|
|
|
Copyright Ó
2005 by Rodney G. Graves, all rights reserved.
On the logic of the Chicken-hawk slur
Friends, Americans, Countrymen, lend me your ears!
I come not to praise the chicken-hawk
meme,
but to re-bury it.
I say re-bury advisedly, for the last time it reared its pustulent
head, it was drawn
and quartered, for it was vile. Yet those who would fling the term are
patriotic
men.
Classical allusions aside, let us consider the matter.
The general use of this pejorative has two major implications.
First, that the opinions of those who have not served (or are not
presently serving, or are not serving in combat, or not serving in the
infantry, or not having been wounded...[it’s truly amazing how many
conditions some of these 'patriots' can, and do, assemble.]) can and
should be dismissed out of hand on matters relating to the prosecution of
the War on Terror. Or any war, for that matter.
To recap: If one has not served, one's opinion on issues of and relating
to war is meaningless. Those who have not served, and their opinions
regarding any war, can be - indeed, ought to be - dismissed out of hand.
Does this, dear reader, sound like a reasonable standard to you?
Let us now extend the argument. Consider the dualism of war and
peace. Peace is the reverse of the coin of war. To end peace is to begin
war, and to end war is to begin peace. Thus the decision is subject to the
same scrutiny and standard whether the transition is from peace to war for
from war to peace.
As a consequence those screaming "chickenhawk" would have to
limit debate over issues of war and peace to those who have served in
order to be logically and ethically consistent.
Second, that the non-veteran advancing the hawkish position is a
hypocrite. By that standard our list of hypocrites includes the following:
John Adams
Bill Clinton
Benjamin Franklin
John Hancock
Thomas Jefferson
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
While our list of persons immune from such criticisms would include
George H. W. Bush
George W. Bush
Winston S. Churchill
Alexander Hamilton
Andrew Jackson
Lyndon B. Johnson
Abraham Lincoln
Richard M. Nixon
Ronald Reagan
Theodore Roosevelt
Neither list is comprehensive, Neither list is a reliable indicator.
History seems to tell us that status as a veteran is not predictive of
hawkish or dovish tendencies.
Is it reasonable that a citizen who currently enjoys full franchise should
surrender, or demand that others surrender, their ability to advocate war
or demand peace based on their status as a veteran? Do the individuals
shouting "chickenhawk" really hold the Roman standard that only
one who has been acclaimed "worthy to command the legions" (Imperator)
should exercise executive power? Or are they just trying to shut up those
they disagree with?
|
|
|