Jeff Jacoby writes in response to the charge that he's a chicken hawk that
You don't need medical training to express an opinion on healthcare. You don't have to be on the police force to comment on matters of law and order. You don't have to be a parent or a teacher or a graduate to be heard on the educational controversies of the day. You don't have to be a journalist to comment on this or any other column.
This recalls a several year old column by the late Michael Kelly as he dismissed the chicken hawk argument in his own inimitable way
I am myself not technically a "chicken hawk," as I was, thank God, a few years too young to serve during the Vietnam War and too old and too untrained to be of any military use during the next significant war, the Persian Gulf War of 1991. But I suppose I fit the spirit if not the letter of the slur. I am certainly now a hawk, and during the Vietnam years I was certainly a dove. What changed me was in fact experience of war -- but not as a soldier.I covered the Gulf War as a reporter, and it was this experience, later compounded by what I saw reporting in Bosnia, that convinced me of the moral imperative, sometimes, for war.
. . .
That was the beginning of the making of me as at least an honorary "chicken hawk." After that, I never again could stand the arguments of those who sat in the luxury of safety -- "advocating nonresistance behind the guns of the American Fleet," as George Orwell wrote of World War II pacifists -- and held that the moral course was, in crimes against humanity as in crimes on the street corner: Better not to get involved, dear.
I have left out the gruesome scene that Kelly described. But you may follow the link if you wish to read it.
Regardless, sometimes, unfortunately it is necessary to fight. There are those of us who may advocate violence as a course of action to prevent more violence. But that hardly makes us immoral for suggesting that it is the best option.
UPDATE: Despite a minor objection Q and O approves of Jacoby's column
But that aside, Jacoby makes a compelling argument which, as far as I'm concerned, drives the necessary wooden stake into the heart of this tired canard. He supports his argument logically and historically. While he essentially uses the same sort of examples we've argued over multiple posts and comments over many months, he uses them powerfully.
Blue Crab Boulevard likes it too.
UPDATE II: Captain's Quarters weighs in but takes the opposite approach of Q and O:
``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. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer.
I believe that Q and O is correct that soldiers or ex-soldiers tend to be more reticent about going to war.
Sister Toldjah offers this advice
Here’s another way to stymie those in the anti-war ‘movement’ who invoke the “chickenhawk” argument: Ask them if they supported us going into Afghanistan after 9-11. 95% of the time, you’ll get a yes answer. In response to that, ask them when exactly it was that they served time in Afghanistan, since they supported going in in the first place. Chances are, they didn’t serve at all.
The military serves the people, the people does not serve the military, nor does the military serve itself. If it would, it wouldn't be an honor to serve because the military would be no different than most (private-owned) companies.
No, the military serves the people. Not just individuals who once served in the military, but everyone.
Because the military serves the people, the people has the right to say what they believe the military should do.
Combs spouts off wants to reward Jeff Jacoby
I think Jeff Jacoby deserves one of those cool FreedomDogs T-shirts. I assume Jacoby is in the Boston area. I'll pledge $10 if someone from that area can find out what size and how to get it to him. Heck, if someone makes it dead simple for me --i.e., all I have to do is fill out a PayPal form -- I'll cover the whole thing. Anybody want to help make this happen?
Technorati tags: Jeff Jacoby, Michael Kelly, Chicken Hawk.
Posted by SoccerDad at July 24, 2006 11:42 AM | TrackBackI think this misses the point. One certainly doesn't have to have military experience to express an opinion on war. But the most vocal proponents of immediate war with Iraq without thinking it through were those who never served. Furthermore, on top of that, those who questioned the wisdom of the war were dismissed as traitors, so it's no surprise that in their resentment over such a slur, they would in turn slur the war's proponents.
Posted by: Laura at July 24, 2006 8:57 PMPlenty of men have very firm pro-abortion views. Last I checked, not only hasn't a man had one but no man has the possibility of facing one. Following the Chickenhawk logic, men have no right to an opinion on abortion (actually a view I once held as a far-left feminist).
The Chickenhawk argument is viciously sexist, too. It completely ignores/discounts the millions of American women who fully support the GWOT. What are we, chopped (chicken) liver? I was avidly anti-military in college in the Vietnam era, when I was of an age to join. Having now come to my senses, I fully support the GWOT and our military, but they wouldn't have me now no matter how badly I wanted to join. What does that make me?
There is no end to the sexism, bigotry and just plain intellectual dishonesty (or inability) on the Left.
Posted by: Peg C. at July 27, 2006 1:46 PM