'Chicken hawks' are real and dangerous
Steve Hammons
February 16, 2006
"Chicken hawk" is a term that has been tossed around for the last few years. The term usually refers to someone who strongly advocates war, but did not serve in combat or the military, or may have even actively avoided combat and the military.
This may be simplistic. The concept of a chicken hawk seems to be much more complex.
Most recently, the chicken hawk label has been put on politicians and people in government, think tanks, various organizations as well as average Americans who pushed for and supported the invasion of Iraq, but avoided service in Vietnam when they were younger.
The first part of the term, "chicken," obviously refers to someone who was afraid of going to war themselves. In Vietnam for example. However, many young men avoided going to Vietnam for many reasons. It does not necessarily mean that they lacked courage.
This would hold true now. Many people do not want to volunteer to go to the Iraq War. That does not mean they are afraid, though intelligent fear of dangers can be a good thing. Sometimes, going along with the crowd and doing what authorities want you to do is the easy way, and it might require courage to think and act independently.
In Vietnam and other wars, many people choose to serve in the military in non-combat positions. They may not want frontline combat, killing, seeing others killed and wounded and getting killed or terribly wounded themselves. They may join the Navy or Air Force for example, where there are many positions that do not involve direct combat roles.
Does that mean they are "chicken?" If someone wanted to be a sonar technician on a submarine, does that make him less courageous than a Navy SEAL, a guy in the Marine Recon or an Army Airborne Ranger? Well, maybe. Depends on your point of view. Is a military warrior who loves the killing and destruction of war always honorable? No. Sometimes they are disturbed psychologically. Is a Marine who serves in peacetime different from a Marine who serves in combat?
How about a jet aircraft or chopper pilot? Flying an aircraft is dangerous, but many people learn to do it. Flying at a high altitude and dropping bombs is not the same as flying a chopper to land in a "hot" area, with bullets, mortars and RPGs coming at you. As many high-altitude bomber pilots have said, they are insulated from the death they rain down on others far below. This sometimes comes back to haunt them in later years. Is flying a military aircraft in peacetime highly dangerous? Could be. More so than flying a civilian aircraft?
So, the "chicken" part of chicken hawk seems somewhat complex. It's not black and white in many cases.
The word "hawk" in chicken hawk might be somewhat easier to clarify, but also has complicating aspects. A hawk is generally considered someone who strongly advocates going to war or taking some kind of strong, usually military, action. A hawk might choose war as a first option, rather than a last option.
In our society, hawks sometimes have links to defense contractors who profit from war. This does complicate the definition of the word. A person could be a hawk because they truly believe strong and forceful military action is the best approach to a situation. Or, are they interested in war profiteering?
Are they psychologically compensating for never having proved themselves in a dangerous situation, so they talk tough (an aspect of chicken hawks)?
Are there situations where being a hawk is the correct moral position? There could be many reasons for being a hawk.
When we think of the term chicken hawk, we usually think of males. But, the same ideas could apply to females also.
In addition, the term to could be expanded to include someone who seems to be a chicken hawk not for themselves, but for their teen or young adult children. For example, many people are middle-aged or over, and are beyond the normal age limits for military and combat service, though these limits have recently been expanded. What if a parent was a hawk for war, but didn't want their own teen or adult children to be at risk. What if they were for a war, but only if other parents' kids went? That seems to be a kind of chicken hawk too.
Why do people become chicken hawks? As mentioned previously, it could be financial. They might benefit in some way from the defense business. Is that always bad? It could be political. If they are part of the political system, they might score points with certain members of the public, defense lobbyists and campaign contributors for being a pro-war hawk. It could be that someone just feels it's patriotic to be a hawk.
But, again, being a hawk does not necessarily mean the person is a chicken hawk. A robust defense establishment in itself is not bad, and can even keep the peace if used wisely. Many hawks have proven themselves on the battlefield, so they cannot be classified as chicken hawks. Some with a hawkish view might not have served in combat, yet they are intelligent and have the normal and adequate amount of courage and dedication. For one reason or another, maybe they did not have the opportunity to be tested "under fire."
For those who might be legitimately called chicken hawks, some probably are compensating for not being tested under fire. They have not been in dangerous situations or served in combat, seen others killed and blown to pieces or been wounded themselves. They talk tough to possibly compensate for their own self-doubts, and the doubts others may have about them. The psychological and emotional nature of these people is a contributor to being chicken hawks. And, this may combine with the financial, political or other elements that come into play.
So, the term chicken hawk is not so simple, though it does seem to have a legitimate use in some or many cases. Chicken hawks do exist and they can be very dangerous to others. They can advocate sending brave and honorable people to be killed and wounded. They can trigger the deaths of and injuries to innocent people, and children too.
It seems sometimes that brave and honorable people in the military and in civilian life may assume that their "leaders" also have the same courage, honor and fellowship. People may "project" their own positive qualities onto their leaders, when, in fact, it does not exist there. That is, like a movie projector, people project what is within them onto others.
A brave military warrior may look at tough-talking leaders and assume that they have been tested like he has. That they know the sacrifice, danger and pain of war. That they share the fellowship, love and respect for fellow warriors and their families.
Chicken hawks probably don't fully understand these things. And that is another reason why they are so dangerous.
AUTHOR NOTE TO READERS: Please visit my Joint Recon Study Group blog.
This may be simplistic. The concept of a chicken hawk seems to be much more complex.
Most recently, the chicken hawk label has been put on politicians and people in government, think tanks, various organizations as well as average Americans who pushed for and supported the invasion of Iraq, but avoided service in Vietnam when they were younger.
The first part of the term, "chicken," obviously refers to someone who was afraid of going to war themselves. In Vietnam for example. However, many young men avoided going to Vietnam for many reasons. It does not necessarily mean that they lacked courage.
This would hold true now. Many people do not want to volunteer to go to the Iraq War. That does not mean they are afraid, though intelligent fear of dangers can be a good thing. Sometimes, going along with the crowd and doing what authorities want you to do is the easy way, and it might require courage to think and act independently.
In Vietnam and other wars, many people choose to serve in the military in non-combat positions. They may not want frontline combat, killing, seeing others killed and wounded and getting killed or terribly wounded themselves. They may join the Navy or Air Force for example, where there are many positions that do not involve direct combat roles.
Does that mean they are "chicken?" If someone wanted to be a sonar technician on a submarine, does that make him less courageous than a Navy SEAL, a guy in the Marine Recon or an Army Airborne Ranger? Well, maybe. Depends on your point of view. Is a military warrior who loves the killing and destruction of war always honorable? No. Sometimes they are disturbed psychologically. Is a Marine who serves in peacetime different from a Marine who serves in combat?
How about a jet aircraft or chopper pilot? Flying an aircraft is dangerous, but many people learn to do it. Flying at a high altitude and dropping bombs is not the same as flying a chopper to land in a "hot" area, with bullets, mortars and RPGs coming at you. As many high-altitude bomber pilots have said, they are insulated from the death they rain down on others far below. This sometimes comes back to haunt them in later years. Is flying a military aircraft in peacetime highly dangerous? Could be. More so than flying a civilian aircraft?
So, the "chicken" part of chicken hawk seems somewhat complex. It's not black and white in many cases.
The word "hawk" in chicken hawk might be somewhat easier to clarify, but also has complicating aspects. A hawk is generally considered someone who strongly advocates going to war or taking some kind of strong, usually military, action. A hawk might choose war as a first option, rather than a last option.
In our society, hawks sometimes have links to defense contractors who profit from war. This does complicate the definition of the word. A person could be a hawk because they truly believe strong and forceful military action is the best approach to a situation. Or, are they interested in war profiteering?
Are they psychologically compensating for never having proved themselves in a dangerous situation, so they talk tough (an aspect of chicken hawks)?
Are there situations where being a hawk is the correct moral position? There could be many reasons for being a hawk.
When we think of the term chicken hawk, we usually think of males. But, the same ideas could apply to females also.
In addition, the term to could be expanded to include someone who seems to be a chicken hawk not for themselves, but for their teen or young adult children. For example, many people are middle-aged or over, and are beyond the normal age limits for military and combat service, though these limits have recently been expanded. What if a parent was a hawk for war, but didn't want their own teen or adult children to be at risk. What if they were for a war, but only if other parents' kids went? That seems to be a kind of chicken hawk too.
Why do people become chicken hawks? As mentioned previously, it could be financial. They might benefit in some way from the defense business. Is that always bad? It could be political. If they are part of the political system, they might score points with certain members of the public, defense lobbyists and campaign contributors for being a pro-war hawk. It could be that someone just feels it's patriotic to be a hawk.
But, again, being a hawk does not necessarily mean the person is a chicken hawk. A robust defense establishment in itself is not bad, and can even keep the peace if used wisely. Many hawks have proven themselves on the battlefield, so they cannot be classified as chicken hawks. Some with a hawkish view might not have served in combat, yet they are intelligent and have the normal and adequate amount of courage and dedication. For one reason or another, maybe they did not have the opportunity to be tested "under fire."
For those who might be legitimately called chicken hawks, some probably are compensating for not being tested under fire. They have not been in dangerous situations or served in combat, seen others killed and blown to pieces or been wounded themselves. They talk tough to possibly compensate for their own self-doubts, and the doubts others may have about them. The psychological and emotional nature of these people is a contributor to being chicken hawks. And, this may combine with the financial, political or other elements that come into play.
So, the term chicken hawk is not so simple, though it does seem to have a legitimate use in some or many cases. Chicken hawks do exist and they can be very dangerous to others. They can advocate sending brave and honorable people to be killed and wounded. They can trigger the deaths of and injuries to innocent people, and children too.
It seems sometimes that brave and honorable people in the military and in civilian life may assume that their "leaders" also have the same courage, honor and fellowship. People may "project" their own positive qualities onto their leaders, when, in fact, it does not exist there. That is, like a movie projector, people project what is within them onto others.
A brave military warrior may look at tough-talking leaders and assume that they have been tested like he has. That they know the sacrifice, danger and pain of war. That they share the fellowship, love and respect for fellow warriors and their families.
Chicken hawks probably don't fully understand these things. And that is another reason why they are so dangerous.
AUTHOR NOTE TO READERS: Please visit my Joint Recon Study Group blog.
Print
Email
