[Cross-posted at Folkbum and Daily Kos.]
You heard me. All those guys whose names are on the Declaration of Independence — not one of them had ever fought in a war. John Adams? A lawyer. Thomas Jefferson? A plantation owner. Benjamin Franklin? A jack-of-all-trades and career diplomat. John Hancock? A merchant. But not ONE of them ever fought in the military.
And what about the big guy, Georgie Washington? Yeah, he fought some — but he couldn’t exactly be called a stellar military genius before the Revolution broke out. His major claim to fame was advising a British general not to lead a Redcoat army in full regalia into a trackless forest in hostile Indian territory. The general ignored Washington’s advice and got himself shot along with most of his army. Not exactly fodder for war hero status.
So does that mean the Revolution shouldn’t have been fought?
Or, for that matter, what about the other prominent chickenhawks who have made the decision to lead America into her greatest battles? Like Franklin Roosevelt, who led us through the dark days of World War II? Or Bill Clinton, the admitted draft-dodger, who led the coalition that entered the most altruistic war in world history, the Kosovo conflict, and whose fighting force was led by a general who so many of us would like to see run for President?
My point is, I don’t like the chickenhawk meme. I just don’t. I don’t think we should have fought this war in Iraq, and I don’t approve of the way we’re fighting it now — but I don’t give a rat’s ass whether those who have ordered us into the conflict ever served in the military or not. The soldiers who are fighting in this war are, at least for the time being, volunteers — people who agreed to give their lives for their country if the government in power deemed it necessary. Now, to be clear, I don’t think the government should have deemed it necessary to spend precious lives on this war, but I don’t see why they need to send themselves or their sons and daughters off to a battle that other people have volunteered to fight in order to prove their case; a little circumspection and regard for human life and the rules of diplomacy would have done the job just fine.
If we were in a draft, then sure, let the unwilling potential soldiers in Congress put their money where their mouths are. But right now, I don’t think they ought to be judged any differently from warmongers with no military service such as Adams and Madeleine Albright. Their war is wrong. But not because they’re not fighting in it.
Some food for thought on this Fourth of July.
[Update] I was wrong about some of the Founding Fathers’ military service. I still don’t like the chickenhawk meme.
or flames, as you see fit. I don’t apologize for my controversial stance on this issue.
There was a very real chance that each and every signer of the Declaration of Independance would be hanged for treason – if the revolution had failed.
No matter what the outcome in Iraq (and it’s likely to be bad, no matter how the Repubs spin it), the men and women who think it’s a fine war, as long as they themselves are not fighting in it, will get away scott free.
you can’t decide to go to war if your own life isn’t in danger? Can’t war just be a good decision in a certain circumstance? I think it can. Kosovo, for instance.
But that wasn’t your premise. You said that the US founding fathers were “Chicken Hawks” because they were not risking their lives. That’s not true. Each one had every reason to believe they could very well pay the ultimate price for their allegance.
That’s a separate issue. Yes, there are reasons to support the use of armies to stop a greater losses of life. But no one, with any shred of conscience, can be enthusiastic about such support.
It’s a heavy heart decision. One I wouldn’t wish on anyone. And one that too many Americans, no matter what they thought at the onset of this war against Iraq, still won’t re-evaluate. For most Americans, “we’re America, we’re #1” means that we can’t be the ones causing the greater loss of life. But we are, and how does anyone, in the military or not, support that?
When we’ve become the killers/aggressors, then yes, the decision to send someone else’s kid to die, rather than to “lose face,” is the decision of the worst kind of Chicken(hawk).
The man who signed the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to the cause of independence. Some went bankrupt financing the war. And like Keres pointed out, every single one of them stuck their neck out for this country, in an almost-literal sense. Had the Revolution failed, it is likely they would all have been hanged as traitors and their property confiscated to the Crown.
The big difference is they put themselves at real risk for the war for independence, even though (if your thesis is correct, which I am not sure it is) they had not been soldiers. Rush Limbaugh, Jonah Joldberg, Sean Hannity, the chickenhawks in the Senate . . . they run no real risk from supporting the war. Even if we were to pull out of Iraq tomorrow Rush would go on selling books and doing the lecture circuit to spread his views on why we were wrong to do so.
You don’t have to apologize for your opinion, but in this case I think it’s misguided. The two situations are not comparable.
I’ve just made it through a quick search of 20 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, from Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Massachusetts.
(I have to sleep, or I’d finish the rest of the list, too). Of the 20 surveyed thus far, here’s what I found:
So, 7 out of 20 have clear military experience, most before they signed the Declaration. True, it appears only Thornton was a member of the British colonial troops well before the Revolution, but I would not ignore the service of these others.
I”m not particularly fond of the term “chickenhawks”, either. And I do strongly believe that our government, including the military, should be led by civilians. I just don’t like the military trappings of this administration, especially how they use militarism to sell their policies, without distributing the cost of these military actions fairly across the populace.
To my knowledge, none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence avoided service by going to graduate school, having a child at a convenient time, doing service in a special unit for the sons of the wealthy, etc.
When I posted my comment it was late and I was tired, or I would have gone looking too. In a day and age of civilian militias (remember, the Minutemen were not professional soldiers) I found it hard to believe that none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence had ever done military service.
Personally I think the term “chickenhawk” is a great term. “Hawk” has long been used to describe someone advocating, shall we say, a strong military policy, and “chickenhawk” does a good job of describing those who clamor for war but are too chicken to serve it themselves (or put themselves at any sort of risk for that war). However, I agree with you about the civilian leadership of the military. In fact one of the clauses of the Declaration of Independence addresses King George “affect[ing] to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.”
Do you only count the signers of the Declaration as Founding Fathers? What about George Washington?
Crop it and you’ll regain the focus.
In the larger game of politics-as-exploiting-resentments, I think “chickenhawk” is a decent card to play. Chickenhawk is also the other red meat to be fed to the base.
Dems need more, not less, of this.
I don’t see why they need to send themselves or their sons and daughters off to a battle that other people have volunteered to fight in order to prove their case
That only applies to those who volunteered after the invasion of Iraq. It doesn’t even apply to those who signed up after 911. And it’s basically another iteration of “rich man’s war, poor man’s fight”. Is that really your point?