> how the military should be split between people who fight wars and the people who support wars.
Logistics win or lose wars. The support is the most important part. Arguably the people "fighting" wars (or at least vulnerable to incoming fire) should be reduced to as close to zero as possible, replaced by drones of various sorts.
Strategic bombing has never recognised this distinction, anyway. Both sides in WW2 spent extensive effort bombing each other's supply lines and factories. The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, the notorious Benghazi incident, etc: does that count as "fighting"? Most of the US wars since WW2 have been lost during the occupation phase due to the difficulties of COIN. There's no glamour of "fighting" there, it consists of spending years going to work in an office but never forgetting to check under your car.
> Things like supply ships, bases, hospital ships, aircraft carriers, merchant marine, peace corps, etc all go to providing aid in peacetime and supporting the military in times of war.
There is no such thing as peacetime for the United States. https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-...
Edit: while I was writing this comment, protestors have stormed the US embassy in Baghdad. Do the embassy staff count as "fighting"?