The Tragedy of Chicken Hawks Ruling Our Country

[Time for change]

I have no problem with having a President who has no military combat experience – or no military experience whatsoever. Nor do I have a problem with such a President leading us into a war if there are good reasons for doing that. In fact, three Presidents who never served in the military – all Democrats (Wilson, FDR, and Clinton) – led us into wars during the 20th Century. I don’t have a problem with any of that, largely because I believe that our involvement in the wars they led us into (all which were already in progress when we joined them) prevented a lot more disaster than they created.


The definition and essence of chicken hawks

But I think that there is a very big problem with chicken hawks leading us into wars. Here is a typical definition of a chicken hawk, provided by The New Hampshire Gazette:

A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.

The most tragic phrase of this definition, for a country such as ours that is led by chicken hawks, is “enthusiastic about war”. No national leader should be enthusiastic about war. War, for any responsible and moral national leader, should be a choice of last resort, after other solutions have failed, and it should be taken with a heavy heart. But chicken hawks are too eager to prove their manliness to see it that way.


The consequences of chicken hawks in positions of power

Here is a description of the problems of a militaristic state led by chicken hawks, by Chalmers Johnson, quoting historian Alfred Vagts, from his new book, “The Sorrows of Empire – Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic”:

In general, civilian militarism leads “to an intensification of the horrors of warfare…” Civilians are driven more by ideology than professionals, and when working with the military, they often feel the need to display a warrior’s culture, which they take to mean iron-fisted ruthlessness, since they are innocent of genuine combat. This effect was particularly marked in the second Iraq War of 2003, when many ideologically committed civilians staffing the Department of Defense, without the experience of military service, no less of warfare, dictated strategies, force levels, and war aims to the generals and admirals. Older, experienced senior officers denigrated them as “chicken hawks”.

The underlying problem is, therefore, that these chicken hawks, in a desperate attempt to make themselves feel better about what they perceive as their own cowardice, overcompensate by putting other peoples’ lives at great risk. Somehow they feel that this portrays an image of bravery (and unfortunately, to a large extent this does fool a substantial portion of the gullible public).

This problem is pervasive in the current Bush administration, and Seymour Hersh, in “Chain of Command – The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib”, explains in great detail how the warrior culture of this administration has led to an atmosphere in which torture of prisoners is not only allowed, but condoned (even prior to the Iraq war), as he notes the barriers to speaking out against the torture of prisoners, even as the evidence of what was happening began to pile up:

No one in the Bush Administration would get far, however, if he was viewed as soft, in any way, on suspected Al Qaeda terrorism.

But why would encouraging the torture of defenseless prisoners portray an image of courage or manliness, even as the administration was being told that this was producing no useful intelligence, and in fact was putting our own soldiers at great risk by encouraging our adversaries to treat them in the same manner?

Another tragic consequence of the need for our chicken hawks to prove their metal is their refusal to listen to the advice of military experts who could have helped them to avoid the tragedy of the Iraq war, as described in this Nation article by Eric Alterman:

What makes this catastrophe all the more infuriating is how predictable it was--except, of course, by those blinded by ideology and unwilling to listen to more experienced voices. If only the Administration had not turned a deaf ear when those former military men not under "color" contract to the networks spoke candidly about the proposed war. None did so with greater force or credibility than Maj. Gen. Anthony Zinni…
Zinni gave talks …. in which he predicted many problems now facing US occupation authorities. Among Zinni's warnings: "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others, who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war, see it another.... We are about to...ignite a fuse in this region...we will rue the day we ever started."

The marginalization of truth tellers by the chicken hawks

Intrinsic to the efforts of our chicken hawks to obtain the information that they want, rather than the information that they need for the good of our country, is their policy of punishing those who provide information that they don’t want to hear and don’t want anyone to know about, and rewarding those who tell them what they want to hear. For example, General Zinni was told by the Administration that his advice is no longer wanted. Joe Wilson was infamously punished through the outing of his CIA wife for his publicly declaring that the evidence for Iraq’s nuclear capability was bogus. And a typical example is provided by the situation of General Antonio Taguba, who conducted a detailed investigation of the abuse of U.S. prisoners and provided a detailed report, where he noted, among numerous tragic findings, that 60% of the civilian inmates at Abu Ghraib did not pose threats to society and therefore should not have even been there. According to Hersh’s book, quoting a retired Army Major General:

General Antonio Tabuba suffered the fate of all truth tellers… He’s the guy who blew the whistle, and the Army will pay the price for his integrity. The leadership does not like to have people make bad news public.

In contrast, the enablers of administration policies, such as Tommy Franks, George Tenet, and Paul Bremer, all received Congressional medals of honor.


The political strategies of today’s chicken hawks

One would think and hope that the true nature of these chicken hawks would be obvious to the American people. And indeed recent polls suggest that that is the case with a substantial portion of them. Yet, Republican strategy has been sickeningly effective to a large extent in turning attention away from the chicken hawk nature of the Bush administration by taking the offensive and questioning the patriotism and courage of Democrats who advocate against war. Democrats need to be very aggressive in countering this strategy. Here is an example involving Senator Frank Lautenberg:

In a scathing speech on the Senate floor, Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, said that he did not think politicians should be judged by whether they had military service but added that "when those who didn't serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive."
"We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others," he said. "When it was their turn to serve where were they? AWOL, that's where they were."

If someone wants to talk tough to prove his courage I don’t have a great problem with that. But when the President of the United States does this, thereby reducing our credibility with other countries and putting our soldiers and our nation at great risk in the process, that is very tragic indeed. Lautenberg continued:

Lautenberg also criticized the president for saying "bring 'em on" to Iraqi insurgents. "I served in Europe in World War II," he said. "The last thing I wanted to hear from my commander in chief, or my local commander, is dare the enemy to launch attacks against us."

Conclusion

It is a terribly dangerous and tragic state of affairs when a nation, especially one as powerful as the United States of America, is ruled by men whose great enthusiasm for war is based, not on the needs of the citizens whom they are sworn to protect, but on their own need to prove their machismo, and for financial gain. When those men have no military experience themselves, and when their political strategy for dealing with that obvious fact is to question the patriotism and courage of those who question the need for war, we need to take aggressive steps to prevent them from getting away with that disgusting, hypocritical strategy.

[understandinglife]

1. "... we need to take aggressive steps to prevent them from getting away

... with that disgusting, hypocritical strategy."

Yes, in_deed.

Great post, as always.


Peace.

[Time for change]

21. Thank you ul -- I think that Dean is getting the message n/t

[EOTE]

2. K&R

Aside from commending congressmen like Senator Lautenberg when they speak out against the tactics of this evil administration, what else can be done to stop this? What can be done to reach out to the portion of our country who aren't ideologically driven and yet don't know that this administration is full of chickenhawks?

[Time for change]

5. Great question

I had that in mind when I wrote this post, though I don't have any specific suggestions for spreading the word.

One advantage of framing the issue like I did, IMO, is that this way of framing it is very harsh, colorful, and yet accurate. I think that this is the characterization that all moderates and even right wingers ought to have of this administration.

And, of course people ought to feel absolutely free to pirate ideas from other DUers to send letters to newspapers, Congressmen/women, Senators, etc.

[ninkasi]

3. Excellent post

It's true the chickenhawks are ruining the country. They are, indeed, cowards, and are only too quick to send other people to their deaths, and by doing so, think it portrays them as tough and brave. They all had a chance to serve their country, and all made determined efforts to keep from serving. What they are doing now is cowardly and disgraceful.

Not one of them has any real understanding of bravery, valor, or honesty. They are the worst of the worst, and sadly, our country should be led by the best. How do such despicable men come to power? A fawning press helps, as does their complete willingness to smear anyone opposed to them, and to lie when they feel the truth will not help them.

I only wish the citizens of this country would be more careful of guarding our own democracy by becoming involved in making sure our politicians are using their offices to serve the people, instead of corporate interests. The war in Iraq is nothing but a huge giveaway to those interests. We also need to drown out the hate and spite spewed by the religious right, who choose candidates based on how well they demonize gays and women.

[Time for change]

6. Not only a fawning press, tied to the hip with the GOP

But a corrupt election system as well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1297

We have to keep that in mind.

[ninkasi]

9. Absolutely

Yes, the election system is broken. We have ample evidence of that. I believe, though, that without the press cheer-leading for this administration's every move, it would be much more difficult for elections to be stolen. The rigging would then be as obvious to the average citizen as it would be to us.

We also need to stop the dangerous trend of mingling religion and politics. Politics need to have some basis in reality, while religion can rely strictly on myth and personal beliefs. Logically,there should be nothing to bar gay marriage. Every politician who is opposed, however, is doing so on religious grounds, whether he admits it or not. The stigma of gay sex being immoral is strictly a religious interpretation.

We have to fight the election system, corporate person hood, and corruption on a monumental scale, just to be able to survive. What I find ironic is that Republicans fight for self interest, and most Democrats fight for society. We can fight for universal health care, even if we have insurance ourselves; we can fight for gay rights, even if we are straight, and we can fight for minorities, even if we are in the majority. A fair society, where every member of society is helped by all, is stronger and happier than the system we have now.

We can all fight for peace by not starting illegal invasions, and by learning to cooperate with, rather than dictate to, other countries. Everything the Republicans do is contrary to the principles our country was founded on. I truly believe that Thomas Jefferson would be bitterly disappointed at what this country has become .

[Time for change]

12. Excellent points

You've summed up concisely most of the serious problems with the Republican Party and our society, and I agree with everything you say here.

But why do you find it ironic that the Republicans fight for self interest, whereas most Democrats fight for society?

[ninkasi]

14. The irony is because

they like to portray themselves as the party of "morals" and "values", and consider us as commie pinko types,who hate America. People who hate this country can do nothing but continue to vote Republican to destroy it. We, who fight for others, are typecast as being godless and immoral, but we are the ones who fight to make life better for everyone.

They get away with that by equating sex, and anything to do with sex, as the major sin. They don't seem to care as much about feeding the hungry, and making sure that everybody receives a decent level of housing, medical care, and education. In my own opinion, it's ironic that the party that causes so much suffering, by catering to self interest, manages to convince so many that it's the "moral party."

[Time for change]

15. Oh yes

The way I look at it is that, given the bankrupt values that characterize the Republican Party, what choice do they have but to be hypocritical about it? Claim to the "Christian" party of moral, American values, and maybe some people won't notice what their values really are.

Here's an article I found recently, written by an evangelical Christian minister, that really puts the Christian Right in their place. I real good antidote to their hypocricy, and it says a lot of the things that you just said:

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1019-24.htm

[blm]

4. The tragedy of WAR PROFITEERS leading our country - they also happen to be

chickenhawks.

[donkeyotay]

7. That is the more important point: War Profiteers are in charge

Businessmen are making national security decisions. The generals who know how to fight war and the congress who is supposed to insure that war is only fought as a last resort have been trumped by military contractors who have a profit motive and ideologues who should be fighting their wars in ivied towers, not with real blood and treasure.

[blm]

8. Fascism - pure and simple.

.

[Time for change]

18. Comparison of the Bush regime with the fascists

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2069007

[Time for change]

19. The fact that they are war profiteers is certainly worth emphasizing

thought I didn't do that in this post.

But I also feel that it is important to emphasize that they are chicken hawks. I think that there are a number of tragic aspects of this war that relate to that fact more than the fact that the financial aspect. For example, it is difficult to see how the torture of prisoners or the refusal to take the advice of experienced generals has much to do with the desire for financial gain.

[Time for change]

11. That is most definitely true

Both their war profiteering and their cowardess should be emphasized IMO, and I believe that the two are very much related. Maybe I should have emphasized them both here, but I find it simpler to emphasize one thing at a time.

[NoAmericanTaliban]

10. The original 'Cut & Run' crowd are the chickenhawks..

who cut & run when it came for them to serve in Vietnam & other conflicts. There only interest now is how much $$$ they can profiteer from the war.

[Time for change]

13. That about sums them up

And yet they manage to portray their actions to the American public as those of patriotism and courage.

[democrank]

16. I can`t tell you how much this hypocrisy bothers me.

As far as I`m concerned, this is one of the greatest Bush administration stories never told. Instead of getting sidetracked by a phony crisis over at CBS and spending umpteen weeks trying to defend a typewriter, we should have nailed Bush, Cheney and the rest of the Chickenhawks on their hypocrisy.

Some of my friends lost their lives in Vietnam and some returned maimed and troubled to this day. I have no problem with a person choosing to not serve in the military. I do have a problem with an AWOL, Rambo POS bully fraud and his five-deferment VP dressing up in military costumes and giving speeches to the troops about duty and honor. Almost worse than that are other speeches from these two Chickenhawks where they accuse Democrats of being soft on terrorism and not willing to defend their country. While Junior Bush is resting out at his Crawford Ranch and Cheney is quail hunting, soldiers sent to do what neither of those Chickenhawks were willing to do, are being blown to bits.

You couldn`t find enough genuine concern about our troops in the Bush administration to fill a thimble.

[Time for change]

17. They don't even supply the troops with enough body armor

So they have to have funding drives back home to raise money to pay for it themselves. And where is the outrage over this?

Yes, it's bad enough that they would accuse people like John Kerry and Max Cleland of being "soft on terrorism". But what bothers me the most is the fact that the whole war is based on a bunch of lies -- just for the profit of Bush/Cheney and their friends and so that they could accumulate more power and prestige.

[Time for change]

20. Here's an article that criticizes our rants against our chickenhawk

leaders:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18599/

It claims that we claim that those who didn't serve in the military have no right to express pro-war opinions. And it gives as an analogy the preposterous idea that saying that someone who had never owned a slave would have no right to speak out against slavery.

This is a straw man argument. It totally misconstrues our chickenhawk argument. Nobody that I know of has expressed the opinion that those who haven't served in the military have no right to express a pro-war opinion.

What we are saying is that anybody in a position of leadership should maintain a responsible and moral attitude towards leading our country into war. We believe that war should be a last resort, not a first resort towards the solving of political conflicts, and that our current leaders have used it as a first resort, and even had to repeatedly twist the facts and lie to the American public and Congress in order to obtain support for the Iraq war. We believe therefore that there are other motivations for the war other than what our leaders publicly tell us, and that those motivations involve personal gain and ego. Furthermore, in view of those same leaders' avoidance of war when it would involve them in combat, and especially in view of their hysterical rantings against patriotic Americans who are against wars that they believe serve no useful purpose, we find these leaders to be deeply hypocritical.