How to speak 'Hawk'

In his Feb. 12 op-ed, tritely titled ‘A time to break eggs,’ Zach Shapiro advocates for a full-fledged ground invasion aimed at ISIS. Though a brash call for war, what I think is most important about this piece is its frequent indulgence in a unique brand of American political language: Hawk rhetoric. The piece rolls out familiar and woefully dependable vocabulary of justifications previously used to garner support for America's international adventures in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and countless others. It's deployed here to rationalize an American ground invasion of what I can only assume is the entire Middle East. Geographical specifics seemed to have been deemed superfluous in this particular usage of Hawk language.

The beating heart of Hawk rhetoric is its ability to resonate with an American "City on a Hill"-type cultural and ideological imperialism. Though distinct from its European parent, both share an appalling lack of self-awareness. Take for example how Hawk rhetoric characterizes the "moralistic few," who fear that a ground war against ISIS "blurs our moral superiority." While there is no argument for the moral merit of ISIS's actions, various examples of America's not-so-superior behavior in Abu Ghraib, Vietnam, Japan, Guantanamo Bay, etc. constitute a whole family of skeletons in America's closet that erodes any claim to such a moral superiority. But Hawk rhetoric isn’t used to argue the existence of an American moral superiority, because those utilizing Hawk rhetoric have assumed this superiority, and are counting on the fact that you have, too. The important thing about this assumption is that it raises the superior Us above the inferior Them, and if you look carefully at how Hawk rhetoric describes the "Enemy," disturbing trends abound.

This particular rendition of Hawk rhetoric variably describes ISIS as “new barbarism,” the “epitome of bad guys” and “savages” who commit “medieval brutality.” Though explanations are lacking regarding what is “new” about ISIS’s brutality, or how something can be both “new” and “medieval,” let’s talk instead about the troubling overtones of the language used. Consider which societies Europeans have also referred to as ‘savages.’ Hernan Cortés’ descriptions of the “most horrid and abominable custom[s]” of indigenous societies in the New World and their “barbarian lord,” for example. Nearly all are societies which the West has, at one point or another, spent a whole lot of time and resources trying to eliminate from the map, and often succeeded. The hot-breathed exhortations of America’s "moral superiority" are inseparable from the bitter historical baggage of American and European imperialism. This doesn’t necessarily mean that every American military endeavor is a deliberate act of imperialist fervor, but the deeply involved meanings of this rhetoric which inevitably precedes each and every American military action have undeniable and troubling roots in America’s violent and hate-filled past.

When the rhetoric has stoked your patriotic passions and convinced you that They are definitely “pure evil” (a reliable go-to Hawkism) you are told that war is our only option. Considerations of alternatives meet the same fate as geographical specifics when Hawk rhetoric talks about war; they fail to garner even a dismissive head-nod. In the keen eyes of America’s Hawks “we can all agree that no one else can do that which is necessary.” I might timidly suggest that we think about why it is that “no one else” is willing to commit to a full-fledged ground invasion of an entire region for the second or third or fourth time, depending on how far you want to go back. My guess is that either other countries suffer a greater proportion of “moralistic” individuals, or that policymakers elsewhere are more apt to soberly assess the effectiveness of military action in suppressing violence. Hawk ideology might much appreciate the practicality and amoral nature of the latter. But Hawk rhetoric doesn’t lend itself to that conversation, so you won’t catch it discussing alternatives.

The historical amnesia that permits claims to “moral superiority” is conveniently disabled to provide historical precedent for America’s wars abroad. Often Hawk rhetoric invokes the past, asking Us to consider a world where we failed to violently respond when “the Luftwaffe bombarded London, Free France fell or the British retreated from Dunkirk.” While World War II is often the Hawk’s trump-card in terms of justifying foreign invasions, and is probably the most compelling argument for wars abroad, I only ask that we also consider a world where that sentiment also prevented the American fire-bombing of Tokyo, nuclear bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima or any of a truly limitless number of atrocities committed by our European allies between 1939-45. I would think carefully about the despair, poverty and hatred generated by the long shadow of war for decades after occupying forces have left. Similarly, Hawk rhetoric martyrs those killed by Them. Though “Monday morning quarterbacking” cannot “bring back Kenji Goto, Stephen Sotloff or James Foley,” the obvious problem here is that nothing can “bring back” the dead, despite what Hawk rhetoric has to say about revenge.

But again, that's not the point, because Hawk rhetoric isn't interested in bringing anyone back from the dead. It's sole purpose is to get you standing up, red-faced and frothing in rage as you shout, and then vote, for the complete and total destruction of a terrifying and nigh-unstoppable Them, who threaten everything dear to us. I want to clarify that none of this is to say that ISIS is defensible, or that no military action should be taken. This is only to say that we all should be aware of the Hawk-rhetoric that seeks to draw us unthinking into violent conflict year after decade after century. That though we are most familiar with seeing this rhetoric preached from a righteously indignant anchor on Fox News, sometimes it can show up in the Op-Ed section of the Tufts Daily. That without utilizing this really quite dangerous rhetoric, you probably can't make an argument for war in a 900-word Tufts Daily op-ed.