What we hear now from the veterans shouting "chicken hawk" is, in truth, not a case but an expression of the understandable -- and, in some respects, justified -- resentment of those who went when others, often more privileged, failed to go. There is a large moral difference between those who served and those who deliberately evaded the draft -- but that does not translate into a difference in strategic insight. The veterans of Vietnam -- of any and all wars -- deserve not only the pensions and care that a rich nation can provide, but also the honor that belongs to those who have fought for their country. That debt of esteem and gratitude is one that non- veterans can never fully repay. But in matters of war and peace veterans should receive no special consideration for their views.

The second variant of "chicken hawk" is that veterans per se are uniquely qualified to make judgments on matters of war and peace. How does that work, though? Does a former airborne ranger get twice as loud a voice as an ICBM crew chief? Does the stateside finance corps lieutenant count more than the civilian who came under fire running an aid mission in Mogadishu? According to this view, to fill a senior policy position during a war one would of course prefer a West Point graduate who had led a regiment in combat, as opposed to a corporate lawyer turned politician with a few weeks' experience in a militia unit that did not fight. The former profile fits Jefferson Davis and the latter Abraham Lincoln. Not only did Davis turn against the Constitution he had sworn to uphold, he was a poor commander in chief, while Lincoln was the greatest of our war presidents. Being a veteran is no guarantee of strategic wisdom.