Modest - Unless I'm terribly mistaken, we both pretty much seem to agree on these points. I think where I failed in my previous response was when I omitted discussing people who actively advocate military action with their rhetoric/words.
When I answered, I presented my points as a basic dichotomy between "using logic, reason, and evidence" versus "using military force." I argued that words alone cannot really be militaristic. This oversimplifies, but it's a rough approximation of my points.
However, I missed an important caveat, and thank you for pointing that out. I agree with you that words which advocate military action are themselves militaristic. I did not intend my distinction to suggest that those who speak out in favor of war are not themselves being militaristic. Making such an argument/distinction would be... in my estimation... rather silly and inaccurate.
My stance is that if someone speaks out in favor of... if they advocate or encourage militaristic actions, then they are being militaristic. In the case of Hitchens per your example, he was being militant in this instance.
However, I want to emphasize that word... "instance." I don't find Hitchens (as a general rule) to be a militant individual. I find his debates very intelligent and reasonable, and his points grounded in sound logic and consistency. I would not call him militant in these instances where he uses his rhetoric and logic to defeat the ideologies of others, only in those instances where he actively argues in favor of military action. I would not classify him as a militant individual, nor would I suggest his debating tactics are militant, but I would openly concede that his views on Iraq were militant, and deserve such a classification. I do not, however, extend that classification on to his other arguments and the method he uses to make them.
So, my point in the previous post was focused almost solely on regular debates... such as those we have here at Hypography. We use words and logic and reason to cut off the arguments of our opponents at their ankles. I don't think this is militaristic... I don't find this militant in the least. It's basic academic exchange and peer review, AFAIC. However, if those words were being used to argue in favor of oppression, or in favor of military action, then I would classify those words and motivations as militant.
Most atheists are just using words though, and those words are about seeking consistent and empirically validated models of our universe, hence my claim that words and rhetoric are not (as a general rule) militant, nor do they deserve to be labeled as such. It's obvious to me that this all changes if those words are being used to advocate military engagement and violence, and I think you would agree.
Now, if you feel we still have not successfully connected our points on this, and you sense there still exists disagreement in our views, I'd be enormously curious to find out where and why. Cheers.
[EDIT]'ed to add:
You expressed concern that you supported the war in Iraq for similar humanistic reasons as Hitchens. Perhaps part of the problem here is your implicit idea that militancy is somehow bad. I should think that in some cases militancy is a good thing... Like taking out an oppressive regime and freeing their people, or militarily removing from power a leader who prevents food and medicine from his people. In those instances, militancy is good, so perhaps instead of focusing solely on the word as an objective negative, you should realize that it is often positive depending on circumstance.
[/EDIT]
