I didn't mean to say that you didn't have a legitimate argument against a continued presence in Afghanistan, and if it came across that way I apologize. That one line, however, is an oft repeated canard that is used in place of actual debate. It's really just an ad hominem; it implies that only people who are personally affected by a policy have the right to an opinion on that policy without actually debating the merits of that policy.
Imagine how ridiculous that would be if applied to other issues. I'm sure this has been said before, but what if someone stated that only pregnant women have the right to debate abortion? What if I said that only the family of shooting victims can argue gun control? That only rich people should be discussing income taxes? For some reason it seems to mostly occur in foreign policy debates, but that doesn't make it any more legitimate.
I agree here. An educated, politically knowledgeable populace is necessary, for better or worse. Unfortunately, that is easier said than done.
I am, in fact, autistic and physically disabled. I'm not sure what the standards are for service in regards to physical disability, but even if I were fit for service I highly doubt that I'd be placed in harms way were I to join. Again, though, why am I morally obligated to hold a certain opinion based on that? I can't be personally involved in every single issue that I may think about.