Flame — HabitableZone

Flame » in reply to Some thoughts on "chickenhawk"

re: Some thoughts on "chickenhawk"
Tom Brosz — (archived)

It would be interesting to go back through history and see how many U.S. presidents matched the Wikipedia definition.

Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.

The term "defensive war" seems extraordinarily elastic. FDR fans apply it to WWII, where the attack on Pearl Harbor and a declaration of war (no attacks) by Germany were met by the absolute annihilation of both of those nations by the U.S. and its allies, including countless civilian deaths in massive bombing attacks and conventional warfare.

By that definition, had we utterly obliterated Afghanistan, leaving only rubble and refugees, it could have been defined as a "defensive war." Assuming a Democrat was president, of course.

As for "humanitarian interventions" and U.N. operations, the absolute uselessness of most of them makes them quite easy for doves to support.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (55 posts)