Opinion: Hawks, doves and chickens
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
The Times’ obituary of Rep. John Murtha appropriately highlighted two aspects of his life: his status as a decorated former Marine and his fierce opposition to the Iraq war that ‘helped catalyze public sentiment against the conflict.’ What long has been fascinating to me is the popular assumption -- popular among critics of the war, anyway -- that Murtha’s military record somehow elevated his criticism of a war prosecuted by that alleged draft dodger George W. Bush.
Murtha himself encouraged this view. After then-Vice President Dick Cheney criticized the congressman’s statements on Iraq, Murtha remarked that ‘I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don’t like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done.’
John ‘reporting for duty’ Kerry also pushed this argument, telling Time magazine during the 2004 presidential campaign: ‘I’m confident that my record of fighting for this country since I was a young man is going to eclipse the disastrous choices that have been made by George Bush.’
But wait: Do we really want to privilege the views of politicians based on whether or not they served in the military? If Cheney is, as the saying goes, a ‘chicken hawk,’ what does that make people -- like President Obama -- who opposed the war but didn’t serve? Chicken doves?
Politics-as-biography is always dangerous, and according extra deference in national-security debates to members of Congress who served in the military is hard to square with Congress’ power to declare war and the doctrine of civilian control. John Murtha deserved to be honored for his military service, but it didn’t make his arguments as a congressman immune to criticism.
-- Michael McGough
