How do you deal with Chicken Hawks?

1SG Joe Messier — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 03:10:05 -0500

http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/donald-trump-ted-cruz-and-millennials-return-of-the-chicken-hawks/19690-donald-trump-ted-cruz-and-millennials-return-of-the-chicken-hawks

Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Millennials: Return of the Chicken Hawks

Chickenhawkdom is nothing new in US politics.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Dec 24 at 2015 3:12 AM

PO1 John Miller — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 03:12:03 -0500

I DON'T. I connect with down to earth people like Ben Carson and Rand Paul! :)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 6:13 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:13:33 -0500

Engage in a serious discussion. The application of military force to resolve a situation is one of the most important decisions our civilian leaders make. On the other end of those orders are real people (ours and theirs) who have real families who might not come back.
Given the order, I will salute smartly and execute the mission with audacity and alacrity. All I ask is that it is necessary and that I am given the tools I need to achieve my leaders' goals.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Dec 24 at 2015 6:38 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:38:12 -0500

The application of force is just a different form of diplomacy.

It has its time and place, but it should be used correctly.

The problem is that people treat it like a hammer. Everything looks like a nail.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 24 at 2015 6:48 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:48:21 -0500

We all know ground can't be controlled by air. These are some of the reasons why I believe POTUS needs to have military experience (I just broke out my P38 and opened a can of worms). Of course this is one reason for the JCS, if POTUS listens to them and the JCS will give an honest opinion and not be politically correct.
I think most people once you explain things, many will stop and think.

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Dec 24 at 2015 8:11 AM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:11:16 -0500

1SG Joe Messier put them in the hot seat (canadites) and turn up the heat. Let's see the outcome. There is more accountability required to the American pupil, in support of the constitution.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 24 at 2015 8:26 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:26:11 -0500

Apparently we let them debate on TV...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 8:54 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 08:54:58 -0500

Eat Them!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 9:01 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:01:39 -0500

As opposed to Hillary, right?

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 24 at 2015 9:16 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:16:13 -0500

Better a chicken-hawk than a chicken. Personally, I want the bullies to fear America. It makes for a safer world.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Dec 24 at 2015 9:35 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:35:16 -0500

I think with Graham dropping out there is no longer anyone running that is a veteran of the US Armed Forces. Does that mean that anyone who has not served but calls for any US Military action (great or small) is a chicken hawk? The term chicken hawk is an attempt at a pejorative aimed at anyone (normally conservatives) that wants to use military action as part of the solution to a diplomatic problem.

Since presidential races don't appear to draw former military leaders we will see more of this. The reality is the military is not larger enough for many/most to even serve so this is an operating reality for us. Civilian leadership of the military with no military experience. Experience isn't necessary if the leader can engage and appoint the right people and listen to them. No one can know it all. The job is too big.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Dec 24 at 2015 11:42 AM

SrA Jonathan Carbonaro — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:42:12 -0500

I ask them a few simple questions. 1) Have you served in the military? 2) Is the cause worth YOU dying for, or sending a close family member to die for? If the answer is NO to the first one and yes to the second one I tell them to go to the recruiting station and watch as they try to think of an excuse no to.
I believe Military force should only be used as an absolute last resort; and those that advocate for it the hardest to be used first are more then likely those who have nothing to risk.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 1:10 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:10:14 -0500

I guess we all must forget who spiked the football with OBL, when he sent "his guys", and the I did it!. Never heard a POTUS, or saw it written, taking complete credit for military ops. Even more ironic, is that most of the intel used to find him was the direct result of waterboarding and Guantanamo, places he has fought hard to close, and put through the grinder....

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Dec 24 at 2015 1:21 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 13:21:22 -0500

Now that is funny, when you listen to the administration making war sounds, painting red lines, and signing "deals" that give away the store. Yeah, I will go with the chicken hawks you note.

Response by SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury made Dec 24 at 2015 2:59 PM

SCPO Charles Thomas "Tom" Canterbury — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 14:59:31 -0500

I'm wary of someone who has never served a day in uniform who has the attitude of having nothing to lose, who would never put his family into the fight, who wants to put ours into a fight somewhere...

Response by SSgt Terry P. made Dec 24 at 2015 5:37 PM

SSgt Terry P. — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 17:37:55 -0500

1SG Joe Messier Very interesting article.IMO you can't deal with chicken hawks.They listen to no one but themselves.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Dec 25 at 2015 1:02 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 13:02:14 -0500

Don't vote for them... for starters. If a chickenhawk sends us to war and doesn't provide us with the ROE to win it, the public needs to know that.

Response by LtCol Robert Quinter made Dec 25 at 2015 8:13 PM

LtCol Robert Quinter — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:13:19 -0500

First, I don't like or use the term. How many of us are qualified to make a decision to commit our nation to war? Although some of us may have served on Joint projects, the military primarily decides how to fight a war, and unless you are in an extremely high level billet, at best we decide how to fight battles. I like to consider the "qualifications" of the talker. Is he a drunken blowhard? I'll ignore him. Has he been in positions of responsibility where he had to face a problem, gather information, solicit advice of experts in their field and then make a decision that impacted the welfare of a community, large corporation, personal fortune or other significant entity or situation. The CinC is the responsible billet for making decisions about the military. Congress has the responsibility to declare war. Our senior officers must have the moral fiber to ensure we combat in accordance with the traditions and laws our nation has adopted for war. If our politicians and seniors do their job, then we folks toward the bottom will never face the moral dilemma of deciding if an order is legal.
Now, the specific question of candidates. Same criteria as I mentioned above rules. Has the individual had to make significant decisions? Does he listen to criticism or advice? Is there evidence that he uses experts as counsel when he takes a position? Can he justify, or at least explain his thoughts? It's often a roll of the dice and relying on your confidence in your own judgement. You've got to research the candidates' lives in many cases because they rarely have the time or inclination in a campaign to get to the detail you really need. There was a time when the press used to do a lot of the work, but they haven't been that reliable since the 70s.
Short answer to the original question, military service usually doesn't qualify an individual to make "Chickenhawk" type decisions, so dismissing a person's opinion on a political situation where he advocates war based on normal military service isn't really valid. You listen until you decide he is incapable of making an informed decision and convincing others of the wisdom of his decision.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Dec 25 at 2015 11:04 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 25 Dec 2015 23:04:10 -0500

Love It. I slam these Republican Chicken Hawks at every opportunity I can.

Response by SFC Joseph Weber made Dec 26 at 2015 9:08 AM

SFC Joseph Weber — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 09:08:08 -0500

Ignore them.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Dec 26 at 2015 3:41 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 15:41:56 -0500

As Foghorn Leghorn always said 1SG Joe Messier "Get away from me boy you're botherin me" as the young chicken hawk nibbled or chomped into his leg :-)
I concur with the comments of 1SG Private RallyPoint Member SGM Mikel Dawson and CPT Jack Durish

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Dec 26 at 2015 10:33 PM

SSgt Christopher Brose — Sat, 26 Dec 2015 22:33:34 -0500

"Chicken Hawks" is a term of derision used to try to damage the credibility of those who haven't served when they express support for those who have. The thing is, it is often used by people who are anti-military, or who haven't themselves served -- or by people who have served, but whose political leanings lead them to ignore the anti-military actions and rhetoric of their preferred party, politicians, and commentators.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 28 at 2015 7:17 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:17:15 -0500

Err.... civilian leaders .... by definition ... Err ... so what with that complaint is about again?