- Development & Aid
- Economy & Trade
- Human Rights
- Global Governance
- Civil Society
Saturday, February 16, 2019
Analysis - By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Sep 6 2002 (IPS) - A high-ranking State Department official was speaking to a room full of senior military officers last month when he cracked, ”There’s more combat experience on the 7th floor of the State Department than in the entire Office of the Secretary of Defense.”
”The remark generated riotous applause,” according to an eyewitness who recounted the incident to Chris Nelson, publisher of the Nelson Report, a private newsletter that circulates to embassies and Capitol Hill offices.
The anecdote illustrates what some are now calling the ”Chicken Hawk” factor, which could play an important role in the increasingly intense and personalised debate over the Bush administration’s push toward war with Iraq.
That the greatest opposition to the war is centred in the military brass – the source of the most damaging leaks of the administration’s battle plans – as well as in the upper reaches of the State Department and among the foreign-policy veterans of the first Bush administration, has made the hawks extremely sensitive to the question of their own military service, or, rather, lack of it.
”It is interesting to me that many of those who want to rush this country into war and think it would be so quick and easy don’t know anything about war,” observed Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican Vietnam veteran whose scepticism about an Iraqi adventure has made him ‘persona non grata’ to the neo-cons leading the charge.
A Chicken Hawk, according to The New Hampshire Gazette, which maintains a database on the subject, is a term often applied to public figures – generally male – who tend to advocate ”military solutions to political problems, and who have personally (also) declined to take advantage of a significant opportunity to serve in uniform during wartime”.
That description applies to most senior administration officials in their fifties, who were subject to the military draft during the Vietnam War.
George W. Bush himself, instead of being drafted for the war, received a posting to the Texas National Guard. It was the kind of dodge from military service that Secretary of State and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Colin Powell said in his memoirs was generally reserved for ”the sons of the powerful”.
Vice President Dick Cheney avoided the uniform altogether, insisting to one inquiring reporter that he ”had other priorities in the 60s than military service”.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the other leading Cabinet hawk, flew Navy jets between the Korean and Vietnam wars but saw no combat. Indeed, the only cabinet member with combat experience is Powell.
The record at the sub-cabinet level is worse. Cheney’s hawkish and powerful chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, spent the Vietnam War at Yale and Columbia universities. Rumsfeld’s top deputies in the same age group – Paul Wolfowitz and Peter Rodman – were similarly engaged, while Dougas Feith, the Pentagon’s most enthusiastic war booster, turned 18 only after the draft ended but then opted for law school.
Other major administration hawks – such as Elliott Abrams on the National Security Council staff and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Strategy John Bolton – also avoided military service during the height of the Vietnam War, reportedly due to medical problems.
Even more remarkable, the major agitators for war outside the administration also lack direct military experience. Of the 32 prominent signers of a now-famous Sep. 20 letter to Bush urging him to include Iraq – as well as Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Palestinian Authority – as targets in the war on terrorism, only three have ever donned a uniform.
One of the key members of that group, Richard Perle, who is also chairman of Rumsfeld’s Defense Policy Board (DPB) and one of the most visible advocates of military action to oust Saddam Hussein, spent Vietnam at the University of Chicago and later joined the staff of Sen. Henry Jackson, virtually the last Democrat in the Senate to support that war.
Because of his visibility and reputation as the hub of a pro-Likud (the leading party of Israel’s coalition government) network of national-security experts and media commentators, Perle was the target of a particularly sharp remark by Hagel, one of several prominent lawmakers decorated for their Vietnam service who oppose the rush to war.
”Maybe Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad,” he said recently, earning him an outraged rebuke in a Wall Street Journal editorial.
”They come at it,” Hagel said of the Chicken Hawks, ”from an intellectual perspective versus having sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown off. I try to speak for those ghosts of the pasts a little.”
”It’s pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another,” noted ret. Gen. Anthony Zinni, former chief of the Central Command that includes the Gulf region, just last week. Gulf War hero ret. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf has also expressed strong doubts about a new war.
It is not so much that opponents believe Iraq represents a serious threat to U.S. military might, although they have openly scorned the notion put forward by Perle and others that a military campaign would be a ”cakewalk”.
They are mainly worried about the war’s aftermath and the degree to which it will burden the military with an impossible political task with no clear exit. ”Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years?” asked former Navy Secretary and Vietnam veteran James Webb in a Washington Post column Wednesday.
But the Chicken Hawks have already begun a counter-attack, arguing, like former French prime minister Georges Clemenceau, that ”war is too important to be left to the generals”.
Peter Beinert, editor of The New Republic, an influential neo-conservative weekly, argued that ”over and over during the ’90s, the generals with firsthand battlefield experience guessed wrong – and the civilians without it guessed right – about what would happen when the United States went to war”. He singled out Powell for his opposition to carrying the Gulf War from Kuwait to Baghdad and to U.S. intervention in Bosnia.
Beinert argued that civilians better understood the political context for both wars and that since Vietnam, the brass has tended to overestimate the enemy.
The Chicken Hawks are also warning the uniformed military to keep their reservations to themselves.
Eliot Cohen, an academic close to Perle and one of the signers of the Sep. 20 letter, in a Journal column two weeks ago reminded the brass of their ”obligation to present their views with utter honesty in private, but to maintain silence in public”.
The central message of his latest book, Supreme Command, stresses the importance of civilian supremacy in wartime and argues that the military brass is habitually over-cautious. Cohen’s fellow-hawks are making much of the fact that Bush told reporters during his summer vacation that he was reading the book.
IPS is an international communication institution with a global news agency at its core, raising the voices of the South
and civil society on issues of development, globalisation, human rights and the environment
Copyright © 2019 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved. - Terms & Conditions
You have the Power to Make a Difference
Would you consider a $20.00 contribution today that will help to keep the IPS news wire active? Your contribution will make a huge difference.