Some thoughts on "chickenhawk"
Wikipedia defines the term "chickenhawk":
Chickenhawk is an epithet used in United States politics to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who votes for war, supports war, commands a war, or develops war policy, but has not personally served in the military. Generally, it is not a label applied to essentially "dovish" leaders who support defensive wars, "humanitarian interventions," or UN operations.
It seems to me that there are two realworld usages of "chickenhawk" that straddle that middle-of-the-road definition.
The "hard chickenhawk" usage is the one Jacoby chose to address, in the spirit of shooting fish in a barrel. It's the extremist view that only those who've served in combat are qualified to make decisions about war and peace. It focuses on narrow expertise more than attitude. The interesting thing about this usage is that it goes over the edge and loops back around the other side bearing a strong resemblance to Heinlein's Starship Troopers electoral system.
The "soft chickenhawk" usage is the one that I and I believe a lot of other people mean. It's criticism of an attitude, the evident enthusiasm of those who've never served in combat to send others into combat. The core of the criticism is a patriotic one: Chickenhawks like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield devalue the lives of our soldiers and squander them needlessly; they devalue the contributions and sacrifice of our soldiers by not using them to achieve a meaningful improvement in America's security. As in Vietnam, I think it's immoral to send our soldiers to die, and to kill innocent bystanders, in some game of geopolitical chess. American soldiers should be risked only to defend the United States, not to advance some dogma like the "domino theory" or the necon dream of "American Hegemony".
When I call you or anyone else a chickenhawk, Tom, it's the "soft chickenhawk" usage.