I listened to C-SPAN radio on my computer this morning and heard Senator Lautenberg's comments about "chicken-Hawk" pro-war politicians who in his words: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-...p-regional-wire

I know that there are questions about Senator Kerry(mostly in regards to his anti-war activities) Due to the rather many tangents that this conversation could take a dirt road path on, I would reques that if you would like to discuss that, please start your own thread. I'd like to narrow this one down to several questions:

1.)Does it matter that we have leaders who are calling for war, but who in the past did not serve themselves? In other words-are they credible?

2.)If a politician received deferments, does that make them incapable of being a leader or advocate for military intervention?


3.) Should a president have a military background?

Whoever is serving as President is also Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces. He should do his duty to protect the citizen's of our country. His previous military service, or lack of, should have no bearing on his decisions.

It shouldn't matter if a candidate has military experience. Some would argue that it helps presidents make a decision when they are faced to having to send troops into a hostile situation, but i think it wouldn't make a difference

1.) Does it matter that we have leaders who are calling for war, but who in the past did not serve themselves? In other words-are they credible?

Since it comes down to personal judgement call on how important military service (or lack thereof) is with regard to the credibility of a leader calling for war, I suppose what I'm going to say next is purely opinion.

For me, personally, I know that I have more respect for a leader who has military service (preferably in a combat zone) if that leader is going to take the nation to war, as opposed to a leader with no military service.

Is it possible for a leader with no military service to lead a nation into a war, and still be an effective leader who is making the decision for the right reasons? Of course it is.

But a leader who has experienced military service (especially wartime service) will have been forever changed by that experience, and more likely to weigh those experiences in his or her decision making process. A leader like that is less likely to ask our troops to do something that they themselves would not have been willing to do.

This doesn't mean that a leader who does not have any military service is therefore unfit to be the Commander in Chief. We must avoid defining the office that way; just because someone doesn't serve in the military does not mean they aren't serving their country in our government, political offices, and other roles.

2.) If a politician received deferments, does that make them incapable of being a leader or advocate for military intervention?

For the reasons stated above, I would say "no."

3.) Should a president have a military background?

It will help him or her establish credibility on wartime issues, but I could not condone making that a requirement for the office.

The only way for a leader to truly sympathize with young men and women going to battle is to have gone and fought for America themselves. I appreciate a president that can relate to soldiers fighting over seas, but I also don't think it should be a prerequisite for a leader to send troops to war. Our current president may never fully know what it is like to be shipped off to another country, away from your family, with America's freedom and your life on the line, but his military decisions would remain constant with prior military service. If a president thinks that military action is required there will be military action regardless of sympathy for soldiers.

I can't help but be reminded of Abraham Lincoln by your response. He was a man who clearly lacked a storied military background. He was certainly short in that area compared to the likes of Jefferson Davis, and who won the war?(for other reasons too, I admit) When it comes to question #3-I'm of the opinion that it doesn't matter.

Adolf Hitler was a war hero, FDR wasn't.

With that in mind I don't think military service necessarily qualifies one to lead a nation, nor does a lack of military service necessarily prevent someone from being capable of leading their nation in war.




No, I don't think military service should be a requirement for holding the office.

No, military service is not a pre-requisite for holding the office where you get to send soldiers off to war.

But how you handle the "call to service" should have bearing on whether people want to vote for you. It did with Clinton (remember the "draft dodger" charges?). It should with Bush/Cheney.

1) Does it matter that we have leaders who are calling for war, but who in the past did not serve themselves? In other words--are they credible?

Military service may make leaders appear more credible to the public (I must admit I fall into that crowd) but it doesn't necessarily make leaders more qualified for the job. Although I take issue with Cheney questioning Kerry's will to defend this country when Cheney himself had more "important" things to do than serve in a time of need military experience shouldn't be a deciding factor.

3) Should a president have a military background

I have a preference for presidents with military backgrounds like I prefer Mustang COs over ROTC COs, but serving in the military is not indicative on a good Commander in Chief. If not military, politicians can "serve" on some capacity like Bush Sr. in the CIA.

In the context of recent history, no. Credibility just isn't there any longer, and for many of us, it wasn't there at the beginning. Interestingly enough, it seems the general public doesn't care much about credibility when our troops are being attacked. There's a rallying-round-the-leader tendency.

Personally, I find chickenhawks like Cheney to have zero credibility. Others seem to crave the spectacle of blood, which is just disgusting. Some might be operating from conviction that war is unavoidable, and that strikes me as the only credible way a non-combat veteran can approach war. Otherwise I'm very suspicious of true motives.



Not incapable but less capable. Such a politician should confer with experienced military brass before advocating military intervention. I'd also expect such a politician to insist that the military intervention be limited and not open-ended as we find ourselves in Iraq.



In general, no. In the context of this debate, a military background may be needed to accept a compromise in Iraq to enable a swift exit.

George Will's take on exit strategy:

Exit Strategy

I don't think that it matters if our leaders have served or not, but our leaders HAD BETTER NOT be questioning those within the government who have. I believe this mudslinging was started by Cheney and Bush, and it sure seems to me that the leaders of the US would be above that, but apparently, they are not.

Does it matter that Cheney received 3 deferments? No, but I would like to hear from him why he received them. To the best of my knowledge, he has not answered those questions.

It is pretty silly and quite sad that the Bush administration is running a campaign surrounding what Kerry did in the 70's as opposed to their track record while in office. Actually, it's more sad than silly.

1) Does it matter that we have leaders who are calling for war, but who in the past did not serve themselves? In other words--are they credible?
I think they can be. I think effective leaders are capable of understanding all the issues related to any action, much less war, if they make an effort to do so. Military experience I do think offers an insight you may not be able to obtain otherwise but I still think someone is capable of making a credible decision to committ this country to an act of War. For the record I do not think Dick Cheney is a capable leader in this regard.

2.)If a politician received deferments, does that make them incapable of being a leader or advocate for military intervention?
See 1. Its possible, but in the context you offer, no.

3)Should a president have a military background?
I don't believe effective leaders and military experience are synonymous. Nor are they mutually exclusive. History is rife with presidents that are both failures and successes independent of their military experience. It can be beneficial, but not a requirement.

Doc

Very good point there doc. Ulysses S. Grant had the *advantage* of a military background, but governed as if he never had that kind of background. He didn't manage affairs good enough, chose thewrong people of irrepute, and failed to run a tight ship when it came to his administration. Decision-making, choosing the right people, as well as correctly analyzing situations can just as easily be achieved in other areas than the military.

Hm. I can only lead in war if I was a soldier. I can only decide to treat cancer if I'm a cancer survivor. I can only be a judge in criminal trials if I have been a defendant. These rules are unnecessary, and limit action too severely. I'd hate for FDR to have said, I'm not a veteran, so the US can't fight back. (And I'd hate to disqualify every non-veteran from public office. It may be in the interest of Democrats to propose this now, for the Presidential election, but it wouldn't have been when Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, or McGovern were running, IIRC.)

The name "chicken hawk" is a brilliant move rhetorically -- in two words, you can silence anyone who isn't a veteran -- which is the overwhelming majority of us -- who wants any national defense at all. And insult his bravery as well. It will only work, of course, until the next airplanes-flying-into-buildings incident.

I think these questions are ones that we have to look at a case-by-case basis.

In theory, I don't believe that military service is necessary to make a good "commander-in-chief".

But there are a lot of other issues to look at as well.

For example: if a candidate for president avoided military service due to being consciencentious objector, I'd probably trust that particular person to exhaust all political and diplomatic channels before going to war. Since I believe that war is the very last resort, if necessary at all, that would be a candidate I would be able to trust on the issue of war.

There are many in the current adminstration (Bush and Cheney among others) as an example rankles, however. These are people that support US military domination of the world as defined by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) who avoided military service due to privilege. These are people who see soldiers as pawns in a global game of dominance. It's possible that actual military service would have given them a view of soldiers as real people who have lives, families, hopes and dreams.

I think "chicken hawk" is used by those who think the US should invade other countries, but when they had the chance to be on the ground floor of an invasion of another country, they chose not to.

I'll reiterate - Iraq had NOTHING to do with the defense of the US.

The whole "chicken-hawk" thing is a big brouhaha about nothing, just a distraction for partisan advantage. Being hawkish or dovish has nothing to do with personal bravery at all. It's about what's good policy for America, a different subject entirely, one which deserves to be argued on it's own merits.

Incidentally Max Cleland was way off base describing Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham as a "chicken-hawk" since Cunningham was America's first air-to-air ace in Vietnam. He personally shot down North Vietnam's leading ace and received the Navy Cross for it. But as I said, who is and is not a "chicken-hawk" isn't about policy, it's about politics.

I don't think you have to have served in the military to lead the country, but you better be careful to listen to those that have served in a war zone before you send the nation to war. As far as I can tell, the current administration has listened a great deal to those who never saw war in all of its ugly brutality, but failed to listen to those that have.

The case was made clearer yesterday as the Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert and Tom Delay stood at the podium and cast aspersions on John McCain a man who served in Vietnam and spent years as a POW.

Hastert pretended not to know John McCain, or that he was a Republican, when a reporter asked Hastert about a comment that McCain had made expressing his concern that people have not been asked to sacrifice for this war due to the tax cuts and fiscal irresponsibility shown in the current budget. Hastert told the press that if John McCain wanted to see sacrifice he needs to go to Walter Reed and talk to the soldiers who have been injured.

Hastert has a lot of nerve telling a former POW to go to Walter Reed Hospital to see the injuries that war inflicts. But both Hastert and Delay have never served in the military and so there they stood, laughing at Hastert's joke. Discounting John McCain's sacrifices for his country, while never having sacrificed anything yourself, leads me to believe that it may be more important than I originally thought to have served in the military before becoming a leader.

Maybe this is an isolated case of two fools that just shouldn't lead no matter what, but it does lend credence to those who support previous military service as a prerequisite for leadership positions in the government.

This is completely out of context in this discussion. Hastert was talking about tax cuts and legislation that would make it easier to cut taxes and harder to increase spending - not military action. McCain introduced that into the discussion with his comments, and sorry, I realize McCain is currently in favor with the left, but he was wrong to do that. There is no comparison between the sacrifices being made by our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and what Americans pay in their tax bill every year. I find it repugnant to compare the two, and that was McCain doing that, not Dennis Hastert.

Edited to add.....

John McCain's remarks......



Then, with all due respect, Mr Senator, why in the hell did you introduce that into the discussion?

The "chicken-hawk" label is pretty clever and partisan in nature. At the same time, so is the GOP's tactic of labeling anyone who votes against a military project as being "anti-readiness" or "anti-military" in nature. It amazes me how the party of fiscal responsibility shows restraint when it comes to every other department our government has except for defense. It doesn't matter that we get lemons like the B1-B or Sgt. York, just vote for everything, or the cost of a lemon will come back to hurt you in a campaign ad. "Senator pacifist voted against $4billion for defense" That is how Max Cleland, a triple amputee lost to a guy who didn't serve. Now if that isn't ironic, I don't know what is.

Actually no. Max Cleland lost because he placed the interests of unions over the domestic security of the United States.

Actually, no. Cleland was attacked by Bush's brown-nosing lapdog (that would be Saxby Chambliss, by the way) for being soft on national security because Cleland wanted to allow airport security employees to be part of the federal employees union. He didn't lose because of just that attack.

My feeling (actually living here and watching what was going on) is that he really lost because he really did a crappy job campaigning and handling those attack ads.

But we drift off topic trying to correct minor mis-impressions.

Actually, yes. Like I said, he put the interests of the unions over those of the interest the domestic security of the United States. That was what those ads were all about and if he was unable to defend himself from them, oh well. Perhaps that might be because his position was indefensible. I'm sorry Max Cleland was injured in Vietnam, but that doesn't give him a free pass to be a Senator for life. Doesn't work that way anymore than John Kerry's four months of combat in Vietnam give him the keys to the White House.

No, he lost because the Republicans in Georgia (where I live) waged an enormous campaign about the State Flag issue. The Republican promised to return the Confederate Battle Flag to the people, and they showed up en masse to vote for Perdue. The Dem's weren't all that excited about the issues involved and they didn't turn out in large numbers. The Republican's voted for all Republican's and the attack dogs of Saxby Chambliss worked due to voter turnout. That's why Cleland lost.

But, we digress, these two things, military sacrifice, and economic sacrifice, do go hand in hand. You ignore the fiscal constraints that war demands and then you propose to lower taxes. Which means that no one in the country is willing to sacrifice their tax cut to fund the war effort so the country has to borrow more money and the debt level has to be raised. This eventually weakens the economy. Then you chastise a war hero and ex POW because he calls for fiscal responsibility?

That is what I mean about the arrogance of those who have never served in the military. They dismiss people who have served and give them "lessons" on proper sacrifice, while they ignore the countries financial debt contraints so that no one else has to sacrifice a thing.

They didn't sacrifice when they had the chance to serve their country, and they aren't going to start when they get in positions of leadership either. It's a character issue when they fail to learn from other's who have served. That's the problem with chickenhawks who fail to appreciate, respect or listen to people who humbled themselves enough to serve their country with all of the common people, and know what it means to give something to a cause greater than their own bank account.

John McCain was "chastised" because he compared the sacrifice of men and women being killed and injured in Iraq with how much people pay in taxes. Even he now admits that was a highly inappropriate comparison. Talk about milking an issue......

Now, if you want sacrifice, fine, let's make a sacrifice. Cut all the pork out of the budget, give the President a line item veto via Constitutional amendment, and make an across the board cut in spending for every item in the budget except the defense spending that supports our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. 5%, across the board. Make those cuts in all those pet projects that the Congress loves so much like bridges named for Senators and Congressmen that don't go anywhere. Let's do that and see how far that goes in Congress.

1.)Does it matter that we have leaders who are calling for war, but who in the past did not serve themselves? In other words-are they credible?
2.)If a politician received deferments, does that make them incapable of being a leader or advocate for military intervention?
3.) Should a president have a military background?

My answer to all of the above is NO.

However, 'chickenhawks' are defined (by Vets) as those who tout the glories of war and US military might above all to achieve an agenda, and propose the sacrifice of dying for your country in this expansion of power as 'grand' when they themselves used every excuse imaginable not to get anywhere near the fighting when it was their time to do the same duty for their country.

IMO, these people have no right to call someone elses military record, anyone who was given medals for valor especially, up to scrutiny, anyone who actually did serve (unless they outright deserted in battle.) Its as bad as the people who spit on returning Vietnam soldiers. Its low, rude and unethical. Noone would ever dare do it to a Vet on the street, nevermind a long time serving politician and vet to his country. It shows severe lack of taste and tact...and judgement, because it opens up to critisizm of ones own record.



Milking? Who? McCain, Or Heart? And why was he chastised, by who? Why would it be an inappropriate comparison? It has always been that the country sacrificed as well as those who put their lives on the line.

I consider payment a direct correlation to the issue of sacrifice. I am not in agreement that our kids should sacrifice their lives for this war and everyone in america should get a tax payoff as well, while the debt gets passed down to future generations. If we want to talk about 'them' sacrificing, why arent we expected to sacrifice as well, right now. You want to support a war, (freedom and democracy for Iraqis) pay for it now, dont pass the debt to your children. Or is this a philosophy of ' live high on the hog now while breaking the backs the future generations'?

We better deal with the debt, becase oil prices are not going down after now, not much (My thread, Peak oil, Science and technology forum), the baby boomers begin to retire in 4 years, SS is broke, Medicare is already eating away at the national budget and interest rates are on the rise.

I dont understand Aquilla, who is supposed to pay, when?
I'd be the first to agree that pork is a problem, but this is passing the buck. You want to keep your tax cut, dont you? So why should a senator not get his bridge?
Its the same greed exponentially increased by status.

It's really quite simple, Artemise. IT'S MY MONEY! When a Senator spends federal funds building a monument to himself, he's SPENDING MY MONEY. When I ask for a tax cut all I'm asking for is MY MONEY. I don't want your money, I think you should keep it and do with it whatever you want to. If you want to donate it to a Senator's bridge fund, that is your right. But, there are two ways to cut the deficit and it's not rocket science. Raise taxes which doesn't really cut anything at all since they'll just build more useless bridges, or cut spending. Simple as that.

I can't help but ask, isn't it better to do both? Raise taxes, and cut spending? Approaching the issue as either/or seems guaranteed to fail. From an ideology perspective, one party opposes the other when it comes to raising taxes, and vice-versa, the latter party opposes the former when it comes to cutting spending.

Ironically, I think that all the Senators involved in the above-mentioned flap (McCain, Hastert, and Delay) advocate the dual-approach, but it is a matter of degrees, and the argument broke out over how much.

Here are some excerpted quotes from Senator McCain's speech of May 19th:



Briefly returning to the military-service-in-elected-goverment issue:


I would agree with the above definition. The model concept of a "Chickenhawk" is that of blatantly immoral hypocrisy, something we all loathe. I think we could all find common ground on that.

The problem with the "Chickenhawk" labelling going on in Congress is that it is hopelessly mired in politically subjective opinions. Clearly, if a member of congress is advocating war for military gain or a profit motive agenda while calling for individuals of the current generation to sacrifice, and yet they themselves used every excuse imaginable to avoid military service in their youth, they would deserve the label. Call a spade, a spade. But on the other end of the spectrum, you're going to have representatives and senators, who didn't volunteer for the military or had a legitimate deferment during the draft, who found themselves advocating a position that could be termed "pro-war" in the current conflict, because they truly believed it was the right thing to do.

How do we really sort these two types out, without our own politics affecting and influencing our opinions? If you're anti-war, you're more likely to overlook the possibility that the politician in question really believed that going to war was the right decision, and if you're pro-war, you're more likely to overlook the possibility that the politician in question really was a "Chickenhawk."

O.K., correct if I'm wrong, but didn't the vote have to do with unionized government employees and their rights should they be sent packing?? How is that anti-national security? The context of which that charge has been framed is very limited. If I were to make a statement that George Bush was a coward because on 9-11 he flew to Omaha and hid in some bunker, you would find that outrageous and out of context. On the surface it-it sounds accurate, but once you scratch below the surface, the above ground accusation is seen to have no merit. Same thing here with Cleland. The man's patriotism is somehow suspect because he stood up for unionized government employees. Would he really put some union above national security? Is a given union really a terrorist organization? The reduction to the abusrd on this one is really something else. That reflects back on why this thread was started, namely the title of "chicken-hawk" politicians. It's a cheap shot(much as Cleland faced) and both parties have their own ways of practicing this form of mugging. The GOP uses the word "patriotism" while the democrats chase a given person's war record.