Funny, the liberals weren't using the Chickenhawk argument when Bill Clinton (admitted draft dodger) was president (and commander-in-chief).

Ironically, for the BUSHITLER crowd, if we followed their proscription that only those in the military are allowed to send others into battle, this would logically lead to a fascist state:
1) Sometimes war is necessary.
2) Only those in the military may prosecute war.
ergo, in order to prepare for the political possibility that war might occur and our nation will need to fight, no civilain, i.e.non-military, can hold positions wherein war-making decisions will be made.
That means the president must be a member of the military, as well as those in Congress that might authorize war,
which is a de facto fascist state.

You're missing the point. The lefties aren't using the chickenhawk meme to denigrate non-military supporters of the war; they are simply trying to point out that, given the shortfalls in recruiting numbers, we need either to sign up war supporters to fight for their freedoms (not that they are asking, mind you; they can take care of their own freedoms, thanks), or else pull out.

You see, they love the military so much that they don't want to see it depleted.

One guy on my site even argued that if we let all of our military engage in battle and die, then we wouldn't have a military left to protect us in case of war. That is, we need to pull our troops out of battle so that we can have them in case of battle.

The bottom line is, after this run of arguments, I will simply ignore anyone who uses the chickenhawk meme. If they want intellectual engagement, they'll enlist in the army of grownups.

Jeff,
I certainly agree that the chickenhawk trope should best be ignored, and frankly, I've never understood the poisoned coneptual wellspring from which this arguement spews (why does Michael Moore believe one adult can "sacrifice" another adult??), but I was addressing a different point than the feckless, "we're-really-just-trying-to-save-our-poor-troops" whine or the taunt that war-supporters should compensate for shortfalls in reruitment--although I do believe this certainly denigrates non-military war supporters in the sense that there is an implied accusation of cowardice (the chicken in chickenhawk)in those that want war but refuse to actually fight it, i.e., lefties want those non-military supporters to become military supporters: leading logically to the conclusion that only the military can prosecute, or support, war.
Since contemplating the consequences of their policies has never been a liberal strong suit, I was helpfully, and graciously on my part really, pointing this out for them.
And as for troop depletion, I agree with Steyn: don't we have a few guys that aren't doing anything in Germany?

More importantly, though, where does Leif Garrett stand on all this!??