Ah, Chickenhawks…

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Quite a few blogs, left and right, are having the great “chickenhawk” debate again. This argument always gets pecked over every week or so, with the idea being that war supporters are horrible hypocrites if they don’t immediately sign up for the Army and ship themselves off to Iraq. Now clearly that argument’s wrong, and a quick analogy makes that clear. I—like many other liberals—think this country needs higher tax rates than we currently have, for a variety of reasons, even though those higher rates will certainly affect me much less heavily than they will others. But for fairly good reason no one claims that only those making over $200,000 are allowed to support higher taxes on the wealthy. It’s a stupid argument.

Also annoying is the claim that Americans are kept free and safe only because there are U.S. soldiers are out there risking their lives in combat. Presumably this line is intended to make non-military war critics feel guilty and stop their carping. Well, in many ways the claim true, but then again, we can also afford to have the largest military on earth because Americans across the country are working hard and paying taxes. We’re all a community and dependent on each other, and that’s just the way the world works. It’s fine to be grateful; but it’s a bit silly to insinuate that a person has no right to criticize the military just because he’s some slouch in an office cubicle.

Back to the chickenhawk argument. It’s true that the Young Republicans and other junior war-supporters are too scared to sign up for war in Iraq. Rightly so, I am too! That doesn’t make them hypocrites. What it does signal, though, is that the war in Iraq just isn’t all that important to these people. If there actually was a conflict in which the fate of the United States—or the fate of freedom itself!—hung in the balance, and we didn’t have enough soldiers to fight it, then we’d obviously see a lot of people who thought the war was really and truly critical pouring into recruitment offices. How could they not? But if you don’t think this Iraq war—a war for which we may not have enough soldiers to win—is all that crucial in the grand scheme of things, then you won’t sign up. Simple as that. The Young Republicans are implicitly suggesting that if we fail in Iraq for lack of troops and have to leave, that wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world. Well, okay then. In many ways I agree; I just wish they’d be more open about it.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend