John Bolton writes in the LA Times, which unlike the rest of the world I read because where else could I find out who died in my neighborhood recently, that we must stay in Afghanistan forever! Until the job gets done. I have no particularly informed opinion about this, which is kind of sad, but I was amused by the response of a Times columnist, complaining that Bolton had no right to make such a proclamation given his dodging of the draft back in the Vietnam days. Oh, I mean his National Guard service. And he was even unapologetic about it, because, as he was once quoted, the war was already lost. I am sure that no soldier in the Afghanistan thinks that right now. Get back to work! John Bolton says the war is not lost!
The critique is of course true, and it got me to thinking: Is a chickenhawk the only variety of bird currently in the GOP? We have John McCain but he is half dead. Warner retired. After him, the only one with the credibility to tell young men and women to stay the course is Lindsey Graham. At one time the GOP was the party that loved to put American military heroes up for office. So sad. My hunch is that the individualism of the party, masquerading as “liberty” but really emerging out of the free market ideology that no one owes anyone else shit, makes the GOP particularly cowardly these days. This would explain the rise of chickenhawkery since the 1980s.
It also led me to thinking: Are chickenhawks more chicken than other times of hawks, not only concerning their own hide, but also everyone else’s? Here I am referring to the outcry over relocating Guantanamo detainees to US soil. Everyone was SO SCARED! I have a hard time imagining the Grand Old Party of Eisenhower, as opposed to the Scaredy-Cat Party (SCP) we have today, freaking out about a couple of little terrorists behind fifteen feet of concrete on U.S. soil. Grow a pair. No one was asking us to be prison guards. In fact the people in that Illinois town wanted those jobs, which says something about how bad the economy is. You want to stay in Afghanistan? Fine. But if you are going to be the party of a strong defense, then act a little tougher, weenies. If people want to shepherd around suspected Al Qaeda operatives around a maximum security prison in shackles for a living, isn’t that their right to choose? Isn’t that the liberty you all want us to have?
None of them have “a pair.” They pay (poorly) lesser mortals to do that sort of thing so they and those who write about them can make the scene at Matt Drudge’s party.
1. While the President and Attorney General fought the good fight on Gitmo, the rest of the Democratic Party stood right there with the Republicans, forbidding Obama from bringing any of the detainees to the US for trial or detention. We can’t really blame this one on the GOP alone.
2. I think the term “chicken-hawk” is only rightfully applied to those who claim that their support for a war is based on being braver and tougher than those who oppose that war, but who have taken definitive steps to protect themselves from going to war. Without the hawk introducing the issue of his own superior manhood into the argument, the chicken-hawk attack is just an ad hominem fallacy.
I agree with both Joe and Ref. Both sides need to take some heat on the issue. The reason I pick on Republicans more is the particular hypocrisy of their position as the so called party of national defense which is terrified of terrorists behind bars and particularly eager to extend our involvement in overseas wars without having done the service.
don’t overlook mark kirk… my new republicon senator and self-proclaimed winner of the navy’s coveted “bestest-ever intelligence officer of all time” award.
You’re not a chickenhawk if you agree with a military action you’re not taking part in.
You are a chickenhawk if you bash someone, on grounds of “cowardice” or “patriotism” who’s against that same military action you support but aren’t physically taking part in.