As far as the rest goes I think we should evaluate policy positions based on the merits of the arguments. My position on Iraq would not be based on whether the president more resembled Gene McCarthy or Curtis "Bombs Away" Lemay.
My brother joined the Marines 3 days before his 18th birthday because at the time if you did that you only served 3 years and couldn't go to Vietnam. 2.5 years later he was in a horrible accident. The recruiting officer got him to re-enlist because that was the only way to pay the medical bills. The reup also would put him through college, and he couldn't go to Vietnam for 5 years - no chance it would still be going on!
The recruiting officer word was carried out perfectly. But the war was still going on and my brother earned a purple heart there.
I have observed what I've seen commented on elsewhere. There is a certain type of person who managed to skip the draft for themselves, and then proceeded to become overly supportive of the military and military aggression. Possibly as a reaction to the guilt of having not served when given the chance. There is a certain cowboy element to their approach. Prominent examples include Dick Cheney and George Bush.
By contrast people who actually served often, like John McCain or Al Gore, are strongly supportive of the military. But they tend to treat military service and action as the serious matters that they are.
The phrase that sums this up best is "chickenhawk".