"Chickenhawk", defined and defended

There is a really, really worthwhile piece, "Lions Led by Donkeys" at a blog I had never heard of, Kung Fu Monkey. Ostensibly, the writer, John Rogers, is responding to a right-wing blogger who objects to the characterization implicit in the common term, "chickenhawk". But there is much more here!

Rogers ends the article:

The problem is, there is no single word in English for a man risking absolutely nothing, who demands someone else risk absolutely everything. I'm sure there's a word in German -- they are a whizzer with those kicky compound nouns -- but none in English for that precise combination.
So, for now, we must let "chickenhawk" be its placeholder. [writer's emphasis]

This quotation is a classic instance of where one needs to have read the entire piece (or much of it) to appreciate the force of the comment. And so I will not attempt to further summarize or excerpt it, save for one element of his argument.

That element is the notion of a "covenant" between citizens of a democracy and its (professional) soldiers. The term always has theological overtones to me, and it seems to me that in our day the idea of solemn mutual obligations is almost passe. About a third of the way through the article, he writes:

. . .The fact is that soldiers make this choice [i.e., to enlist] in a specific context. They are not just entering a job. They are, to pull up my Catholic high school education, entering into a covenant with us. They take an oath to sacrifice their lives, if need be. That is, in my faith anyway, the holiest thing a person can do. In return, the civilian side of the covenant is a deep responsibility, a responsibility far beyond the emotional support one gives a sports team, or the minimal responsibility one has with employees. Our oath is simple:

• We will make sure you have the equipment you need.
• We will make sure have a clearly defined mission.
• We will make sure that such missions are as well-planned as possible.
• We will take care of your families while you are gone.
• We will take care of you when you come home.

That's not a lot to do for someone who's out there getting shot at for you. Even better, rather than the fuzzy "we will support you" standard set by many, these are actionable, definable terms. Is "supporting the troops" just waving flags, writing supportive essays, and arguing for the nobility of their mission? I say no, those actions are laudable but meaningless if they are not backed by these concrete goals. And concrete, plainly spoken responsibilites are exactly what we need: by measuring ourselves against our progress in these arenas we can, if we are honest, meaningfully judge if we are fulfilling our duty.

The writer fills these out admirably and fully. I would add only one more covenantal obligation, or modify it: the "mission" needs to be significant and justified in ways the trumped up case for the invasion of Iraq was not. For that, The Regime owes a major, frankly incaluculable and unpayable debt to this society and to the troops and their families. Covenant-breaking is serious stuff (in traditional Christian theology, the penalty is eternal damnation).

Do read the article!