Talk:Chickenhawk

My main problems with this term
141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) It adds an unnecessary and largely irrelevant emphasis on warhawks' military careers or lack thereof. Being a warhawk should generally be a bad thing, not just when one hasn't had a military career (yet).
 * 2) It paints being a soldier in overly positive terms and dismisses people who don't want to put their life on the line as shameful cowards (and also perpetuates the stereotype that chickens are cowards). Um, hello? I didn't know we were in a military ad campaign.
 * Why it's relevant, extracted from our article on war:

I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting — its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
 * ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, if you want to argue that few warhawks have seen the true face of war, or else they wouldn't be so supportive of it, then fair enough. But joining the military is a farcry from being synonymous with going out on a journey to witness the horrors of war first-hand from the victims' perspective. That's mixing up being a soldier with being a war-zone photographer, methinks. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's ill-defined, especially when applied to figures like Thatcher & Blair where there's no specific reason why they would be expected to have served in the military. It makes a lot more sense when applied to people like Donald Trump, who escaped a mandatory draft during a major conflict through a series of convenient (and somewhat suspicious) technicalities, but is now not only promulgating hawkish foreign policy but also making absurd comments about John McCain's service record. This is the sort of thing we should be citing instead of presenting a bare list of names. 19:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds suspiciously like a good idea to improve the article. We were having a nice shouting match, thank you.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice, but not really productive. It's easy to push other people into war if one gets only as close as some names on a spreadsheet to those people or those they care about.  It doesn't mean only those who have served can have an opinion.  However, the people who want to throw US troops at anyone who so much farts in the US's general direction should calm the fuck down.  This isn't a movie or a video game.  Especially those, like Trump, that are willing to throw troops at perceived slights and then drop veterans when they come home and need help.  -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it's smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can't help it — I enjoy every second of it.
 * And before the question arises, yes the man saw action. There are people who go out of war and quite enjoy the experience. I can't comprehend it, and so can probably nobody who never fought in a war, but this feeling is real. And it is even more dangerous than Chickenhawkery, imho 141.30.210.129 (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Churchill was a grade-A arsehole, though. It wouldn't surprise me that he would see horror and express glee. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like Churchill's domestic policies for Britain or his Empire nostalgia one bit. But without him, I would probably never have been born, on account of my grandfather dying in the war. He was an asshole. But he was the right asshole at the right time. 141.30.210.129 (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

out of curiosity...
In what way are Samantha Power, Victoria Nuland and Hillary Clinton considered "chickenhawks"?

As a social democrat (and incidentally, an Army veteran), I'm not particularly a fan of any of them, but I don't think the label really applies here. The whole point of a chickenhawk, as opposed to just a regular war hawk, is that the person is a chicken- they've somehow successfully (usually actively) avoided military service themselves. Until relatively recently, women were generally unable to serve in the military (yes, I'm aware of women serving in things like the WAC and so forth, but still). When I think "chickenhawk", I think of loudly pro-war blowhards who are also draft dodgers like Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc, and especially the outrageous examples like Ted "Pants-shitter" Nugent or Rush "Anal Cyst" Limbaugh.

I guess I can understand, although I disagree with, the basis of the argument for why Clinton would be considered a hawk- because she voted in favor of the Iraq War? I hesitate to use that alone as a reason to label someone a chickenhawk though- Bush used manipulated intelligence and post-9/11 fears of being deemed "unpatriotic" to push through the Iraq authorization; additionally, Clinton has since stated she regrets making that vote (although I also understand that a lot of people, especially those who vehemently dislike her for whatever reason, do not accept this regret as genuine). --DarthBinky (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no draft in the US anymore, so the "chickenhawk" "argument" became moot, unless you claim, that merely not volunteering to join the military and then endorsing military action is chickenhawkery, which would effectively mean, that one would either want to abolish the military or turn the country into a militarist regime (requiring politicians to participate in combat to fully participate in the political life of the country).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's part of my problem with this article- it does seem to conflate "you didn't volunteer and now are strongly pro-war" with "you dodged the draft and actively avoided serving in Vietnam but now are strongly pro-war". I agree that there's a difference there.

But that still doesn't address my initial query- how are a few women who are currently or formerly in the Obama Administration, who aren't necessarily strongly hawkish and were largely unable to serve*, considered "chickenhawks"? (the * is acknowledgement that some women did in fact serve, as previously stated) --DarthBinky (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they're warhawks, but not really chickenhawks. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

You all know that there is one country where the draft also applies to women, don't you? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Skimming a bit of the discussion, it now appears as if there has been considerable debate already as to the merits of the term and its applicability to several cases... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * There's actually a few countries that draft women (off the top of my head, Israel, North Korea, and Chad; and Norway recently legalized it, while Sweden is considering it), but that's not really relevant to this discussion. The whole point of the term is to point out the hypocrisy of successfully avoiding compulsory service during a war (namely Vietnam), only to be perfectly OK with sending other people to fight unnecessary wars (especially Iraq, and the current push to attack Iran).  I agree with the previous discussions (which didn't cover the three specific women I asked about) that as the Vietnam generation continues to grow old and exit politics/die (it's been about 40 years since Vietnam ended, so those veterans are all in their 60s+ now), the term will probably fall out of use.  But a lot of politicians/pundits of that generation are still going strong.  --DarthBinky (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, pure ad hom.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand fully what that whole argument was about (something about categories?), nor do I really care. --DarthBinky (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher
To be fair, British women were not allowed to enlist in the military when she was of military age. The first women in the British military enlisted when she was 44. Is it really fair to include her under these circumstances? Kentuckyball (talk) 17:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, it isn't.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We have had problems with the Chickenhawk label before so this is probably one of those old critcisms that never got fact checked.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC) 17:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly true in the case of the United Kingdom. Several units of women were formed during and after the World Wars.:
 * Queen Mary's Army Auxiliary Corps (1917-1921). Provided female personnel for auxiliary military positions such as clerks, cooks, cooks, telephonists, waitresses, and medical staff. Over 57,000 women served in this unit.
 * Women's Royal Naval Service (1917-1919, 1939-1993). Provided female personnel for the Royal Navy. Members served in auxiliary positions such as cooks, clerks, wireless telegraphists, radar plotters, weapons analysts, range assessors, electricians and air mechanics. About 5.500 women served during World War I, 75,000 women during World II. The first member to actually serve on an operational warship did so in 1990, during the Gulf War. The service was merged into the Royal Navy in 1993.
 * Women's Royal Air Force (1918-1920, 1949-1994). Provided female personnel for the Royal Air Force. Members served in auxiliary positions such as mechanics, and drivers. The force was merged into the Royal Air Force in 1994.
 * Auxiliary Territorial Service (1938-1949). Provided female personnel for auxiliary military positions such as cooks, clerks, storekeepers, telephonists, orderlies, drivers, postal workers, ammunition inspectors, and anti-aircraft artillery personnel. Over 65,000 women served in this unit. Its most famous veteran is Queen Elizabeth II, who spend her service as a lorry (truck) driver.
 * Women's Auxiliary Air Force (1939-1949). Provided female personnel for the Royal Air Force. Members served in auxiliary positions, such as parachute packing, crewing of barrage balloons, catering, meteorology, radar operations, aircraft maintenance, transport, communications duties including wireless telephonic and telegraphic operation, code and ciphers operations, reconnaissance photographs analysis, and intelligence operations. At least 180,000 women served this force during World War II, including both volunteers and those conscripted into service.
 * Women's Royal Army Corps (1949-1992). The female branch of the British Army following World War II. Disbanded in 1992, with its members absorbed into other military units.

Margaret Thatcher was born in 1925 and was 20 years old at the end of World War II. She was eligible for service in one of these units, but neither volunteered, nor was ever conscripted. She spend the years 1943 to 1947 studying for a Chemistry Bachelor of Science degree in the Somerville College, Oxford and specializing in X-ray crystallography. She graduated in 1947, following the end of the war. She was reportedly the first British Prime Minister with a science degree of any kind. Dimadick (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is that none of these positions are actually fighting positions (Except maybe the last one but from a quick google search I did not find that to be so, correct me if I'm wrong). Chickenhawk I would imagine wouldn't refer to people who worked in administrative positions or as parachute packers, but would more refer to people who were on the front lines and have really seen the horrors of war. Kentuckyball (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Syrian girl
Syrian girl has never adovoated for offensive war just for Assad to fight the rebels There’s a big difference between advocating crushing insurgents and invading other nations Same with Khomeni He didn’t start the Iran Iraq war he simply was In charge at the time and defended his land. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 2603:6000:9940:574a:15a3:b8c2:43ba:a901 / talk

This whole article seems fallacious for me
As much as I applaud efforts to foster peace and oppose mindless warmongering I have to say this whole article, as well as the label itself, seems to me to be fallacious and irrational.

As far as I understand your position one must have served in the military if one supports going to war on any particular case, or else one is a deplorable chickenhawk.

It is a fallacy to claim that first-hand experience in X is needed to talk about or support X. By the very same line of reasoning we could say that only mothers may be midwives, that no one without a driving license may be a car mechanic or, even more absurdly, that a historian must have lived in the times they study.

In the modern society theoretical knowledge required for decision making is very often far removed from actual implementation of these decisions - it would be absurd to require that a planner who designs a new street must personally operate a bulldozer and pour asphalt on the field that is to become a new street.

Similarly, the decision of whether or not go to war is a decision of politicians - it MUST NOT be the decision of military personnel themselves, for obvious reasons. Therefore labeling politicians as chickenhawks is ridiculous, as it borderlines stigmatizing politicians for doing their job, which is - among others - to direct the military.

A politician may or may not have had personally served in the military - but it shouldn't matter that much since the skillset needed to be a successful politician is quite different from the skillset needed to become a successful footsoldier. It would be best if a politician does not remain a soldier while serving as a politician, or else we have a military junta.

Last final reduction to absurd: By your reasoning only former soldiers may say that Ukraine has the right to defend itself against Russia.

While there definitely does exist an unfortunate mindset that conjoins cowardice with mindless warmongering and such mindset can and should be rightfully criticized, suggesting an implication "IF you did not serve in military and support war at any particular occasion THEN you are an abhorrent idiot who supports atrocities without even realizing how horrible they are" is excessive, unsubstantiated and fallacious. Sjhfeke (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: Perhaps the term 'Chickenhawk' (as well as its sister label, 'armchair warrior') could be salvaged under condition that they are redefined a bit? Let me attempt: A 'chickenhawk' (or an 'armchair warrior') is a person who simultaneously (a) advocates for the use of violence even though it is clear that they (b) have no competence on the subject and (c) the execution of what they propose would result (or, even worse, does result) in a catastrophe from both ethical and pragmatic points of view. Sjhfeke (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)