The "chickenhawk" issue raises its ugly head once again. But Donald Sensing aggressively misses the point in his post on the topic. He tasks Atrios with a series of questions, the most important one being, "[w]hy should non-serving supporters be silent while non-serving critics be heard?" The obvious answer to Sensing is that non-serving critics oppose sending other people to war in Iraq.
I wouldn't argue that nobody who hasn't served can't advocate going to war. I would argue, however, that those who are hot for war and have the opportunity to serve like the "Students for War" and the young conservatives of Tom Tomorrow's imagination aren't very serious about their values. In an earlier time they would have received the white feather of cowardice.
It is an issue that hits close to home for me. In my callow youth, I was very much a Jingoistic neocon. National Review was my bible. Under the influence of John Wayne movies and a controversy over hawkish "war wimps" like George Will and Richard Perle; who hadn't served in Vietnam, I joined the Marine Corps Reserve. Of course, I was young and there was no war at the time. If I had a son of military age today, I would lock him in the basement before allowing him to serve in the current war under the present administration.