Ezra Klein has written about the writings of liberal hawks to avoid admitting their mistakes on Iraq with a response from Kevin Sullivan which quotes heavily from John Kerry. Michael van der Galien weighs in (here and here) but inadvertently demonstrates the whole problem of speaking of hawks versus doves. Michael writes:
The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool – a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless. I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force.
The first fallacy here is to define hawk and dove in a manner favorable to his own position and unfavorable to the opposing viewpoint when they do not accurately describe the views of those labeled. Doves would counter that they are willing to use force when needed, but that hawks turn to force before exhausting other remedies. In other words, doves could also quote John Kerry, including the passage linked above, his warnings that war should only be used as a last resort, and his pre-war warnings at Georgetown for George Bush not to rush to war.
In having both sides quote John Kerry we see the ultimate fallacy of declaring some people to permanently be hawks and the others doves. While perhaps true of some, for many it depends upon the particular circumstances. Currently dove might be applied to those who oppose the Iraq war, while those in support are considered hawks. This is misleading as many of us who opposed the Iraq war supported the war in Afghanistan, and part of our opposition included the fact that the war was a distraction from the more important war against al Qaeda following the 9/11 attacks. Are those of us who supported one war and opposed another hawks, doves, or just sensible individuals?
Even looking at Iraq, it wasn’t an absolute question of hawks versus doves. Before the war John Kerry and Howard Dean, despite all the pollitical posturing of the primaries, held essentially the same view. Both argued that if Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which threatened us, or if he refused to allow the inspectors in, we should use force. Once the inspectors were allowed back in, and no evidence was found of WMD, both opposed going to war based upon the conditions actually in effect. Howard Dean’s position was labeled dove, partially as he did not have to vote on the WMD and many did not know of his support for a similar resolution. John Kerry was initially described by the media as an “ant-war candidate” but this changed when Dean’s political campaign was successful in distorting the view of the IWR into being a litmus test on support for the war.
Regardless of the politics, the fact remains that both Democrats had essentially the same position. Both were willing to support going to war under some circumstances, and both realized that going to war in Iraq during the final lead up to the war would be a mistake.
Labels such as hawk and dove simply fail to describe the views of many individuals, and when used it is a mistake to claim that doves “oppose using military force, because it is military force.” Statements such as this belittle all the arguments used against going to war, which is especially erroneous considering the degree to which the events which have unfolded have proven us right.