Question:
Would it be an issue with you if someone protested in favor of the war yet refused to join military?
Isn't this the argument that the other toads are making in this thread?
Advocating in favor of a war implies that the person believes that a particular war is fought for good reason. Defense against foreign invaders, against totalitarianism, against genocide - all can be seen as worth the cost of lives and worth speaking up about. You don't have to be in the military to believe such.
Refusing to join the military, in the context of the toads or not, needs to be qualified -
In times of war,
1. Refusal to join for conscientious objection - does not apply here as there is clear support for a war that Romney believes was just and worth the cost, ie allowed democracy to establish a foothold, fought godless communism, whatever. BTW, a good reference on the human life cost of communism in Vietnam, and a justification for fighting communism in Vietnam and elsewhere, can be found here -
Statistics of Vietnamese Democide
2. Refusal to join for reasons of personal responsibility - single parent, sole surviving child of family that has lost all other children - doesn't apply here, but perfectly legitimate and almost always government policy anyway.
3. Refusal to join for other reasons - cowardice, no interest, interest in other career paths, whatever. Here you make fine distinctions after the fact and impune reputations based on incomplete and misunderstood information. You would exempt someone for one motivation, but not another. This is not Sparta, we actually do value non-military occupations and interests, so you might jump down that rabbit hole, but don't expect that you will come out whole.
In times of peace,
4. All of the above and more apply. Military service is selective, you have to be qualified to get in and you have to volunteer for selection. Good for you if you make it, if you don't for reasons beyond your control, props anyway.
Now we get to government policy in times of war, which is what really applies here...
5. Applicable exemption by government definition - completion of education and/or religious obligations (ie freedom to practice religion) - this is a government choice of national priorities and anyone who falls into these categories cannot be held personally for taking such exemptions. Can also be considered the same as taxes - obligation to pay only what is due after government allowed exemptions, no obligation to pay more than is due.
Drafts are not volunteering. You are obligated by the government but the U.S. has never had universal conscription so there have always been broad exceptions to military service. If you are not drafted, and you prefer to do something, anything else, you are free to do so.
Did Romney and Clinton refuse to be drafted? No, in both cases. They each had access to educational and religious exemptions offered by the government. We can argue the merits of the exemptions vs universal service requirements but there were no obligations that were not fulfilled by either person.
Let me further comment as a former infantry (mech and airborne) officer -
I believe, in general, that military service is best suited to those who volunteer for it. They are willing to subject themselves to what it takes to become professionals in a very difficult occupation.
Draftees are much more likely to be in for too short a period in advance of deployments and to be subject to too little training to be worth nearly the same as a volunteer that goes in for 4+ years. Anyone who has been in for 3+ years, however, is likely to be on an equal footing, no matter how they got in in the first place. Hence, the effectiveness of our Reserve and National Guard troops (also volunteers) with the current operational tempo relative to Vietnam era draftees that had to OJT in jungle warfare.
We are well past the stage of needing cannon fodder. I believe that long and hard training is an absolute requirement to have highly effective soldiers and cohesive units, and draft armies just don't have the resources to take their soldiers to professional competence levels. This absolute focus on training is the reason the U.S. military has completely dominated every conflict they have been engaged in since they went full volunteer.
Should we get into a war of massive attrition and the volunteer ranks are decimated, we will again need a draft army. Until that time comes, if it ever comes, I would always prefer to wage war with those who choose to be there and have made the sacrifices necessary to be professionals at it.