Oliver Willis has an interesting post on the "Chickenhawk Debate" over here.
Here's the point, and it doesn't take a brain surgeon to get it: the people who are supporting and encouraging a war of first-strike aggression are the same people who didn't/aren't serving. Do you have to have been in the military to support or oppose war? No. But the usual way things go in America is that we don't attack and invade others. The desk jockey warrior class thinks its okay to upend this – and why not? It's not like they have to go fight it. That one or two or five of the warbloggers actually serve or have friends/family that serve does not change the thrust of this concept.
I made my views on the subject quite clear in this posting:
I have no problem with anyone not serving. It is clearly not for everyone. My issue is with those who constantly advocate for war while screaming "the threat, the threat, the threat", all the while staying safe and secure in the sanctity of their living rooms. It leads me to question the sincerity of the individual doing the chest-thumping.
And in this posting:
Do I believe that there should be a draft or that only those who've served have the right to talk about war? Not at all. I just believe that if you didn't serve, you've surrendered the right to be taken seriously when you foam at the mouth at those opposed to a military intervention, especially when you demand that others fight and die for your pet causes while you sit comfortably in your recliner with your TV remote in one hand.
Like I said before, agitate for war all you want. Just don't expect me to take you seriously if you're doing it with a mouthful of corn chips.