut the hell up right then and didn't say anything more.
And I have used that on every far right war bozo I have ever met in the past 40 years and it works on them every time, because it's exactly what they are.
It does fit with Glenn's comment about someone who supports the war, but won't go fight it, but does ascribe to themselves the attributes of a brave warrior for their advocacy of the war.
And yes, I do think scumballs like Dickhead "I had other priorities back then" Cheney who have always believed in the philosophy of "let's you and him fight" are the most egregious chicken hawks. So is Boy George.
Beautiful post. The term Chickenhawk is finally placed on a formally rigorous footing.
ReplyDeleteIt is notable that the nastiest venom of Cornerites like Cliff May is reserved for people like John Kerry and John Murtha.
I have a theory -- a strange one to be sure -- about where the Chickenhawks come from. It is multidisciplinary, based on ideas from theology, neuropathology, and a commenter at Atrios.
ReplyDeleteThe commenter noted that if you broke open David Brooks' skull and fed the goo on the inside to a dog, the dog would become retarded. I think we can all agree on that.
That got me to thinking about Kuru, a form of Creutzfeld Jacob spongiform encephalopathy that occurred in New Guinea. This disease was spread by tribal members eating the brains of recently deceased kinsmen in funeral rites.
There is also the fact that Chickenhawks like Cheetos.
And finally there is the miracle of transsubstantiation, a miracle once noted by Antonin Scalia.
So, the theory is that through what I call a New Miracle of Transsubstantiation, the Cheetos at the moment of consumption actually become a piece of David Brooks' brain (just like the little wafers in a Catholic mass becoming literally, not allegorically, the body of Christ).
Eating the Cheetos which through the miracle are pieces of Brook's brain causes the wingnuts, who are the only ones susceptible, to become the caricatures of thinking human beings that we see.
paul: Words and phrases commonly have multiple or at least elastic meanings.
ReplyDeleteLook up addiction in an Oxford English Dictionary sometime. To Shakespeare, it meant an emotion and attachment that you could apply to the sweet desires and affections of love. No one would use it in that way--Roxy Music or Lou Reed perhaps--anymore, except ironically.
In the same way, chickenhawk can have numerous meanings--connotative and denotative. As Wittgesntein once said (I paraphrase), use determines meaning.
I once had this conversation with a very Left, very liberal activist. I noted the variability of the meaning of words. This person wanted to maintain that words could and should only mean one thing, much like the atomic weight of Argon.
I understand the need for clarity and precision, but language is too mercuric to fit that mold. I think that's a good thing and anytime people want to delimit the meanings of words to one interpretation approaching something written in stone, I think it portends an authoritarian personality.
There are always exceptions--Samuel Beckett wrote in French, although English was his first language, because it allowed him a precision of language that he felt English did not afford him.
Personally, I love English's brutish, unclean, imprecise anarchy. But then that may simply reflect more about me and my character flaws than it does about the Truth of language.
A friend of mine called me today and among the chit chat about politics the friend (anti-Bush) made the statement that in his opinion the desire of the "left" to worship a "leader" was equal in intensity to that same desire on the "right."
ReplyDeleteFrom Jane Hamsher:
I drove all the way up to Waterbury yesterday excited about the prospect of seeing Bill Clinton speak. Whatever one may think of Bill, his politics and his legacy, his defiance in the face of the right-wing hate machine onslaught are inspirational.
I guess she wanted to see Lieberman and Bill get into a kissing mode. He was probably the one who forced poor Al to choose Lieberman as his VP, causing him to lose the election. Bush Clinton Bush Clinton: they've got it all wrapped up and don't want any intruders in the midst. What would the Saudis (Chop Chop Square) say?
I wanted to refute what my friend said until I realized he was right.
PS. Ba'al: Wow. What a great post.
Glenn's definition describes a particularly egregious form of chickenhawkery. However, I stand by my personal definition: A chickenhawk is someone who supports a war but refuses to fight in it because of personal cowardice.
ReplyDeleteThe two common challenges to this definition are: What about Afghanistan or the first Gulf War? And what about not joining the local P.D. or F.D.?
Afghanistan/Gulf War I
If you supported either Afghanistan (I did) or the first Gulf War (I didn't), the question is: Why did you not fight yourself?
There are three primary reasons that I didn't enlist in the military following 9/11, in order to go fight in Afghanistan:
1. Lack of need. We already had a large, powerful, and trained volunteer military.
2. Lack of opportunity. Despite their ruthless attack on 9/11, Al Qaeda -- even backed by the Taliban -- were a 4th rate fighting force. All indications were that by the time I finished training, fighting would be well over.
3. Lack of trust. I do not trust our leaders -- Bush most of all -- to restrict the U.S. to moral and wise military adventures. My biggest fear was that I would enlist to fight in Afghanistan but be sent to fight in another war, somewhere else, which I did not support. i.e. Iraq.
For supporters of the Iraq war, these excuses do not apply. There is a need for more volunteers, as recruitment has fallen short of desired goals and stop-loss orders have been given to stem the hemmoraging. There is a clear opportunity to fight in Iraq, as the violence is not going away anytime soon. And Bush supporters trust the leaders.
The only reason for not going is out of personal cowardice.
Police / Fire Department
There is a big, big, big difference between asking someone to do something you don't do and asking someone to do something you wouldn't do.
While I am neither a police officer nor a firefighter, the reason I am not is not because I am afraid to do those jobs. Life is short. One cannot follow every career path. It appears that I will never be a police officer, an accountant, or a waiter.
But I do not ask police officers or fire fighters to do anything that I wouldn't do. With adequate training and equipment, I would put out fires. And I would make arrests. Indeed, the danger inherent in those jobs is what makes them appealing.
For me it boils down, simply to: personal sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteThese people have no vested interest other than their ideology to support the war.
Even outside of direct service, there are no direct reprecussions of their support. Therefore the failure of this war and policy has no impact on them.
They won't send their kids, they won't pay additional taxes...nothing, nada, zip.
Until there is some direct and immediate impact for them, they will continue their detached support of a failed policy that costs all of us.
And all of this primarily from the so-called "party of accountability."
Aleeringidiot...Noone wants innocent deaths
ReplyDeleteShame on Noone, whoever he or she may be.
Far be it from me to defend Jeff Jacoby. Heck, I've taken a few shots at him myself in the past. However, I do have to weigh in on the issue of definitions. It suits JJ rhetorically to apply the definition of "chickenhawk" that he does. It's not a strawman because many do use the term so loosely. It also suits GG to apply the more nuanced definition of "chickenhawk" that he does. I think it's a better definition, leading to more accurate condemnation of those who deserve to be condemned while sparing those who do not. However, I think that saying "it is less than forthright of Jacoby to mis-define the concept" is itself less than forthright. It assumes that Jacoby is misdefining and not just defining differently, when there is abundant evidence right here in this thread that many who use the term themselves also define it differently.
ReplyDeleteGlenn has often been criticized for making spurious accusations of dishonesty - as have I, by the way. Whether those criticisms are themselves spurious doesn't really matter. Given that they are made, and that they do have the effect of reducing Glenn's appeal to some of the fence-sitters, adding one more example for the critics to use might not be good strategy. Most people who are likely to care already know Jacoby is a dishonest hack. It is not necessary for Glenn to point it out, and does not make his own points any stronger.
P.S. Thank you paw, for the Kung Fu Monkey link, and Robert1014, for the Thucydides quote. Glenn's posts are always like satisfying meals, and it's often tempting to stop after reading one, but if I had then I would have missed dessert.
Glenn, must have been a really slow day if the definition of Chickenhawk is the big item of the leftwing mailing lists.
ReplyDeleteSays the "Dog"
Aleeringidiot... It's been said, 'lead, follow, or get out of the way.'
ReplyDeleteIt's been attributed to George S. Patton, although I expect it's apocryphal. Not a ringing endorsement there. The man was a raving lunatic. Incredibly you can even find it listed as a direct quote from Thomas Paine's, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776, which is ridiculous. He would never write something so crass and glib. In point of fact, Americans, like you, you leering idiot, can neither lead, nor get out of the way, you don't even have the brains for that. All you can do is blindly follow some raving lunatic over a cliff like the mindless lemmings that you are.
This country has fallen so far under conservatives. I don't think it will ever recover.
A brilliant idea. I bet you have no idea who wrote it, when they wrote it and in what context. It might surprise you to know that it's author was speaking to people like you
Glenn: You may be interested in the archives at Crooked Timber, a group weblog run by a fascinating motley crew of academics in various fields. They write themselves about the place of blogging in ongoing research and the like, and link to others' studies of related issues. Good stuff.
ReplyDeleteFor me, a crucial element separating chickenhawks from others is hypocrisy. And to help my case, I'm going to digress. :)
I'm sure that Glenn and others who deal with the justice system have seen the phenomenon of those who constantly seek harsh punishments for minor offenses, bitterly condemn those who seek to aid in the defense of those accused of the sin du jour, and then turn around and seek all kinds of special favors for themselves and those they happen to care about. Drug law is loaded with this stuff, but it turns up everywhere - the person who delights in dishing it out to others, but won't take it themsleves.
It's this violation of the Golden Rule that I think makes an otherwise personal choice and personal taste a matter of earned scorn.
Excellent point, Bruce.
ReplyDeleteEveryone wants to get "tough on crime". No politician can get elected without appearing to be "tough on crime". Then you get busted. It's always a case of getting tough on the other guy's crime. What you engage in may be against the law, but as Dickens observed "the law is a ass" in your particular case.
John Dean's "Conservatives Without Conscience" is a must read. The book vividly explains why the alpha-Republicans are so comfortable living such a profoundly hypocritical life.
ReplyDeleteAlso... If neocons such as Kristol, or Goldberg, or Perle ever had to pick up a weapon and engage an enemy on the battlefield, we could all be sure that the conflict would be very short, and that there would be no more salivating over future wars.
alear—
ReplyDeleteI think the way to talk about money is, volunteering your money is one thing—but volunteering your life is another.
anonymous—
I think your distinction between crime—which is just a fact of life—versus war, is helpful. That is, when it’s a war of choice, that makes a big difference.
I read the Globe, and I've long called this columnist Jeff "I never met a straw man I didn't like" Jacoby (pace Will Rogers). Without question it's his favorite tactic.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the whole thread, so someone may have written similar already.
ReplyDeleteBut, my definition of a chickenhawk:
A person who enthusiastically advocates a war, as being worth the loss of lives and resources that will result, who then refuses to personally risk their own skin for the cause when the war effort faces difficulties and needs more bodies on the ground, even though they are of able body. In other words, a person who trumpets a war's complete and utter neccessity but then cannot bring themselves to take up the slack when things go awry.
This definition avoids the implication of looser definitions that make anyone supporting any war without fighting in it a chickenhawk. A person supporting, say, NATO in Bosnia or as another post said the police force in the neighbourhood, need not be chickenhawk, so long as that effort remains under control and there are enough bodies on the ground and enough resources to serve the effort's goals. If the effort is, however, facing a crisis and in need of help, and yet the advocate refuses to help, that advocate is a chickenhawk.
I got it!
ReplyDeletethe major is really Stephen Colbert!
Fantastic!
My neighbor has 2 sons,early 20's,working,living at home,both driving large,middle-east oil guzzling pick-up trucks that display "support the troops" ribbons along with other patriotic decorations.No members of the household past or present military service.I say chickenhawks,my wife says no-can I get a ruling,please?
ReplyDeleteThis is very good. Very clarifying.
ReplyDeleteThis is indeed a question which requires deep cogitation. However, more important is the question:
ReplyDeleteHow does someone make a Sock Puppet?
/gee coulda sworn I already posted this...
rs
ReplyDeleteYou need to look for signs of cheetos.
By that sign you will know them.
I can't come to this blog anymore without sniggering to myself something about 'sockpuppets'.
ReplyDeleteI am kinda ashamed of myself that I ever took you seriously Greenwald.
I guess I also question Jacoby's assertion that having military or former military folks in charge of foreign policy automatically would result in a more hawkish policy. I don't think it's a good idea for the military to set foreign policy, of course. The foreign-policy attitudes of Lawrence Wilkerson, Pat Lang, Jimmy Carter, John Murtha, John Kerry, Chuck Hagel and Colin Powell, among others, while different from one another, don't seem to jive with those held by Bolton, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol, etc. And, as has been pointed out here before, so -called far left pols like Howard Dean and Al Gore supported Gulf War I and the Afghanistan invasion, but not the current Iraq war. Not exactly dovish.
ReplyDeleteI love how winger chickenhawks give themselves big, manly sounding names like "The Captains Quarters", "Tigerhawk" or "nicedoggie" or some such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteAnd I love the way some people get so wrapped around the axle about the war that they feel the need to inject it into abso-fricking-lutely EVERY debate - even those where it clearly doesn't belong.
For instance, TigerHawk. The guy went to school at Princeton. You know, the school whose mascot is... duh... a TIGER? And ... ummm... Iowa, again with a mascot of...wow... a HAWK. The common thread here being not war, but mascots. If reading weren't a fundamental skill which seems to have eluded you, you might have gleaned this elementary fact from the header at the top of his site where it is cleverly hidden to fool the unwary into thinking he's a big, manly warmonger.
You are really scary. You know that?
I agree Cassandra, "nicedoggie" is indeed a vewwy scawwy manly sounding web site.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I find it rather sexist of you to presume that "Captain's Quarters" is "manly", after all the military has many female captains.
I also fail to see how someone using their school mascots, which are birdies, means they are scawwy warlike monsters.
Other than that all your other points are indeed cogent.
Excellent article. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteBush, prancing around with a giant cod piece stuffed into that flight suit he borrowed for photo ops in front that absurd Mission Accomplished banner, is the poster boy for neocon chicken hawks.
Hmmm, what makes someone a chicken hawk?
ReplyDeleteCould it be that one is a perv living in Brazil with his boy toy?
After all pervs are known through experience to be mentally unbalanced...
I disagree, Glenn. Chickenhawk is often (not always) appropriate for people who advocate a war but are not fighting it.
ReplyDeleteIf the war is so necessary that someone else should be fighting it, it should be so necessary that the advocate is overseas fighting it. That the advocate is not indicates either (1) that he doesn't really believe in it and is just cheaply flapping his gums or (2) he really does believe in the threat but is too "chicken" to stand up. So the choices are either "chickenhawk" or, (shall we coin a term here?) "parrothawk."
Of course it gets wobbly when we consider civilian control of the military. Maybe that isn't an indication so much that the definition is weak but that the definition of acceptable war is too wide? Who doubts, for example, that in a real threat to the nation, an invasion, almost everyone would leave their jobs and families and rush to the border for combat? There's simply no debate and hence no chickenhawks.
The chickenhawks start hatching when the threat becomes debatable and dubious. That is, if people have to convince their fellow citizens of the need for a war, maybe that war just isn't worth fighting. Chickenhawks -- advocates who can't be bothered to fight -- are like canaries in a coal mine.
I love how cowardly these chicken-hawk attack poodles are. They are part of a neocon cult which worships war and relishes the death of innocent brown people with beards, but they refuse to go fight themselves; they would much rather go play in Brazil with other girly-boys. I find this blatant hypocrisy; and believe me, Mr. Greenwald and I certainly know hypocrisy when we see it.
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenwald only has a New York Times Best Selling Book on the Bush Administration and its abuses of power. And he has one of the most-read blogs on the Interent, after 9 months of blogging. And Senators read from his blog at Senate hearings and his posts lead to front-page news stories in major newspapers.
To recap: Mr. Greenwald is super-important and is certainly qualified to identify chicken-hawks! Rick Ellensburg, Thomas Ellers, Ellison, Ryan, Wilson and I all heartily agree. Jealous much?
To me, the most interesting thing about phony tough guy Jacoby's column (if indeed there ever can be anything interesting about a chickenhawk Jacoby column) is that he addressed the chickenhawk issue at all.
ReplyDeleteI think the fact that he wasted a whole column in his flaccid attempt to defend himself and his fellow "warriors" demonstrates that the chickenhawk label is starting to get to these guys.
Jeff Jacoby and his ilk are chickenhawks. I think we should keep labeling them as such every time we mention them.
Mr. Greenwald...
ReplyDeleteYou are a wise, wise man. Great post.