 |
|
The Kosher Gourmet by Megan Gordon With its colorful cache of purples and oranges and reds, COLLARD GREEN SLAW is a marvelous mood booster --- not to mention just downright delish
April 18, 2014
Rabbi Yonason Goldson: Clarifying one of the greatest philosophical conundrums in theology
John Ericson: Trying hard to be 'positive' but never succeeding? Blame Your Brain
The Kosher Gourmet by Julie Rothman Almondy, flourless torta del re (Italian king's cake), has royal roots, is simple to make, . . . but devour it because it's simply delicious
April 14, 2014
Rabbi Dr Naftali Brawer: Passover frees us from the tyranny of time
Eric Schulzke: First degree: How America really recovered from a murder epidemic
Georgia Lee: When love is not enough: Teaching your kids about the realities of adult relationships
Gordon Pape: How you can tell if your financial adviser is setting you up for potential ruin
Dana Dovey: Up to 500,000 people die each year from hepatitis C-related liver disease. New Treatment Has Over 90% Success Rate
Justin Caba: Eating Watermelon Can Help Control High Blood Pressure
April 11, 2014
Rabbi Hillel Goldberg: Silence is much more than golden
Susan Swann: How to value a child for who he is, not just what he does
Susan Scutti: A Simple Blood Test Might Soon Diagnose Cancer
Chris Weller: Have A Slow Metabolism? Let Science Speed It Up For You
April 9, 2014
Jonathan Tobin: Why Did Kerry Lie About Israeli Blame?
Samuel G. Freedman: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Jessica Ivins: A resolution 70 years later for a father's unsettling legacy of ashes from Dachau
Matthew Mientka: How Beans, Peas, And Chickpeas Cleanse Bad Cholesterol and Lowers Risk of Heart Disease
April 8, 2014
Dana Dovey: Coffee Drinkers Rejoice! Your Cup Of Joe Can Prevent Death From Liver Disease
Chris Weller: Electric 'Thinking Cap' Puts Your Brain Power Into High Gear
April 4, 2014
Amy Peterson: A life of love: How to build lasting relationships with your children
John Ericson: Older Women: Save Your Heart, Prevent Stroke Don't Drink Diet
John Ericson: Why 50 million Americans will still have spring allergies after taking meds
Sarah Boesveld: Teacher keeps promise to mail thousands of former students letters written by their past selves
April 2, 2014
Dan Barry: Should South Carolina Jews be forced to maintain this chimney built by Germans serving the Nazis?
Frank Clayton: Get happy: 20 scientifically proven happiness activities
Susan Scutti: It's Genetic! Obesity and the 'Carb Breakdown' Gene
|
| |
Jewish World Review
July 24, 2006
/ 28 Tamuz, 5766
The ‘chicken hawk’ slur
By
Jeff Jacoby
| 
|
|
|
|
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
"It's touching that you're so concerned about the military in Iraq," a reader in
Wyoming e-mails in response to one of my columns on the war. "But I have a
suspicion you're a phony. So tell me, what's your combat record? Ever serve?"
You can expect a fair amount of that from the antiwar crowd if, like me, you
support the war but have never seen combat yourself. That makes you a "chicken
hawk" — one of those, as Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, defending John
Kerry from his critics, put it during the 2004 presidential campaign, who
"shriek like a hawk, but have the backbone of a chicken." Kerry himself liked to
play that card. "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in
Vietnam have against those of us who did," he would sniff, casting himself as
the victim of unmanly hypocrites who never wore the uniform, yet had the gall to
criticize him, a decorated veteran, for his stance on the war.
"Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur — and a dishonest and incoherent
slur at that. 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 likely be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace
were left up to those who have been in the armed forces. Soldiers and
ex-soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national
security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On
the question of Iraq — stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? — I would be
willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?
The cry of "chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at
those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the
background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not
to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing
and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and
experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of "chicken hawks" ought to
be just as dismissive of "chicken doves."
In any case, the whole premise of the "chicken hawk" attack — that military
experience is a prerequisite for making sound pronouncements on foreign policy
— is illogical and ahistorical.
"There is no evidence that generals as a class make wiser national security
policymakers than civilians," notes Eliot A. Cohen, a leading scholar of
military and strategic affairs at Johns Hopkins University. "George C. Marshall,
our greatest soldier-statesman after George Washington, opposed shipping arms to
Britain in 1940. His boss, Franklin D. Roosevelt, with nary a day in uniform,
thought otherwise. Whose judgment looks better?"
Some combat veterans display great sagacity when it comes to matters of state
and strategy. Some display none at all. General George B. McLellan had a
distinguished military career, eventually rising to general in chief of the
Union armies; Abraham Lincoln served but a few weeks in a militia unit that saw
no action. Who proved more farsighted during the terrible years of the Civil War
— the military man who was hypercautious about sending men into battle, or the
"chicken hawk" president who pressed aggressively for military action that he
himself had never experienced?
The founders of the American republic were unambiguous in rejecting any hint of
military supremacy. Under the Constitution, military leaders take their orders
from civilian leaders, who are subject in turn to the judgment of ordinary
voters. Those who wear the uniform in wartime are entitled to their countrymen's
esteem and lasting gratitude. But for well over two centuries, Americans have
insisted that when it comes to the debating and shaping of security and defense
policy, soldiers and veterans get no more of a say than anyone else.
You don't need medical training to express an opinion on health care
legislation. You don't have to be a police officer 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.
And whether you have fought for your country or never had that honor, you have
the right every citizen has to weigh in on questions of war and peace. Those who
cackle "Chicken hawk!" are not making an argument. They are merely trying to
stifle one, and deserve to be ignored.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Jeff Jacoby is a Boston Globe columnist. Comment by clicking here.
Jeff Jacoby Archives
© 2006, Boston Globe
|
|
Columnists
Toons
Lifestyles
|
