You gonna take that, chickenhawk?

One of the sillier rhetorical devices used against those who support the war in Iraq is chickenhawk.  The label implies that we're happily gung-ho, as long as it's some other sucker doing the fighting and dying.  This is, of course, a cheap argument-winning tactic, designed to short-circuit debate by embarrassing the speaker, as Douglas Kern noted in his Tech Central Station article yesterday.

Kern fights back by submitting, in fine tit-for-tat fashion, that the people who deploy the chickenhawk slur are themselves chickendoves.  They commit the same sin as chickenhawks in that they risk nothing in arguing about the war.  Kern calls on all chickendoves to show their mettle by enlisting in the military, going to Iraq, then refusing to follow orders when commanded to attack the enemy.

This is fine, as far as it goes.  But the logic seems a little strained, and it still fails to address the fundamental charge of chickenhawkery.  By not fighting, pacifists do indeed practice what they preach in a way that civilian war supporters don't.  Of course, it's much easier for pacifists to act in accordance with their moralizing.  In fact, all it takes is to sit on the couch with a bowl of popcorn, pop in a Fahrenheit 9/11 DVD, and bask in the self regard.

So what's a snappy comeback for us chickenhawks?  How about we insist that pacifists stop using petrochemicals.  You say no blood for oil?  OK, then stop filling your gas tank with the moral equivalent of human blood!  And don't think you can take the bus, because it runs on gasoline, too.  Oh, and stop eating food that was planted, harvested, and distributed by machines that are powered with the blood of innocent Iraqi babies, you hypocritical ghouls!  Of course, air travel is right out.  And the asphalt roads your dinner was transported over?  Sorry, derived from crude oil.  And for complete moral consistency, you better throw away that DVD of Fahrenheit 9/11.  It's coated in hydrocarbons, which by your own admission are ethically indistinguishable from the innocent lives expended to line the pockets of Bush's oil cronies.  And that computer keyboard you type on?  Sorry, the keys are made from plastic, a substance distilled from the flesh of those ground under the jackboot of Amerikan Imperialism.  And so forth.

All we need is a snappy label to capture this sentiment.  Vampacifists?   Hemogoblins?  Suggestions, please!

Comments

[Tom]

Crude-o-crats

[Tom]

Or, Crude-o-crites

[Jason Turner]

We're talking here about those critics who fail to recognize the benefits derived from the work of the forces they most malign, right? In that case, how about pacisite.

John, you're absolutely right that the chickenhawk accusation is a slur...and a conversation stopper. But I've never understood its power.

Labeling an opponent chickenhawk should not stop conversation, nor should it embarass the opponent. The label is just a slur, nothing more. The implication is that civilans, people not familiar with the horror of warfare, are unqualified to critique war efforts, or to advance their cause. But the logic cuts both ways. If only military officers and personnel are allowed to present arguments for/against war, then the pacifists must also sit out on the debate. A pacifist can argue that he is being true to his principles by NOT fighting, but that is a different matter and adds nothing to the debate over who is qualified to critique the war. The Chickenhawk argument is a variant of a specific form of an ad hominen attack (tu quo que), that goes something like this: The argument you have given for wearing a seatbelt is not valid because you do not wear your seatbelt, or the argument you have given for the existence of God is not valid because you are a priest and not objective. Basically, it's an attack on the person, not the argument.

Besides, civilian control of the military has always been considered fundamental to a functioning, open democracy for obvious reasons. The founding fathers belived that matters of war and peace belonged to the electorate and were too important to leave to generals. Imagine if only military men were allowed to decide if, when, and why we go to war!

[Schrock]

I like Crude-o-crites!