Why should the "ball" be in Duncan's court (whoever Duncan is)? Is this vet saying that civilian voters have no right to speak up about, or influence, their own country's military policy? Are we to accept the rather blatant implication that only military personnel, or perhaps only officers, or only combat veterans, should have the right to vote? Are we abandoning the old idea of elected civilians controlling the military and security forces?

And if said vet wants to imply that those who oppose the war do so out of mere cowardice, then can I go ad-hominem too, and say that those who support the war do so just to have an excuse to kill Muslims?

Besides, what's so evil about not wanting to send people off to die in war? Would a soldier call his mom a "coward of the most craven kind" if she wanted her son to stay out of trouble?

You're reading it backwards Bee.

The Rev. Sensing is maintaining that in a democracy, all citizens should be able to express their opinions regardless of their combat experience, or lack thereof. The questions he poses for Duncan Black, aka Atrios, are intended to demonstrate the unavoidable consequence of taking Black's "chickenhawk" argument seriously, and thus help illuminate the logical contradiction inherent in Black's position.

I'm surprised you didn't notice the irony.

May I credibly advocate an aggressive national military policy without actually enlisting? If the answer is no, as Black seems to imply, then what are we to make of non-combatants advocating pacifist policies contra the considered opinions of combat veterans? That sword, once drawn, cuts both ways. If I must enlist to have my opinions taken seriously, to not be derided as a coward, then so must Black.

Or so I see it. I guess I could be wrong. Probably not, though.

I hope this clears the whole matter up for you. Also, you are always free to make an ad hominem attack, as am I, the Reverend Sensing, Duncan Black, or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

I try to restrict mine to the truly deserving.

Perhaps one reason I don't see the irony, is that following the links did not lead to any mention of Duncan Black. Perhaps another reason is that today's extremist discourse has become such a parody of itself that it's hard to tell the real thing from the satire.

I apologize for not being able to distinguish a bad joke from a joke about a bad joke.

Click on the "One Hand Clapping" link.

There, you will find the following paragraph (emphases mine).

"Be that as it may, IF no one has the right to support the war against Islamist terrorism EXCEPT those who are serving or have a family member who is serving, then WHY do other stay-at-home slackers have the right to oppose it?"

Reminds me of Starship Troopers (ignore the god-awful movie, the book is excellent), wherein only people who have served in the military have the right to vote. In other words, Heinlein looks at the question:

Do you agree that no one except veterans and presently-serving military members should ever decide when the nation shall go to war, and why?

...except that Heinlein did not restrict it to the military (it was public service; you didn't get to choose, but if you were best suited to research, then that is where you went), and CURRENTLY-serving members had no vote either (because who would vote to send themselves to war?)

So technically, Heinlein's "Federal Service" was under firm civilian control and therefore not a military dictatorship. Serving military personnel were legally denied any political input via the franchise. As I recall, career military men might not get a chance to vote for decades, assuming they survived that long.

Correct. Volunteering for Federal Service might land you in any number of jobs, only some of which were military. AIR, the legless recruitment officer was there to show the potential enlistees the risks if they joined. The narrator was following the lead of a girl he liked who wanted to become (and did become) a starship pilot; he ended up in the Mobile Infantry because his math was not as good as hers.

Exactly, to be a citizen you had to serve and show you had a stake in the country. Or world, wjhat ever. If I remember correctly, the military was not even a very prominant choice, it was the main character's last choice. All types of service were considered equal, what was valued was the level of the individuals commitment.

As I wrote on 'one hand clapping', war is more complicated, too, than just the soldiers. Although they make the biggest sacrifice, preparing for a war also requires the input of humanitarians, contractors, financers, diplomats (though they rarely help) and experts on the opposing culture; and drains the economic resources of an entire nation.