An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
Does Rudy Have a Chickenhawk Problem?
There was a lively discussion in the comments section of my post yesterday on Iran: Good News, Bad News & More News regarding whether having not served in the military mattered if you were an outspoken supporter of the Iraq war.
In other words, do so-called chickenhawks have a credibility problem?
Well, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani’s presidential campaign is now confronting that very issue.
More here.
6 Responses to “Does Rudy Have a Chickenhawk Problem?”
Of course it doesn’t have anything to do with it. It’s, quite frankly, an ad hominem attack. They invented / started using it because certain people on the right started throwing the ‘you don’t support the troops’ around.
Look, I greatly respect those serving in the military. They are serving their country. My nephew is in the country.
BUT
they are serving their country, their country isn’t serving them. They get paid by tax payers money, they have to do what tax payers / civilians consider to be best.
It’s that simple.
The military serves the people, the people don’t serve the military.
Does Rudy Have a Chickenhawk Problem?…
…
I don’t think that chickenhawk is always an unfounded argument — the spirit of the word is valid — but I think it’s normally used the wrong way so I’m going to make up a definition. For me it’s arguing a militaristic policy to gain power while not sacrificing in proportion to the rhetoric. Remember that the original term “War Hawk” was an epithet used to describe politicians that hyped up attacking Britain for their own glory and eventually caused the War of 1812 (look how well that turned out), so I’m basing it off that.
Thus, in my opinion stevestrum in the comments yesterday wasn’t a chickenhawk (in the same way MvdG never was) for saying that he thought armed confrontation would eventually be necessary because they weren’t trying to raise a mob. Bush wasn’t a chickenhawk for the Afghanistan War but was for Iraq/GWOT (in general) because he’s constantly used rhetoric about how it is a grand struggle between civilizations to secure political power but has explicitly told people they don’t need to make sacrifices that such a struggle would demand (because that might make them reassess the situation).
IMO Clinton wasn’t a chickenhawk either because he never got his political cover using militaristic rhetoric — but he definitely Wagged the Dog.
In short, someone can be (or not be) a chickenhawk regardless of millitary experience — but the term originally got the meaning it did because people noticed the Vietnam vets weren’t using militaristic language as propaganda. McCain is a hawk, but not a chickenhawk not because he had military service but (in my new definition) because he tries to convince people in logical terms that the situation is worth sacrificing for. People with service know what horrors await so I think they’re much less likely to send in troops halfheartedly.
mikkel:
Makes sense, but too nuanced an argument for the average bear. (Their fault, not yours.)
Haha that doesn’t mean you can’t adopt it if you agree.
Incidentally I was listening to Eminem (who I think used to be a genius and deserves a PhD thesis on the interplay between modern pop art and the public persona that uses him and Marilyn Manson as studies) because I haven’t for a long while and came across the lyrics from a song “Square Dance” which was written at most 4-5 months after Sept 11.
Is it just me or did he predict our response perfectly long before any of those things were on the radar?
I think mikkel is on the right track in looking for a definition of the term chickenhawk.
Given that one of the most profound aspects of the American experiment is the subjugation of the military to civilian poitical control, the simple absence of military experience should not logically be a disqualification for the presidency.
Certainly there’s nothing in the constitution that would indicate such a requirement.
I find that I use the term chickenhawk to describe those in the civilian leadership who strike me as using their authority over the military to compensate for their lack of personal experience, their desire to be seen as the warriors they never, in truth, were.
I also use the term for war proponents who would never consider, and especially worked to avoid military service for themselves or their family members (c.f. Our kind of people, and also Operation Yellow Elephant).
Therefore I try to limit my use of chickenhawk as a reference to a certain sort of hypocrite.
Whether this applies to Giuliani or not I don’t know, since what I mostly know about him is that on 9/11 he didn’t go run and hide in some undisclosed location.