“For those presidents who are committed to bringing betterment to other countries through war, isn’t it reasonable to ask why they aren’t sharing the sacrifice of other parents whose children are in uniform, by asking their own children to enlist, too?” Your quote here is just a reworded synthesis in essence of the Morris quote above and one other. I would not agree that it is morally right to pressure my child into serving in the military just to meet your sensitivities. It is voluntary, and my child is not an extention of me. Nor are those children of any in the legislature or the executive branches their extentions either.

As far as making it a requirement, we could of course change the Constitution to make it so. Thus making sure that no President would put “other people’s” children(grown men and women who joined voluntarily as I did) “in harm’s way”. Really, this argument of Morris and yours is just a twist on the “chickenhawk” argument that has been defined down, thank you Moynihan, to meaninglessness.

Finally, this is also an attack by implication on the humanity of this or any President who doesn’t meet your sensitivities. Which I find offensive (not you, the argument).

Can you give more concrete examples? It makes sense to me and my friends (all of whom are native English speakers).

There is a handfull of words I mis-spelled (I’m dyslexic, it can be difficult to get them correct) but they are close enough you should be able to figure it out.

You know — forgive me for saying this but I’m thinking that this also describes Israel. After capturing Gilad Shalit, Hamas wanted to have negotiations — they wanted to negotiate a prisoner exchange. It was Israel which refused to negotiate.

The writer of this Wall Street Journal article seems to have stumbled into a pool of unconscious irony!

I think you’re not quite following what I said. Of course there can’t be a “requirement” like that — it would be unconstitutional.

I am expressing surprise as to why it is that virually *noone* in the current top echelons of our Administration have children or grandchildren serving in Iraq. Strange, no? For such a patriotic group of people?

This is true of Congress as well. Apparently, only three members of Congress have (or had) children serving in Iraq: Sen. Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), whose son Brooks is in the Army; and supposedly representatives Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) and Duncan Hunter (R-California). Kudos to them and their families!

But *only* three people in the entire Congress are in this situation !!! Isn’t that a bit strange ??

That is – in every case it is perfectly valid to decide to not go to war. Everyone can make it (of course – it’s the correct and proper choice so anyone can do it, right?). But if you think war is the best option you can only do that if you rate some sort of pre-requisite. If you meet that one then it also tends to be set higher next time.

If you are inacapable of making the decision then you are incapable of making it. If you have to have children or grandchildren in the military to know enough to decide if war is the answer then you *must* do the same to know if it is not called for. How can you know “no” is the correct response if you have no idea what “yes” means.

It’s simply a ploy to make thier decision the default one. If they truly felt that bar needs to be met they would only proffer thier opinion if they met it and would then abide by what that community decides.

Further, military personell and military families overwhelmingly support OIF, since this is the case I rather suspect our resident poster(s) doesn’t really agree that it gives them any level of moral authority otherwise they would support OIF. So using that to declare the war invalid is, well, really stupid (well, actually dishonest – that’s why it is a ploy).

I’d hate to see you watch surgery to fix a burst appendix:

And the patient, wound still open, gets wheeled out of surgery on the double, to prevent even more bleeding and cutting.

The analogy is flawed. The skin and muscle cut open can be sutured back after the surgery with no permanent damage.

But the civilian lives lost in military operations cannot be brought back to life again. Some innocent people are left without mothers, without fathers, without children; forever; because they have became “collateral damage”.

And that makes this a wholly different matter from your purported analogy.

We have a voluntary military, we joined knowing that we could go to war. It is the job. I went into the USCG because of its total mission, but chose a rate that would put me in war if needed. My other choice was the Marines.

Finally, it is the Job of the President and Congress to put the military in harm’s way when they deem it necessary. You would make it a requirement that they all have children in the military before they could make their decision? This is all totally absurd. I can see it now, the only Senators and Congressmen that could vote to declare war are those that have children in the military.

I stand by my point, that the logic leads to absurdity. I do not believe your requirement is “leading by example”, it is not leading at all.

I don’t think that logic leads to absurdity. True, most people don’t serve in the army. But most people aren’t declaring war on countries either.

For those presidents who are committed to bringing betterment to other countries through war, isn’t it reasonable to ask why they aren’t sharing the sacrifice of other parents whose children are in uniform, by asking their own children to enlist, too?

Back in the old days I used to make fun of Krushchev and Brezhnev because they lived in nice comfy dachas while constantly asking their fellow russians to become “heroic soviet workers making sacrifices”. It’s the same kind of hypocrisy.

If you’re not leading by example, then you’re not leading, period.