A chicken-hawk is someone who supports a belicose foreign agenda and advocates military interventions, but who has dodged the draft because he doesn't want to put his own body on the line.
What's the opposite of a chicken-hawk?
If I may coin a phrase, I'll call Tulsi Gabbard our eagle-dove. She is a Major in the US Army, and has served two tours of duty in the hot wars of Iraq and Kuwait. She's seen enough to know that American wars are inflicting tragic damage on innocent civilians, and are devastating the lives of ordinary people who have done nothing to hurt us. She knows that these wars serve no foreign policy objectives of our country--quite the opposite, our wars are turning friends into enemies, drawing trillions of dollars away from projects where they are urgently needed at home, and causing spikes in the price Americans pay for energy.
Tulsi has progressive informed, compassionate, and progressive positions on all the day's issues, but the very center of her campaign is an end to regime-change wars. Since 1898, America has been in the business of overthrowing governments around the world when they stand in the way of corporate profits. This practice is morally despicable, and it doesn't even produce economic benefit for Americans, except for a few tycoons who make their fortunes by mining other people's resources and selling them as their own.
The DNC is afraid of Tulsi precisely because she challenges the bipartisan consensus for endless war. They have gone from ignoring her to smearing her as a "Russian asset". The logic is that anyone who doesn't want to fight a nuclear war with Russia must of necessity be on Putin's payroll.
This article debunks Monday's hit piece in the NYTimes.
3
3
2
