Chickenhawk (politics)

For other uses, see Chickenhawk.

Chickenhawk (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, but has never personally been in a war, especially (but not always) if that person is perceived to have actively avoided military service when of draft age. Many proponents of the term insist on an additional requirement: Chickenhawks believe that their support for a war (or other military action) is an indication of their personal courage and that those who disagree are appeasers and/or cowards who lack sufficient courage. This important point is rarely acknowledged by the term's opponents when its use is criticized.

The term is a deliberate insult, meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present. Often, the implication is that the person in question lacks the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war. Alternatively, on the second definition, the implication is that "chicken hawks" see themselves as falsely analogous to those actually fighting, thereby demeaning those actually serving while elevating themselves.

The term was first applied to vocal supporters of military action who were perceived to have used family connections or college deferments to avoid serving in previous wars, particularly the Vietnam War. In current usage, the label is used almost exclusively to describe prominent conservative and neoconservative supporters of the Iraq War who have themselves never been in combat. Those who use the term are generally but not always on the political left; most factions or individuals labeled "chickenhawks" are members of the U.S. Republican Party. The label is not usually applied to women (who traditionally are not expected to serve in combat) and to members of the Democratic Party, even those who voted to support the war but have never served in the military (as they are perceived as being less "hawkish"). People who use the term have not necessarily been in the military themselves; people labeled "chickenhawks" have sometimes served in the military, but have not seen combat. The term is used most prominently by civilians to describe other civilians, and is not usually associated with current members of the military.

Opponents of the term argue that it is an ad hominem, that it is historically unsound, that it is inconsistently applied, and that it suggests ideas that are contrary to certain fundamental principles of American democracy.

Origin of the term

Although also a name for a type of bird, in political usage chickenhawk is a compound of chicken (meaning coward) and hawk (meaning someone who advocates war, first used to describe "War Hawks" in the War of 1812). According to the Internet site wordspy.com, the earliest known print citation of chickenhawk in this sense was in the June 16, 1986 issue of The New Republic. (The magazine referenced the term in a way that suggests it was already in usage.) An association between the word chickenhawk and war was popularized several years earlier in the 1983 bestselling book Chickenhawk, a memoir by Robert Mason about his service in the Vietnam War, in which he was a helicopter pilot. Mason used the word as a compound oxymoron to describe both his fear of combat ("chicken") and his attraction to it ("hawk"), a slightly different use of the term which nonetheless might have inspired the current usage.

Previously, the term war wimp was sometimes used, coined during the Vietnam War by Congressman Andrew Jacobs (Democrat–Indiana), a Marine veteran of the Korean War. Jacobs defined a war wimp as "someone who is all too willing to send others to war, but never got 'round to going himself", which is equivalent to how the term chickenhawk is now used.

History of the term's usage

The use of the term chickenhawk to describe a "hawk" who has never been in combat became more popular when members of the "Baby Boom" generation who had not served in the Vietnam War began entering national politics. Dan Quayle, a "hawkish" conservative Republican, was George H. W. Bush's running mate in the 1988 presidential election. In the campaign, Quayle was criticized for having used family connections to get into the Indiana National Guard in 1969, allegedly in order to avoid going to Vietnam. As Vice President, Quayle became the object of frequent ridicule in popular media; references describing him as a "chicken hawk" can be found in newsgroup archives from 1990. One popular joke from this time, playing on the fact that "Quayle" and "quail" are homophones, was:

Question: what do you get when you combine a chicken with a hawk?

Answer: a Quayle.

In the 1992 presidential campaign, conservative critics of Democratic candidate Bill Clinton questioned the way in which he had avoided service in the Vietnam War. They charged that while Quayle had at least served honorably in uniform, they argued that Clinton had been a "draft dodger" and was thus not suitable to become commander-in-chief. This criticism continued throughout Clinton's presidency, particularly on right-wing talk radio. Liberals countered with the argument that many of Clinton's conservative critics were "chickenhawks" who had themselves avoided being sent to fight in Vietnam.

File:OperationChickenhawk.jpg

"Operation Chickenhawk" illustration (by William Bramhall), from Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (1996)

A notable example of this response was liberal satirist Al Franken's 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot, which included a chapter called "Operation Chickenhawk." The story details the exploits of a fictional Vietnam War squad comprised of Quayle, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Clarence Thomas, and George Will—all conservative Republicans who were of draft age during the Vietnam era yet did not serve in the conflict. In the story, the cowardly and incompetent squad bungles a surprise attack on a North Vietnamese Army company and ultimately extricates itself from the battle by fragging its gung-ho lieutenant, Oliver North (a conservative Republican veteran of the war).

Usage of the term continued into the 2000 U.S. Presidential election. Vice presidential candidate Dick Cheney, who avoided the Vietnam War though the use of college and marriage deferments, was often labeled a chickenhawk. Presidential candidate George W. Bush, who had served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War but did not go overseas, was also called a chickenhawk. For example, in a November 15, 2000 article in the Chicago Sun-Times, liberal columnist Richard Roeper criticized what he regarded as Bush's "chickenhawk stance on the Vietnam War."

Subsequently, in the 2004 campaign, Vice President Cheney criticized the voting record of Democratic nominee John Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, suggesting that Kerry's positions on national defense made him unsuitable to be commander-in-chief. Democrats responded by highlighting Cheney's comment that he himself had not served in the military because he had had "other priorities", with Senator Frank Lautenberg calling Cheney "the lead chickenhawk" in criticizing Kerry.

Since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, numerous conservative and neoconservative supporters of the war have been labeled "chickenhawks" by liberal opponents of the war. For example, the online edition of the alternative, liberal newspaper The New Hampshire Gazette maintains a "Chickenhawk Database", which they describe as "detailing the means by which various right-wing politicians and personalities avoided military service." The database accuses numerous supporters of the war (all or almost all Republicans) of being "chickenhawks", including conservatives such as Bill O'Reilly and William Kristol.

Arguments for and against the term

People who use the term chickenhawk generally make or imply a number of arguments:

• "Hawks" who advocate war but avoided combat themselves are hypocritical, and this hypocrisy weakens or invalidates their current views about warfare.
• People who have been in combat have seen true cost of war, and are therefore better equipped to make decisions about going to war than people who have never been in combat.
• On matters of military policy, the judgment of combat veterans should not be criticized by those who avoided combat.

The use of the term chickenhawk has been criticized for a number of reasons. Most of these criticisms stem from conservative pro-war advocates, and only apply to the most broad definition of a "chickenhawk" as any advocate for war who does not have military experience. If the term is about specifically those who revel in war and combat (fought by others) rather than a specific war at a specific time that may be deemed necessary, many of the reasons below do not apply:

• The Founding Fathers of the United States, wary of military rule, explicitly designed the government so that the military would be subordinate to the elected, civilian representatives of the people. The "chickenhawk" idea implies that a military class is superior to civilian authorities in times of war, which is a dangerously militaristic (and reactionary) attitude

• History does not support the idea the only those who have seen combat should lead the United States into war. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, capable wartime leaders, were "chickenhawks" by the standards used to label contemporary conservatives.“The Chickenhawk Slur” by John Hawkins, rightwingnews.com</ref>

• Civilians are specifically targeted in modern warfare, but the "chickenhawk" argument suggests that even though civilians are potential casualties, their opinions about war are less valid because they have not served in the military.

• Similarly, a majority of the voting public is ineligible or unlikely to serve in combat, including women, the disabled, and "out" homosexuals. Using combat experience as a litmus test for voicing a viewpoint about war would discount the views of most of the nation.

• The term is an ad hominem logical fallacy. Labeling someone a chickenhawk does not actually address the argument for the use of military force; it is instead only name-calling that sidesteps rational debate.

• Extending the "chickenhawk" approach into other American political debates would mean that, for example, only police officers (and ex-police officers) could advocate that policemen fight crime.

• The idea that a veteran would have an inherent moral superiority with regard to military matters is baseless because a veteran could be guilty of war crimes, or may have served only because of conscription.

• Using the same logic that only veterans have the experience and moral standing to advocate war, then only veterans have the experience and moral standing to oppose war.

==Notes==

External links

General information

• "Chickenhawk Vs. Chicken Little", by Terry M. Neal, from washingtonpost.com, September 6, 2002
• Defending Kerry, senator blasts 'chickenhawks', cnn.com, April 28, 2004
• Dem Calls Cheney A 'Chickenhawk', cbsnews.com, April 29, 2004

Advocates of the term:

• "Leading the charge from behind a desk" by Lionel Van Deerlin, San Diego Union-Tribune, September 4, 2002
• Operation Yellow Elephant
• The Chickenhawk Database
• "Recruit the Chickenhawks" by Michael Moore
• "What makes someone a 'chicken hawk'?" by Glenn Greenwald

Critics of the term:

• "A Fighting Chance" by Jonah Goldberg, Jewish World Review, August 7, 2002.
• "Chickenhawk? The general trump-it-all insult", by Michael Kelly, October 30, 2002. Kelly called himself an "honorary chickenhawk" a few months before his death while covering the Iraq War as a journalist.
• "Armchair General: The ugly idea that non-soldiers have less right to argue for war, by Christopher Hitchens, Slate, November 11, 2002.
• “The Chickenhawk Slur” by John Hawkins, rightwingnews.com
• "Why the 'Chickenhawk' argument is un-American: Part I" by Ben Shapiro, August 17 2005.
• "Playing 'Chickenhawk': Left-wing platitudes" by Jonah Goldberg, National Review, August 17, 2005.
• "Bad Moves: Can't do it? Don't back it." by Julian Baggini, Butterflies and Wheels.