Veterans’ Day has always been a time when both political parties come together to celebrate the one thing that really matters in this crazy world: raw political opportunism. For a few weeks surrounding the big day, both parties take some time to show that they, and not the other guys, are the party of patriotism—or at least the party that truly supports our troops.

This year, the Democrats’ Exhibit A is the six Iraq War veterans running for Congress as Democrats. (The Republicans managed to field only one Iraq vet.) Not all of these candidates are anti-war, but all are solidly within the Democratic mainstream in the way they talk about foreign policy, and all are outspokenly critical of George W. Bush’s handling of the war.

On a tactical level, the Iraq Six are doing a valuable service for both the Democratic Party and the anti-war cause. Usually, when Democrats start criticizing the war in Iraq (or any war), some Republican jumps in to claim that liberals just don’t support the troops. Democrats can shout until they’re blue in the face about how real support for the troops would mean bringing them home (or not sending them in the first place), but it just never sounds right—particularly when military families are more likely than the general public to support both the war and the President. At least in theory, veterans get to talk trash about the Commander in Chief without being accused of attacking the troops (although I know some swift boat veterans who might disagree on this one). And when veterans start criticizing the war and the President, it makes it easier for the rest of us.

Given the obvious benefits of outspoken anti-war (or at least anti-President) veterans, it seems almost ridiculous to suggest that the current glut of Iraq war vets attacking the President may be harmful. But Democrats need to remember the limitations to relying on veterans to make the case against the President’s policies.

Democrats cannot accept the notion that only veterans have the standing to attack the war. By relying on veterans to convince the American public that the war in Iraq was a bad idea, we risk reinforcing the belief that non-veterans have no right to criticize America’s foreign policy. If Americans get used to seeing only veterans speaking out on foreign policy (on both sides), we risk a situation where the American public believes only those who have fought have the right to an opinion on matters of war and peace. This perception is undemocratic and dangerous. The American people, all of us, have the right and the responsibility to decide what kind of foreign policy we want. If the arguments against war are compelling, they should be heeded even if they only come from those who chose not to fight.

Veterans, particularly those who voluntarily joined the military, are the least likely opponents of any military policy they have been a part of. Troops who have seen combat have a strong psychological incentive to support the policy that sent them to war. Nobody wants to believe that they risked death and, in some cases, killed for an unjustified cause. The Iraq war veterans who have spoken out against Bush deserve credit for doing something that is incredibly difficult. But even if every veteran supported the Iraq war, that would not be compelling evidence of its merit. We cannot rely only on the opinions of veterans alone when we judge the value of our military policies.

More importantly, the focus on veterans may lead us to forget some of what is at stake in debates about war and peace. Veterans are, by definition, experts on the suffering that war brings to America’s armed forces. But that suffering is only part of the cost of war. The Iraq war has caused more than 2,000 American military deaths, but it has also caused, according to some estimates, an in excess of 100,000 deaths among Iraqi civilians. If what we achieve in Iraq is not worth