Trump the Chicken Hawk

Fear, force, and the politics of projection

By John F. Terzano

Here we are—once again at war. In ordering the attack on Iran, Trump is saying to the Iranian people: I am going to bomb your country, destabilize your government, and leave it to you to form a new government. I wonder if Trump thought about how similar “strategies” in Iraq and Afghanistan worked out. But Trump does not think. He has ordered “Operation Epic Fury,” projecting his wannabe warrior mentality, masculinity, and military response, substituting spectacle for strategy and coercion for leadership. It is a chicken-hawk style of governance, which should come as no surprise, as Trump is the classic chicken-hawk leader.

A “chicken hawk” is an individual who speaks and acts like a warrior but has no warrior experience. It was a phrase many of us Vietnam veterans used, both during the war and after. Trump’s style of governance is just that: the projection of strength and power, often without meaningful deliberation or strategy. Banners of his face adorn public buildings in Washington, D.C., and the White House releases AI-generated images of his masculine warrior look, even though we all know the reality is very different. He treats loud threats as proof of strength, dramatic military displays as proof of leadership, and the use of force as proof of credibility. Strikes become spectacles. Troop deployments become political messaging. Escalating rhetoric replaces careful diplomacy. Restraint is dismissed as weakness, and complexity is seen as hesitation. By framing every conflict as a contest of dominance, he narrows America’s choices to coercion and spectacle while sidelining deliberation, alliances, and institutional guardrails. It is governance by intimidation — forceful in tone, theatrical in execution, and often indifferent to the long-term consequences carried by soldiers, civilians, and democratic institutions alike.

The fact that Trump decided to go to war without congressional authorization is not surprising. He never seeks authorization. Besides, Congress long ago ceased being an equal branch of our government. Moreover, callously telling the American people not directly but via social media that there will be more casualties, without clearly defining the objectives and goals for the war, is not leadership; it is cowardice. But, as Trump stated in his post, ‘that is the way it is.”

The men and women who wear our nation’s uniforms deserve more than a perfunctory thank you for your sacrifice and service — they deserve to know why. However, since Trump never served in the military, he does not understand or appreciate what it truly means when one commits a nation to war, and the immense responsibility one has to those you are asking to die. And you do not wear a baseball hat at a solemn memorial for those who have done so.

To commit a nation to war is not a branding exercise. It demands clarity, purpose, lawful authority, and a clear and sober understanding of the likely human cost of such a decision. But instead, Trump uses the military as a prop in an unprecedented form of political theater.

Using the armed forces for what are essentially law-enforcement functions — under the banner of anti-smuggling or combating so-called narco-terrorists on small watercraft, for example — blurs long-standing legal boundaries and projects raw power with little regard for proportionality. The dramatic bombing of Venezuela and the capture of President Maduro shattered international norms and raised serious questions about U.S. law. These were not judicious measured acts — they were forceful displays meant to communicate dominance.

At home, the deployment of our troops and federal forces on the streets of our cities — the killing and jailing of U.S. citizens under the rhetoric of “law and order” — is not about restoring order. It is, again, about portraying strength via spectacle and theater, which only reinforces the image of a leader who dominates and governs through intimidation.

Just as disturbing is the language used as justification. In classic Orwellian doublespeak, escalation is stability, and war is peace. Trump’s so-called “Board of Peace,” consisting in part of a who’s who of the world’s authoritarians, meets even as bombs fall abroad and troops patrol domestically. It is the deliberate twisting of words and actions so that aggression appears virtuous and intimidation appears humane.

Accountability erodes when language is used to conceal reality. And when military power is both stagecraft and slogan, the men and women asked to serve are reduced to symbols in a political performance. That is not strength.

If the war widens into a regional conflict and the casualties increase, Trump will do his best to change the narrative like he always does. Though he says the war will last four to five weeks, he immediately says it could last longer and that the U.S. has the weapons stockpile to fight wars forever. This is all from the same person who criticized America’s “forever” wars.

Lies and propaganda are essential elements of any nation’s wars. America has a rich history in that regard—see WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran. However, Trump and his administration are by far the most adept at lying and using propaganda.

If we continue to allow Trump’s lies to be deemed as strategy and the administration’s propaganda as policy, democracy at home will be counted among the real casualties of the strikes in Iran.

John F. Terzano lives in Ludington, Mich., where he works as a social justice and human rights advocate, locally and around the world. A veteran of the U.S. Navy (1970 – 74), Terzano served two tours in Vietnam and helped to lead the first delegation of American veterans to return to Vietnam after the war ended.

---