Vox is informally polling military and veteran readers about whether or not someone is a Chickenhawk.
Chickenhawk refers to those who are pro-war but have never served in the military. I don't like the term. It's designed to silence debate.
By using the "Chickenhawk" label, you assume that the only moral authority to have an opinion about war comes from those that have served.
Well, then, is someone that served in the military but not combat, a half-Chickenhawk?
How about someone that spent one month fighting in GW1 versus someone who slugged it out during OIF for a year?
How do you weigh the opinion of a Marine with three seven month tours versus a 3rd Infantry Division Soldier with two twelve month tours?
And, then, eventually, we'll come to the conclusion that the only one to make a decision about combat is the highest decorated veteran alive (Colonel Bud Day, I believe). Let's let him make all of our decisions for us...
I don't know many military men or women out there who would want military service to be the singular defining characteristic of citizenship. We appreciate those that have served, and maybe they're a little higher up the food chain in our eyes, but to say that you have to serve to have an opinion is, basically, crap.
For instance, Presidents with combat experience have gotten us into more problems that ones without (how's THAT for a premise). Kennedy (WWII Vet), Truman (WWI Vet)...
Please drop by Vox's place and vote (if you're a vet or serving currently).