ChickenHawk--It's What's for Dinner

What is a “chickenhawk” and why should the appellation exist at all? Why should those who’ve never served in the military recuse themselves from advocating any military action that this country takes or may take in the future?

If the “chickenhawk” meme is a justifiable one, conversely, does that mean that all of the legion non-veteran 60s protesters of the Vietnam War also had no legitimate opinion to offer on the subject? Heck, what did they know about being a soldier? Right?

Does that mean that all of legion non-veteran critics and protestors of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are talking out of their nether regions? (Now, now. Whether they are or not is beside the point.)

If it is justifiable to lob the “chickenhawk” bomb at the non-veteran advocates of the present war, then anti-war people like Tom Tomorrow should likewise catch big fat juicy pieces of this type of shrapnel.

Or, better yet, no one should be berated as a “chickenhawk” for supporting the war, nor should its critics be automatically labeled unpatriotic. Not in this country.

It is the right, better yet, the duty of the American citizen to give his/her opinion—by vote, letter, e-mail, blog, and (sigh), yes, protest--to elected officials on any actions taken by the government. (To get the pertinent facts on these actions before venturing an opinion, of course, is best, but not required. Just wear a flame-retardant suit.)

However, I submit that most of the hurlers of the “chickenhawk” insult are:

• Those who are against the war, and/or
• Those who have never served in the military, and/or
• Those who would never serve in the military, or
• Those who have served in the military, but were given the boot, and thus have a beef

Oh, and Tom? Were I to be petty, I would tell you that while you were here at home drawing pretty pictures criticizing anything and everything, this girl was out defending you right to do so. But I won’t say that, since I'm above that sort of thing. ;-)

(Thanks to Citizen Smash and Dean Esmay)

Comments

[Dave in LA]

I think you have a valid argument against those who seek to disqualify others' support for the war on the grounds that they never fought in one.

I've found myself ignoring the views of anyone using "chickenhawk" arguments, unless that person had served in the Armed Forces. Even then, I reserve the right to disagree with what they say.

[Ara Rubyan]

I figure you're free to say anything you want. And that includes Tom Tomorrow, Michael Moore, Ted Rall, et. al.

That's the price we pay in this country to be free.

P.S. Thanks for helping keep it that way.

[King of Fools]

You are free to say anything that you want, but this is not a post about freedom. It really concerns credibility. If one side is disqualified because of their lack of military service, then the other side is even more disqualified for the same reason.

[Adam]

Interesting thought. My instinct is to agree with you. But I have to disagree. Like beauty, credibility is in the eye of the beholder. It is possible to have a credible opinion on a national security issue with or without military service.

[baldilocks]

Actually I'm saying that those on both sides of the service issue and the pro-, anti- *do* have the right and the duty to express an opinion on war. Just have all your ducks in a row when you do it.

I rarely notice anyone who has served honorably call someone who hasn't served and is pro-war a chickenhawk, however, as I said in the post.

[Mr. Lion]

I've taken some crap previously over such things, and while the general response of "I'd rather be a chickenhawk than a chickenshit" conveys the message, there's a lot more to it.

The fundamental difference, I think, is that a lot of pro-war people without a history of military service would, in a heartbeat, pick up a rifle or get in a plane if their presence would in fact make a difference.

On the other hand, a lot of the twits that piss and moan about 'chickenhawks' would be just as sniveling and candy-assed as they are in everyday life when their moment of truth came.

My father served so I wouldn't have to, and put his ass on the line so that I could succeed in life. I respect that greatly, and the same commitment made by everyone else who does wear or has worn the uniform. That said, if it ever really hits the fan, I'll be the first in line.

[Sharon]

Greetings from the left:
Chickenhawks refer to the fearless leaders of the current conflict, who, while we were just tender young things back in the late 60s and early 70s were doing their darndest not to serve in the Vietnam war.
Let's go to the video tape: (Thank you, Warner Wolf)
Dick Cheney: "had more important things to do" That's not from me. It's a quote.
Paul Wofowitz: Deferment
Newt Gingrich: (admittedly an advisor) Deferment
oh and George Bush: Air National Guard, managed to disappear for the last 18 months of his enlistment. Can you say AWOL?
Listen, my pop served in the Air Force from the late 50's through the mid-60s as a navigator on really large refueling planes. I honor his service. It's just that when our Dear Leader prances around on the deck of an aircraft carrier, proclaiming mission accomplished, while having no plan to clean up his little mess, well it just hits me the wrong way.
Just an opinion.

[baldilocks]

Sharon: Don't know about the others, but, as for George W. Bush, no I can't say AWOL, because THAT'S NOT THE DEFINITION OF AWOL!!!!

Calming down now. I'm a reservist. Like GWB, I took a leave of absence myself--with my commander's permission--during my career. And, like GWB, I made up my service later.

Strange how the same service rules apply to some rich white guy from a famous family and some anonymous middle class black chick.

Gain some knowledge about Guard/Reserve service regulations or keep spouting ignorance and look ignorant.

It is, after all, your constitutional right.

[Larry]

If you're a citizen, you are entitled to your own freely-expressed opinion - now matter how wrong headed I may think it is.
And I AIN'T speakin' to you, Baldi-darlin'.

I did my time for their right to spout nonsense if they will...

Larry, Sgt E-5,Pleiku,RVN, 69-71

[jaed]

I stopped taking the "chickenhawk" argument seriously when someone referred to Charles Krauthammer as a chickenhawk. Because, you know, anyone who supports military action and doesn't instantly join the military is a hypocrite, even if he *does* happen to be twenty years too old to enlist (not to mention paraplegic).

Somehow it just lost its sting for me at that point.

[SDN]

Sharon:

Just because President Bush hasn't shared his plan with you doesn't mean he doesn't have one. He's a little too busy working on it to waste time on you OR me.

[Jim S]

Valid points, valid arguments. I (of course) have more to say on the matter, which I shall post to my own site shortly enough.

The one thing I found objectionable is SDN's comment about Bush being "a little too busy" to share his plans... He's the President of our country... he'd better find the time to share with us... he answers to us, remember???

Anyways... I'm glad I ran across your wonderful site... as soon as I get my blogrolling issues straightened out, you've got a link.

P.S.: Thanks for protecting this American's right to spew off at the mouth, even though I've never served....

[Sharpshooter]

Sharon, and those who think like Sharon, WANT to see GWBush as having gone AWOL, WANT to see W as having shirked HIS duty, then gleefully grasped at his first opportunity to send OTHERS to their death and maiming...

So, I'll accept that... (wait for it :) on condition you send me the website or the government papers or the federal records of the legal actions taken under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, TO WHICH Bush was subject while he served, to punish Bush for having gone AWOL!

I will wait patiently, inasmuch as SUCH PROCEEDINGS are prima facie evidence that Bush went AWOL, whereas the many sites I've researched on-line, to-date, have nothing more than REAL documents and SPIN, twist, allegation... but as of this posting, YOU now know that without such evidence, YOU are the ones who appear to have gone AWOL of your own logical capacities and good sense, and have no basis whatsoever for coyly asking, "AWOL? Can you say AWOL?"

Pitiful, Sharon.