ABSTRACT
Hawks, and their opposites, doves, came into prominence in the USA during the Vietnam War. Hawks were those who favoured tough military activities and a generally forceful solution to problems. Doves were those who took a gentle, conciliatory or pacifistic stance on any issue. Hawks, for example, would be in favour of President Nixon's bombing of Cambodia in 1971, and might oppose arms-control negotiations unless sure that the USA would gain an advantage. Since then the word `hawk' has expanded its range to refer to any tough approach to almost any problem. One might be, or be seen as, hawkish, if one supported Israel against the PLO, but, to take another example, the stringent regulation of picket lines in industrial disputes could be hawkish. Although it often has overtones of conservative or right-wing political views, the emphasis is more on the use of force and coercion rather than diplomacy and negotiation. Thus a left-wing pressure group might have its hawks and doves, in terms of preparedness to participate in demonstrations or street confrontations with authority. Although the terminology was notably absent in the USA during the often fierce debates as to whether or not to go to war over Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, it gained renewed currency with regard to the Middle East peace process in the 1990s and received some use from commentators on the USA's 'war on terrorism' launched in the aftermath of the atrocity perpetrated on the USA in September 2001.
