The shame of the chicken hawks

"Strains on the Army from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan become so severe that Army officials say they may be forced to make greater use of the National Guard to provide enough troops for overseas deployments," reported The New York Times on its front page Sept. 21. That step would break an earlier promise to allow five years at home between foreign deployments so as not to disrupt the family life and careers of its citizen soldiers. Earlier this summer, on July 26, President Bush authorized an "involuntary recall" of Marines on inactive reserve. "Involuntary recall" is delicate Washington speak for effectively a draft of Marines who have already served their country well on active duty and now would like to get on with their civilian lives.

Here, then, we have the most telling portrait of what passes as American "patriotism" these days. Unable to make more young Americans put their bodies where their mouths are, the Army and the Marines are forced to draft back into service the few Americans who actually have borne great sacrifices for their nation, while the rest of Americans, whose only sacrifice so far has been to accept a series of tax cuts, talk bravely about how "we (speak: "others") must stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan until victory is achieved."

Young people who cheered on the invasion of Iraq in 2003 or who now proclaim boldly that we must "stay the course" in Iraq and Afghanistan — and possibly take on Iran — are known as "chicken hawks." Sean Hannity, chief "patriotic" bloviator on "Fox Channel News," is the quintessential species of this genre. He seems young and strong enough at least to drive a supply truck in Iraq but prefers to leave that task to other men and women. But every American college campus is home to legions of chicken hawks as well — students who wear the American flag in their lapel and wax romantic about America's epic struggle against evil in the world, but who steadfastly refuse to pick up an M-16 to do their share of the fighting. What is one to think of these ones?

After years of tilting lances with elite chicken hawks, I know their rationale by heart.

They argue that one need not have served in the military to articulate views on foreign policy or military strategy. Agreed.

They argue that they can serve America better in other capacities — as biomedical researchers, as engineers and lawyers, as investment bankers, and so on — in short, that they are too precious to be wasted on combat. Agreed as well if one views individuals in society as mere pieces of human capital at the nation's disposal and further believes that the nation should maximize the value of the goods and services that can be ground out of these pieces of human capital. Not agreed, however, if one views a nation as something more than a mere collection of pieces of human capital and that individuals in society owe their nation something once called "civic duty."

Finally, chicken hawks may argue, as they did during the early phases of the war, that enough young Americans volunteer for military services to obviate the need for their own service, but that they would gladly pick up arms if their nation truly needed them. That argument, alas, no longer sells. As Marine Col. Guy Stratton, who is in charge of the Marines' manpower mobilization plans, told reporters in August, the involuntary call up of inactive Marine reservists authorized by President Bush was necessary because "volunteer numbers are on a downward trend" as, by the way, have been enrollments in ROTC.

This circumstance leads one to address a blunt question to the chicken hawks on campus: "How comfortable do you feel in your skin when you argue that 'we' must stand firm in Iraq and Afghanistan — and possibly in Iran — and yet refuse to do your share of the fighting, while former Princeton classmates and other Americans who have already served their country bravely now face an involuntary call to arms, standing in for you, the combat avoider?" Is this an unfair question?

At 4:30 p.m. today, in Robertson 16, Kathryn Roth-Douquet, Princeton GS '91, writer, lawyer and former U.S. Principal Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of Defense; and Frank Schaeffer, writer and filmmaker, coauthors of a book entitled, "AWOL: The Unexcused Absence of America's Upper Classes from the Military and How it Hurts Our Country," will explore this question further. I hope that anyone who disagrees with the thrust of their book (and of this commentary) will have the courage to join the discussion and tilt lances with the rest of us. Uwe E. Reinhardt is the James Madison Professor of Political Economy and a professor in the Wilson School. He can be reached at reinhard@princeton.edu.