« Once you've decided ... | Main | Shock »
The Real Chicken Hawks
Since it really struck a chord with me, I'll flag this article by Tim Cavanaugh (a libertarian who opposed the invasion of Iraq), even though several others have done so.
The "Liberal Hawks," who advocated toppling Saddam Hussein, but turned against the Bush administration when the occupation didn't go according to plan/fantasy, are the real Chicken Hawks, in my view. In addition to being strangely flappable, their peckish judgment seems deficient in several respects, not least: being unable/unwilling to distinguish between bad luck and mistakes; between innocent and culpable mistakes (and the various shades between); and refusing to juxtapose mistakes with other positive accomplishments to take a balanced overall view.
I've come to respect the view of those who were always deeply skeptical about, or downright opposed, the invasion much more than the modus operandi of the backtracking fair-weather-friends, who squawk at the double-crossing which Bush and team have allegedly visited upon them, and scamper out of the proverbial barnyard in search of a new husbandman.
November 1, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834205dc953ef00e5501e3e268833
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Real Chicken Hawks:
Comments
What do you make of the conservatives who engaged in a similar flip-flop? What do you make of those whose ideological blinders make it impossible for them to reflect on their positions?
There has always been a sizeable faction of self-described "liberals" which seems fascinated by power - and I think that in no small part the people you describe fall into that category. Many had the notion that all you had to do was blaze into a country with a lot of firepower, blast its old government out of place, and "whatever comes later has to be better". As if stable governments and democracies are history's rule rather than its exception. As if the west has a long and successful history of forcefully effecting "regime change" resulting in stable, peaceful, progressive democracies.
It's hard to argue that those who went into the armchair debate - whether we're talking the "real" chicken hawks, the ones you describe, or people like the contributors of "Harry's Place" - those who refuse to concede even a possibility of error in their blind support for the war, and who refuse to consider that a different approach to Iraq, or even the same one delayed for a few months while better planning occurred, may well have been better - are unworthy of respect on this issue. (I'm not big on false dichotomies - the choices were never "this war, right now, with no changes in planning or implementation" or "leaving Hussein in power forever".) Those who consistently harp on how wrong the other side is, rather than defending their own views with strong, fact-based arguments, are beyond tiresome. At least some backtrackers came by their change of belief legitimately (as opposed to, as many do in one sense or another, whining "this is hard" - the ideologues seem to have little interest in the real world.
But, as you know, the term "Chicken Hawk" is not meant to describe a Hawk who 'turns yeller' when the going gets tough - it is a description of somebody like Dick Cheney, who wouldn't have dreamed about actually fighting for his country and went to significant lengths to avoid the draft, while at the same time "supporting" the war he refused to fight and subsequently demonstrating an unfettered willingness (and at times eagerness) to send another generation of young men and women off to fight wars he supports (from his secure bunker in the 'homeland').
I'll give Cheney this much - even if he wouldn't put his own neck on the line, he's been consistent in his beliefs. Those you describe were willing to endorse an extraordinary experiment in "regime change", but seem to think we're playing a video game and can simply press "reset" and start over if it gets too hard.
In terms of the next group of world leaders to take charge of these issues, give me somebody who recognizes the mistakes that led us to the present precipice, but who will do his or her best to obtain the desired outcome. Those who refuse to reflect on how we got here - or worse, refuse to even consider the possibility of a single mistake in their judgment over the course of the conflict - should be kicked to the curb.
Posted by: Aaron at Nov 2, 2004 5:08:20 AM