During the past decade a lot has been made of politicians who have not personally been in the military or at least not seen combat, but yet are deemed to have advocated a particular war too lightly. During the anti-war movement, I've heard much made of the fact that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove had not been in Vietnam and this was often blamed for their willingness to invade Iraq.
But is this a wise way angle from which to criticize a politician? I would argue that it is not. At first blush, it might seem like a very compelling point, but only because people aren't thinking ahead. Ultimately calling Bush, Cheney, or Rove "chickenhawks" is an emotional argument. And often emotional arguments don't look so good, once all their logical assumptions, and conclusions are made apparent.
In this world there are many arguments, which may sound compelling as long as people neglect to think ahead. When these arguments get taken to their logical conclusions, they become less attractive as Jonathan Swift so devilishly demonstrated in his book "A Modest Proposal".
So what what is being assumed when you label a certain politicians a "chickenhawk"? And where would it lead if those assumptions were taken to their logical conclusions?
One obvious assumption I see is the idea that it is "normal" for anyone who hasn't been in a war to take the idea thousands of people dying in one lightly. But is it normal? Couldn't such a reckless disregard for other people be considered a sign of sociopathy no matter what background or past the individual may or may not have?
Does this mean that we no longer expect adults to take major decisions that could affect thousands of people seriously, unless they've been in the military? And if one assumes that why not advocate a society like "Star Ship Troopers" where only military veterans are allowed to vote?
Of course, many people believe that anyone who has been in a war will "naturally" be "more careful" about starting one. But unfortunately history does not bear this out. Hitler experienced two years of brutal trench warfare during WWI. And in fact, many of the most brutal and warlike societies in history were those who expected the king, emperor, or members of the Senate (as in ancient Rome) to have some history as a soldier or general.
So when people say something which can so easily be revealed as untrue, what are they really saying? I doubt anyone seriously believes that John McCain is less of a hawk than Denis Kucinich, so then what can "more careful" mean?
Ultimately, what it comes out to is that most people believe that if John McCain, James Webb, or Chuck Hagel, supported a particular war then it *must* be right, because they according to this mythology "know what they're doing". Which absolves them of any responsibility to think seriously themselves before supporting the war.
They can just lie back and take the various psychological payoffs that some Americans seem to derive from foreign wars, while totally abdicating responsibility.
Ultimately our democracy rests on the idea that people are required to think seriously about the issues facing our society, and should be held accountable for their decisions regardless of their level of direct personal experience, or immediate self interest.
An expectation that is ultimately incompatible with labeling the cavalier decisions of Bush, Rove, or Cheney as some sort of "missed Vietnam syndrome".
Also many people who use the epithet chickenhawk, seem to have little concept about how easily the same arguments could be turned against them. For example when James Webb took President Bush to task both for his decisions in Iraq, and for his avoiding Vietnam, many people in the anti-war movement applauded him. What many of them didn't seem to realize is that if they were not themselves veterans and in particular if they were baby boom aged males who had not been in Vietnam, that James Webb would have hurled the same insults at them back in the days when he was still an unapologetic hawk and a staunch Reaganite Republican.
But perhaps the most problematic thing about the "chickenhawk" label is the dismissal of moral standards and the lack of any real questioning about why some people, some veterans, some not, would act so horribly. Genes, upbringing, culture, media, family dynamics, and so on. It's an age old question that has never been answered fully. However the biggest mistake into to just stop asking, but to stop expecting all people to consider the consequences of their actions for other human beings.
Say Goodnight Readers
No comments:
Post a Comment