"chickenhawks"As I posted on a previous thread:
The definitive analysis on this "chicken hawk" fallacy (IMHO) was written in a Washington COMPost article - which we are not allowed to post the FULL TEXT of here, but here is the HEART of that unassailable argument:"...The second variant of "chicken hawk" is that veterans per se are uniquely qualified to make judgments on matters of war and peace.How does that work, though? Does a former airborne ranger get twice as loud a voice as an ICBM crew chief? Does the stateside finance corps lieutenant count more than the civilian who came under fire running an aid mission in Mogadishu?
According to this view, to fill a senior policy position during a war one would of course prefer a West Point graduate who had led a regiment in combat, as opposed to a corporate lawyer turned politician with a few weeks' experience in a militia unit that did not fight.
The former profile fits Jefferson Davis and the latter Abraham Lincoln. Not only did Davis turn against the Constitution he had sworn to uphold, he was a poor commander in chief, while Lincoln was the greatest of our war presidents.Being a veteran is no guarantee of strategic wisdom..."
more