What is a “chickenhawk” and why should the appellation exist at all? Why should those who’ve never served in the military recuse themselves from advocating any military action that this country takes or may take in the future?
If the “chickenhawk” meme is a justifiable one, conversely, does that mean that all of the legion non-veteran 60s protesters of the Vietnam War also had no legitimate opinion to offer on the subject? Heck, what did they know about being a soldier? Right?
Does that mean that all of legion non-veteran critics and protestors of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom are talking out of their nether regions? (Now, now. Whether they are or not is beside the point.)
If it is justifiable to lob the “chickenhawk” bomb at the non-veteran advocates of the present war, then anti-war people like Tom Tomorrow should likewise catch big fat juicy pieces of this type of shrapnel.
Or, better yet, no one should be berated as a “chickenhawk” for supporting the war, nor should its critics be automatically labeled unpatriotic. Not in this country.
It is the right, better yet, the duty of the American citizen to give his/her opinion—by vote, letter, e-mail, blog, and (sigh), yes, protest--to elected officials on any actions taken by the government. (To get the pertinent facts on these actions before venturing an opinion, of course, is best, but not required. Just wear a flame-retardant suit.)
However, I submit that most of the hurlers of the “chickenhawk” insult are:
• Those who are against the war, and/or
• Those who have never served in the military, and/or
• Those who would never serve in the military, or
• Those who have served in the military, but were given the boot, and thus have a beef
Oh, and Tom? Were I to be petty, I would tell you that while you were here at home drawing pretty pictures criticizing anything and everything, this girl was out defending you right to do so. But I won’t say that, since I'm above that sort of thing. ;-)