The Chicken Hawks' War
Vietnam Draft-Dodgers Are The Force Behind An Iraqi Invasion
George Johnson served in the Navy from 1962 to 1966. He is the Vice Commander of American Legion Post 315 and a member of Veterans for Peace.
This past Veterans Day, I took time out of my busy schedule to remember the many people, some of them my friends, who gave the greatest sacrifice for their country. It's a commemoration I undertake every year, and always with a heavy heart. But this year my thoughts are especially somber, because this year I know that the United States is again headed for war, and that other unnecessary deaths are likely to occur.
As a veteran of the U.S. Navy, I am strongly opposed to the proposed invasion of Iraq. This war seems to me ill-considered and ill-planned. Almost all the countries of the Middle East are opposed to a war with Iraq; our allies in Europe think an invasion is foolhardy. A credible case has not been made that Saddam Hussein poses a clear and present danger to the United States. Most disturbing to me is the White House's notion of a pre-emptive attack, an idea that contradicts the United States' historic policy of not acting as an aggressor. They treat the issue so cavalierly because they have never actually seen war, they don't know its horrors and its fears.
These are intellectual concerns. What really makes me sad and angry -- what keeps me up at night -- is the thought that this senseless war is being initiated by a group of people who have never seen combat, people who don't know what war is really about.
The media has dubbed the war-happy individuals who never served in war "chicken hawks." These were the people who did all they could to avoid service in Vietnam while tens of thousands of young Americans -- and countless more Vietnamese -- were dying. Some people, including friends of mine, avoided service because they held principled objections to the war in Vietnam. Let's be clear: The "chicken hawks" weren't peacenik draft dodgers. Rather, they were cowardly draft dodgers. And now they are the ones who are so eager to start another war.
Vice President Dick Cheney has said he didn't serve in Vietnam because he had "other priorities." Clearly, so did President Bush, who was in the National Guard, but went nearly 14 months without reporting for service and was almost declared AWOL. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a prominent hawk who is currently settled in a right-wing think tank, was in graduate school. Republican Whip Tom Delay also asked for a school deferment. Radio commentator Rush Limbaugh claimed a medical problem, as did current House leader Dennis Hastert. Senator Trent Lott was busy leading his college cheerleading squad.
Now Lott, along with the rest of the chicken hawk brigade, is busy cheerleading for war. They treat the issue so cavalierly because they have never actually seen war, they don't know its horrors and its fears. Combat teaches you that war is a serious, deadly business. Too many of the officials in Washington never learned that lesson the hard way. For them, war is a theoretical exercise, like playing chess, or sports.
For the chicken hawks, war seems easy because they have never born the weight of war -- and they will never have to. Nor, more than likely, will their sons and daughters. The rich and the privileged -- the sons and daughters of Senators and Congressmen -- aren't the ones who go to combat. Today's military is much like the military I served in 40 years ago -- disproportionately poor and working class, disproportionately made up of African-Americans and other people of color.
Those who have really seen war know better than the chicken hawks. The veterans within the Bush Administration, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of State Colin Powell, have been the most cautious voices when it comes to Iraq. And there are other veterans -- Representative Charles Rangel of New York, Senator Ted Kennedy, and Congressional Medal of Honor winner Senator Daniel Inouye -- who voted against attacking Iraq.
War is hell. But it's also true that war is an easier route to follow than peace -- throughout history, war has been the path more frequently taken. Attacking someone you don't agree with is a fairly straightforward affair; sitting down with your adversary and working out your disagreements is much more difficult. At the end of the day, it takes more courage to negotiate than to fight. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of courage we can expect from our chicken hawk leaders. |
