Chickenhawks

Gothamimage: Mattis/Boykin2008! - A Republican Draft Challange

Generally, we've managed to avoid purely political comments. We're a little proud of this, because we exhibit restraint in so few situations. But although this blog was originated to, among other purposes, discuss 'political' issues, there aren't a lot of reasons why we should move away from the primary IPSC Competition theme.

Okay, all that's over. We found something 'political' to talk about, and it isn't even about RKBA issues.

But it is, vaguely, about military issues, so maybe it's still okay. Even if it isn't ... it's my blog and I can rant if I want to.

Our new chum "WhisperingCampaign" is a NYC blogger with whom we have shared a couple of comments on blogtopics. He's much more polite in his comments (we castigated Warren Burger; he suggested that Dems oughta lose the 'Gun Control' issue) than we are (he said something positive about Senator Kennedy; we suggested thatTeddy was a lady-killer of the first water).

But while browsing his archives (he blogs "GOTHAMIMAGES", as a New York City guy) he made a comment that touched a long-dormant Geek-button.

He used the term: "Chickenhawk", in reference to President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

Here's the context (go to the original link, above, for the whole rant):

Some people really love killing, if provoked, no matter how.

It's true, and it's been that way for all time.

Do you think Bush likes killing?

Ask Carla Fay Tucker's family. Ask Tucker Carlson , the conservative writer.

Ask those others, whose loved ones did not receive a serious review, much less DNA review, in capital crimes.

Ask anyone who saw him smile and giggle when discussing executions during his first debate with Gore.

When Cheney smirks and burps up phrases like, "take 'em out," what emotions is he tapping into?

You know damm well - maybe the frisson of killing.

So why settle for a bunch of sissy chickenhawks.

Both Bush and Cheney were afraid to fight.

Bush and Cheney are chickenhawks.

The defining link looks like this:

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.

The term is a deliberate canard.
The definition itself, while an attempt to define in the general sense, has been used by the Liberal Left as a catch-phrase to depict the Bush administration as being unconcerned about waging war because, never having been personally involved in combat, members of this administration are serene in their ignorance of the effects of war on those who are directly involved.

As if to say: if you haven't fought in a war, you are not qualified to justify committing your country to war.

Let's look at this in the historical perspective of World War II.

One of the great heroes of the Liberal Left is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who committed America to war in 1941. Roosevelt was never a serving member of the military, he certainly never did "see combat", but he declared war on the people who staged a sneak attack on American soil and American people. He also declared war on their allies, their friends, their families, and everyone the fanatical Japanese knew or cared about. He had no qualms about authorizing the fire-bombing of Dresden.
His vice-president (Truman), who assumed the burden of the war effort after Roosevelt's death, was willing to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

The Liberal Left, apparently, are Down With That.

Maybe it is acceptable because Harry Truman, after all, had served as an Artillary Captain in WWI. Certainly, we don't hear anyone protesting that Harry was a "ChickenHawk".

On the other hand, nobody is calling Roosevelt a "ChickenHawk", either.

Why is that, do you suppose? After all, Franklin (fifth-cousin of a President) was a rich white guy, an Ivy Leaguer, one of the "Effete Elite" as Spiro Agnew might have said. Why is it okay for him to declare war on a Global basis, while it is apparently NOT okay for Bush (son of a president) to declare war on a single nation after a similar sneak attack on American soil, American people?

Why is Bush, who did serve in the military, a ChickenHawk?

Is it because he wasn't called to active duty?

Here's the punchline: it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter whether a President, or his Vice-President, has ever served in the military.
It doesn't matter whether they have gone to war.
It doesn't matter whether they have 'seen the elephant'.
The chances of them successfully prosecuting a war, to the resultant advantage of the Nation which they have been elected to lead, are approximately the same.

Our country has been established with a careful regard for the difference between political leaders and the military.

Our political leaders decide whether to go to war.
Our military leaders decide how to fight the war.

When this guideline is violated, Bad Things Happen.

Should the Military leaders decide when to go to war? That didn't work out well for Japan in 1941-1945. General Tojo and his military cronys pushed the Japanese Emperor into war; it wasn't a priority for the Emperor of Japan!

Should our political leaders decide how, when, where and whether to fight the war? That didn't work out well for America in VietNamin 1961 - 1973. Kennedy (a Democrat ... with personal combat experience) might possibly have handled that better than did his successor Johnson, or HIS successor Nixon?

Nixon ... a Republican ... was a 'ChickHawk" too. He never served. Johnson, on the other hand, had a GLORIOUS war record! He was the first member of congress to serve in WWII, entering as ... a Lieutenant Commander in the U.S. Navy. (No 'Cronyism there!) He was obviously well-qualified to lead our nation in the continuing conduct of the VietNam War, because he (a) served in the Navy, in a War Zone (for 8 months ... more than Kerry!) and (b) he won a Silver Star ... under 'questionable circumstances.

Johnson didn't start the Vietnam War, but he was the Vice-President of the man .. Kennedy ... who arguably DID start the war. Here we have two ... TWO! ... senior members of a White House administration who were, for one reason or another, decorated veterans, and they got us into the first war that America ever lost. Somehow, we don't think this proves the efficicacy of Military Veterans as War Presidents over non-veterans.

Perhaps it's better that our country should go to war based on political reasons, with the advice of military people.
Perhaps it's better that our political leaders NOT be encumbered by personal combat experience. After all, Truman (the Captain of Artillary) led us to war in Korea in the 1950's. Do you remember that war? Do you realize that, legally, America and North Korea are still "at war" as we were 50 years ago?

Surely, all of these Dead Presidents... Truman, Kennedy, Johnson ... who had 'war records' could have been a reliable justification for the implied 'wisdom' that there is an advantage in having a veteran for a 'War President'?

And perhaps, if we diddled the record enough and ignored several historical facts, we could make this point advantageously.

But it STILL doesn't really seem to matter in the long run, does it?

Military Experience doesn't make a great War President; it doesn't even make a great President. Witness U.S. Grant, and D.D. Eisenhower. These two great Generals were total failures as peace-time presidents. Their skills were the ability to make war; they couldn't HANDLE Peace. (Eisenhower was more fortunate than Grant, in that the social problems he faced ... or ignored, as the case may be ... were less immediate and vital than those which Grant was unable to resolve.)

In the long run, the term 'ChickenHawk' doesn't seem to have any meaning at all. A Leader who faces the decision whether or not to declare, or fight, a war realizes NO advantage or disadvantage from either personal military experience or the lack of it.

The term 'ChickenHawk' isn't a meaningful description. It's a catch-phrase. It's a political device intended only to demean the qualification of a President to lead his country. Its sole purpose is to undermine the legitimacy of the incumbent president, and his staff, so that the party out of power can gain some small measure of political power by comparison.

It's a low, mean, underhanded bit of legerdemain, and the only purpose is to weaken the country which is the home of the people who use it.

I have no respect for the people who use this petty phraseology. They contribute nothing to the national survival, their only interest is to find political advantage at the expense of those who are trying to actually DO something to protect the country.

Mr. Bush's decisions may not be those which the Democratic Party would have chosen, but in the four-plus years since the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (and a lonely field in Pennsylvania) were subjected to airborne attacks by a bunch of insane fanatics, the Democrats have still failed to provide an agenda which is a feasible alternative to the Bush doctrine, which is:
Take the battle to our enemies, fight them on foreign soil, and if possible improve the lot of the people there who have suffered from non-democratic thuggery.

If a man who wants to protect our nation, and in doing so rid the world of thugs, can be so cavalierly labeled a 'ChickenHawk', then I will continue to vote for the ChickenHawk Candidate every time.

It works for me.