The first irony of "chickenhawk" is that most people who throw it have never even thought of enlisting and if you, say, proposed something out of "Starship Troopers" (only those who serve get to make policy, because they've proven they are willing to put the nation's interests ahead of their own), they'd scream the loudest.  The second irony is that they would never agree to have Iraq policy governed by the troops and their families, because the Cindy Sheehans are, at least at the moment, still in the minority.  

Doesn't Meghan have a say in the matter? Can a parent really be blamed if her child isn't fighting?

This being America, no one can send his or her children into military service. No one should be called out on the question of whether his own children serve in wars he advocates. (Or else we'd have to ask why Chelsea Clinton didn't join the military to fight the war her mother favored in Iraq.)

However, when a person goes out of his way to avoid military service when his nation is at war during his own youth, that person had better have a thick skin if he decides to go into politics and advocates in favor of war himself. There is at least a whiff of timeshifted hypocrisy to such a person's behavior. This is especially true when a person praises the merits of the war in which he evaded service, whether that advocacy comes at the time or after the fact.

I wouldn't say that being a veteran increases a person's moral standing in policy discussions related to military matters. But being a chickenhawk certainly does _reduce_ a person's moral standing in such discussions.

The obvious solution to this is either for people who shirk their nation's service in wartime to stick to taxes and farm policy when they go into politics, or to institute some form of draft.

This is ridiculous.  John McCain served this country with honor and tremendous courage and integrity.  What his daughter does is irrelevant.  Epicciuto makes the obvious point -- what is McCain supposed to do, frog march her to the nearest recruiting station?  Say what you will about McCain (and I, for one, won't be voting for him), but lack of military sacrifice is so laughably inane a criticism to lob at him I'm a little embarassed for Yglesias.

The term chickenhawk is losing its original meaning which related to those politicians and commentators who conspicuously avoided service in the Viet Nam era and are now the most vociferous advocates for war.  There is a related problem, however, that may soon require a new neologism and that is the decline in the number of politicians and pundits with any military experience at all.  Once upon a time there was a degree of balance in the political world where you had quite a few veterans around--not all with war time experience, but at least some experience in the service, who could add a dimension of human reality to military policy.  I think that this is a bigger problem going forward than the chickenhawk business--the original ones will soon be gone anyway.  The problem will be that policy will increasingly be made by people with only an abstract, academic experience of war and the military, while the actual fighting will be done by people with no access to the higher levels of policy making--access in the sense that some people with similar experiences to theirs will be making the policies. This turns war into an abstraction for many, and it is anything but an abstraction.

Yglesia is not just wrong, he's an idiot.  When his family has two people in the military-- one having served in Iraq--as McCain does, then he can open his trap.

Until the, he can focus on bill Clinton's money making activities in the former Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, expecting anybody's daughters to signup for the military is bullshit anyway.  Some women are cut out for it, some aren't.

Be a man, Yglesia, and focus on guys in wars.  We don't expect women to fight for us.  If they have the calling and wish to, that's another deal.

drdannyu, you are dead wrong, what Meaghan does is relevant, especially since whatever she is doing is not with me.

Channy, I'm with you. Now what of the neocons, TNR pussyhawks (Peretz, Beinart [who is still eliglble for army service]Leon Wieseltier, for instance) and an astonishing number of conservatives who are post-Vietnam, but were of age to fight the Evil-Empire, yet demurred? A pass for them to, huh?

"Which points to my general problem with the chickenhawk argument: it attacks motives, and as demonstrated by the fact that McCain currently has two children who stand to be very much in harm's way because of their father's foreign policy views, it's not only unfair but self-defeating to attack his motives on the issue."

The other problem is the epithet is of recent vintage. Did anyone apply it to FDR or Truman.

The question then is why bring it up, now?

"We don't expect women to fight for us." Really?, What kills me about psuedo tough guys Cheney, Limbaugh, Saxby Chambliss, John Cornyn, the College Republicans, and 34-year-old member of congress, Adam Putnam is that they REFUSE(D) to serve, but chicks served have served in the military in some capacity for decades. Imagine, female Americans  served and died in Vietnam, Iraq I and Iraq II, but the fucking warmongers never felt the same call of duty. And they are real men?

Putnam reminds me of that other twenty-something GOP prick who Colbert interviewed. The guy supports the war in Iraq but wanted to contribute by running for congress. Yep. Voting for war-funding bill takes great courage, just like serving. How many GOP members of congress under 40 decided to resign their seats to do the real work of fighting al Qaeda, criminals, militias, the Taliban, or whatever the fuck the administration says is the bogeyman of the week. Oh. I forgot. Everyone is al Qaeda. That's why so little U.S. resources were poured into Afghanistan (the country that harbored the 9/11 plotters) and farmed out to NATO.

I fail to see the irony of those that do not believe we should be Iraq calling people of military age beating the drum for other people to fight in Iraq chickenhawks. You know the same people who call those who oppose a preemptive war cowards and talk endlessly about courage and victory. Please explain. Am I being too literal minded? Where is the irony in pointing out irony with the apt label "chickenhawk"?

I haven't Yglesias' blog enough to know whether he deserves to be the namesake of Sullivan's fair-mindedness award, but I have read it enough to know that he occasionally veers off into angry (and sarcastic) leftist territory.  This is a good example.

Jackson,

Truman served as a artillery officer in World War. FDR was a cripple, hardly on the same level with Cheney, a guy that had "other priorities" and secured five deferrements.

MPat -- the irony is that these people using the term "chickenhawks" are playing on the service of our military forces while, frequenly (I'd say usually) dismissive of their opinions.  At least in 2004 polls showed servicepeople very supportive of the war in Iraq and against Dem proposals for pulling out.  If "willingness to serve" has *any* relevance to the weight we give policy opinions, it has to cut both ways.

"Truman served as a artillery officer in World War. FDR was a cripple, hardly on the same level with Cheney, a guy that had "other priorities" and secured five deferrements." mpatrickhendri

I know, but the word is now being applied to McCain, a man who not only served, but served heroically.

Could we turn  the term around and call people like Yiglesias who not only did not serve but says that he is passionately against the war and except from writing about is doing nothing chicken-peacenicks?

Shouldn't Yiglesias and his ilk be out there getting themselves arrested while trying to stop the war?

Just wondering.

The label chickenhawk can only be used by those that served in combat? And if you do use the term, it means you should defer to the judgement of the militiary at all times (as if the military thought in some uniformity). I don't buy it. McCain is not a chickenhawk. Agreed. Cheney by any reasonable definition is the Jungian archetype of a chickenhawk. That's a fact. And if you have the brass to call your opponets cowards and the equal audacity to preach about courage and victory, but couldn't find your way to Vietnam, then you should expect to be called out early and often.

Jackson, not following, sorry.

Jackson, I was prepared to argue at first, but that is a pretty good point.  It reminds me of the anti-war protests here in Chi-town in 2003.  Daley gave them something like 8 blocks of the Loop, during Rush Hour, and some people spilled out onto Lake Shore Drive.  Got arrested- and rightfully so.  Still, all well and good.  But the protests about their arrests were enormous.  Listen, if you want to engage in civil disobedience, fine.  But don't cry *because* you get arrested.  That is the goddam point.  

But I do think that everyone here revolts at the term "chickenhawk" being applied to McCain.  It can be ascribed, I think, to Cheney, Podortz, et al.   Or, I would say it would be acceptable, were it not already a tired cliche.  

Dick Cheney isn't just a chickenhawk traitor, he is a despicable human being. THe guy sipported the war in Vietnam, yet secured five draft deferments. Why we should hitch our country's wagon to this coward and his yellow neocon buddies, I'll never know.

I was aware of chickenpussy, defense budget parasite Cheney's bio prior to the publication of the Rolling Stone article provided below, but for those who aren't. . .

After leaving Yale, Cheney had one of his few experiences working in the private sector, on a telephone-company repair crew. He showed no interest, one way or another, in the Vietnam War -- until a Texas president, nearly forty years before George W. Bush, turned a remote foreign struggle into a catastrophic, unwinnable war. Thanks to Lyndon Johnson's escalation of Vietnam, lounging around was suddenly no longer an option. Cheney snapped into action. First he enrolled in Casper Community College; then he went to the University of Wyoming. That kept him out of the draft until August 7th, 1964, when Congress initiated massive conscription in the armed forces. Three weeks later, Cheney married Lynne Vincent, his high school girlfriend, earning him another deferment. Then, on October 26th, 1965, the Selective Service announced that childless married men no longer would be exempted from having to fight for their country. Nine months and two days later, the first of Cheney's two daughters, Elizabeth, was born. All told, between 1963 and 1966, Cheney received five deferments.

In January 1967, when he was enrolled at the University of Wisconsin, Cheney passed his twenty-sixth birthday, making him safe from the draft -- and making it safe for him to abandon work on a doctoral degree. He had taken to hanging out with local politicians and acted as an unpaid assistant to Wisconsin's moderate Republican governor, Warren Knowles. In 1968, he used Knowles to get a progressive Wisconsin Republican congressman named William Steiger to let him work as an intern in his office in Washington.

Rolling Stone, T.D. ALLMAN Posted Aug 25, 2004 12:00 AM

First, I agree with everyone else that applying the term to McCain is utterly ridiculous, but It's worth taking a step back and looking at whether such accusations are really relevant in the first place.  We don't criticize politicians who advocate tougher law enforcement because they've never served on a police force.  Likewise, we don't criticize politicians who support greater teacher accountability on the grounds that they've never been teachers themselves.  Seemingly, we apply this standard to the military, and the military alone.  Why?

If ever there were an issue that screams out for a certain candidate's magical uniting, post-partisan touch, the Iraq War is it.

What a pity that the ONLY issue where said candidate is crystal clear, and hews to one extreme position, is Iraq. Someone needs to tell Obama to carve out a sensible, unifying compromise position on Iraq, and go hard partisan on bread-and-butter economic issues.

The analogies regarding those who support "tougher law enforcement because they've never served on a police force and. . .don't criticize politicians who support greater teacher accountability on the grounds that

they've never been teachers themselves," is bogus and a cop out. The matter is one of hypocrisy, when it strictly applies. Policing and teaching, like many areas of life don't compel service. Let alone require one to swear an oath strongly impyling the necessity of giving up one's life.

To be sure, policing is a dangerous job (my brother is a cop), and officers are often at mortal risk. However, it is a civilian and not military pursuit and the primary injunction is to "protect."  The mission of a Marine Corps rifle squad--I'll recite from memory-- is to:"To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy, by fire and maneuver, or repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat." Somehow, I don't think such an approach to law enforcement would be considered acceptable in most western countries, or even in early eighteenth century America. And where are the service member unions?

The barrier to entry, for those who are captivated by national security/defense matters, is rather low. First, one can join the military at no financial cost, unlike birders, divers, model airplane builders, model railroaders,  philatelists, photographers and other  hobbyists.  Also, because by definition, the armed forces experience  a high turnover rate (most don't view military service as a career) and is thus always in need of enlistees. Additionally, the armed forces also have a large part-time component (i.e., guard and reserves) that provides another route for those who may want to dabble in national security matters.

Again, to the conscription. Why is it people such as Cheney and a large number of the neocons and hawkish members of congress supported wars or are immersed in  national security matters (Fred Kagan, for example) yet assiduously avoided service during a period when universal compulsion was the rule? It should strike you as strange. No, it should seem repugnant. But that dishonorable behavior is blithely ignored. How convenient.  I guess the fact that a draft is no longer in effect, doesn't contribute to this lack of outrage.

It is also curious why the opinion of non-serving cowards such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Fieth, Addington and Yoo should be regarded more highly than people who actually know their business.

On the matter of torture, most, if not all of the services JAG officers opposed torture as did military commanders, such as those who wrote the Army Field Manual. Hmm. They are not exactly a namby-pamby liberal crowd. Some officers served in the infantry , air combat or naval warfare  positions before obtaining a law degree and switching to JAG.  Infantry and intel officers are the subject-matter experts for  interrogation and war rules manuals. Again, not a bunch of bleeding heart liberals.

Why did this group oppose torture methods? Could it be that they live in the real world? Could it be that, unlike the neocon wussies, they don't need to prove their manhood and seek manliness "office" cred so overcompensate by embracing comic book notions of tough guy  tactics?

Could it be that the JAGs opposed torture because allowing it is detrimental to the good order and discipline of the Armed Forces and crumbles the moral foundation that the UCMJ and U.S. law stands (or should stand) on. Anyone who has spent anytime in a combat zone knows that troops are an inch away from being  out-of-control serial killers. The environment is dangerous, everyone is armed and the players, most

Maybe they wondered how in the hell can they be expected to try enemies accused of war crimes if our standard is any action short of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or. . . death?" By that standard, the enemy can inflict all manner of pain and depravity on our guys yet argue--legitimately--in court that the abuse did not rise to the U.S.definition of torture. What then? Convict them and say winners can employ a double standard?

Oh yeah. The first article of the Code of Conduct:

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Did Cheney, Addington, or John Yoo ever have abide by those words? Well, of course not.

The most supreme chickenhawk is my Congressman (CT 4th CD) Christopher Shays.

During Vietnam Shays was excused from combat because he claimed that he was a conscientious objector based on religious reasons.

Well, Shays hasn't changed his religion but in the run up to the Iraq War, Shays was one of the most strident cheerleaders for war, citing the danger of weapons of mass destruction.  He still defends his position, and says he would have supported war even if he knew at the time that there were no weapons of mass destruction.

As a youth Shays was either a chicken or a simple minded fool, or perhaps both.  Today he is simply a simple minded fool who pretends to be a "moderate" yet supports Bush/Cheney 80% of the time.

He is being challenged this year by an excellent Democratic candidate -- Jim Himes.  Himes was a Rhodes Scholar from Harvard, a banker at Goldman Sachs turned affordable housing executive, a formidable fund raiser ($1 million cash in the bank as of yesterday) and a solid progressive.  I urge all TNR readers to go to his site, himesforcongress.com, and if you can help his campaign.

To call McCain a "chickenhawk" because his daughter isn't in the military is absurd.  He has a son in the Marines - enlisted.  It is very rare for the denizens of Capitol Hill to even know an enlisted service member.  Rarer still to have a son or daughter serving in the enlisted ranks.

The "chickenhawk" epithet carries weight only if it isn't used indiscriminately.  Yglesias is way off base with McCain, which is unfortunate and undermines his own credibility.  McCain's Iraq stance is open to valid criticism on the merits - not the least, questions regarding where the money and manpower to continue the war will come from.  No one has held his feet to the fire yet, though I expect that to change come September.  Heavyhanded commentary like that spewed by Yglesias can only backfire and, if anything, will make the press even less inclined to ask the hard questions that must be answered.

For all of the compromises John McCain has been willing to make in his pursuit of the White House, there's