Before reading Mr. Samgrass' rant on why our Hawks have no moral obligation to do anything more than send others to die in their stead, it is important to remember that he happens to have two children of fighting age. Apparently their asses ain't dogproof, either.

Implicit in Hitchens' argument is an arrogant, contemptuous slighting of the military; it's a vocation like any other. It is the opposite side of the coin to the claim made during the debate over Senator Durbin's remarks on the Senate floor, that anyone who holds soldiers responsible for their actions is, in fact, denigrating the entire military. It must have been quite a surprise to soldiers serving in the Middle East and elsewhere that so many chickenhawks back home now considered torture and war crimes committed in their name to be so routine that anyone who dares focus on such abuses is, in fact, slurring the brave men and women at the Front.

Far from being shamed by the courage others have shown in fighting for his ideological crusade, Hitchens offers a convenient explanation:

Did I send my children to rescue the victims of the collapsing towers of the World Trade Center? No, I expected the police and fire departments to accept the risk of gruesome death on my behalf. All of them were volunteers (many of them needlessly thrown away, as we now know, because of poor communications), and one knew that their depleted ranks would soon be filled by equally tough and heroic citizens who would volunteer in their turn. We would certainly face a grave societal crisis if that expectation turned out to be false.

In other words, they had jobs they were paid to do, just like soldiers are paid to protect us, and people like him are paid to drum up the ideological rationale for their wars. So enough talk about the "sacrifice" of others. Who wouldn't kill for those death benefits....