Off this column, which produced less in the way of abusive mail than I had expected:

In addition to all of the problems you cite, there is another problem with the Chicken Hawk talk. While it would drastically reduce the number of people allowed to support the use of force, it would not limit in the slightest the ranks of those who would be allowed to oppose the use of force. That most fundamental issue–war or peace–is the last one on which we should skew the discourse by artificial limits on who is permitted to have or express an opinion. Incidentally, if anyone wants to see a fictional but plausible example of a society that accepts the chicken hawk logic, check out Starship Troopers. The book is good, the movie bad, but in either one you see a society in which only military veterans get to vote and whose defense policy involves very little wondering why the bad guys hate us and a lot of blowing the bad guys up…
Defensive much? I think the chicken hawk charge is entirely fair, given the sort of dishonest right-wing attacks on honest men that have served, like John Kerry and Max Cleland, and are still doing to men like Chuck Hagel.
Anyway, your entire argument is a straw man. No one who makes an observation about “chicken-hawks” is saying that civilians should not be in control of the military, or that if you haven’t served, you can’t have an opinion. It’s just kind of amusing that the most vociferous supporters of the current war seem to have been busy whistling and staring at their feet when they could have served in Viet Nam, and are still doing so when they could walk the talk right now. So go ahead and write another 1000 words on why this particular charge is so baseless. It’s obvious that it doesn’t bother you at all.
Great column, but I would like to point out that Cindy Sheehan made no sacrifice. That implies a deliberate decision on her part to give up something that belongs to her to benefit someone else. She cannot sacrifice something she does not contol – the life of her son. The sacrifice was made by Casey Sheehan. His courage on our behalf (even if you disagee with the cause) should be recognized even more than his mother’s loss.
…as a 25 year veteran of the US Navy and a pilot who participated in Desert Storm combat operations (and who has a graduate degree in National Security studies with honors), the point about how few of our Nation’s decision-makers, and opinion-formers like yourself, have never had a personal stake in defending this country from a forward position is valid. This is particularly true when you look at how very few members of the decision-making and opinion-forming groups have sons or daughters engaged in this fight…
Rich:
I enjoyed your article very much. I served 8 years in the Army. First at Ft. Bragg (1/504th-Devil’s in Baggy Pants) then the Pathfinder Company Ft. Campbell (Rendezvous with Destiny). Next time these punks assert that you have no right to speak out on the issue of the war in Iraq, please let them know that I give you full authority, on my behalf as a Vet. Airborne!