Every President has used military force in some way, should a prerequisite to being President be that your children serve in the military?
Does every child have to share the politics of their parents? Patti Davis was certainly no Ronald Reagan lap dog, do you think Reagan could have “convinced” her to follow his agenda? I don’t see why the adult children of anybody should be compelled to act on anything their parents wish if it’s not what they wish.
So join the Army!
So convince your kids to join the Army!
I’m just kidding. I know, Bush started the war, Bush sends other people’s kids to die in the war, Bush has kids of this same age, so Bush’s kids should die in the war. Got it.
If your father supported a particular war, would you feel obliged to join the military to validate his opinion? If your father happened to be president, would you then be obligated to go fight it?
If I joined my father’s re-election campaign and went around urging people to support and vote for my father because I approve of his policies, then aren’t I supporting the war? And if I support the war and am eligible for military service, then I think a case could be made that I have a duty to sign up for the fighting.
If Jenna and Barbara don’t support their father’s war, then of course they have no obligation to enlist for it. But if they don’t support their father’s war, then what were they doing out there on the 2004 campaign trail encouraging voters to re-elect him?
“Counterintuitive”? No, the word you’re looking for is “stupid.”
Different time, different war.
Firstly, the axis was more interested in strategic rather than propaganda victories. Insurgents are interested in nothing but propaganda victories. They can’t beat back our forces, as the Axis hoped to do, they want to inflict enough pain until we go away. Killing Bush’s children would be the greatest strike that they’d be capable of. They’d spend more of their resources trying to kill the Bush’s than they would on any other thing.
Secondly, WWII was a time where all Americans were asked to make significant sacrifices for the war effort. A huge number of men were called to war whether they liked it or not. If Roosevelt’s own children dodged the draft, it would have been a slap in the face of ordinary Americans. That’s simply not the case, today. It’s an all-volunteer military, and most of us didn’t volunteer. We don’t care if the Bush twins didn’t either.
I get it. You’d prefer a non-professional military, comprised of zealots who enlist not to serve our country, but their own personal political agenda. Got it. Let me know when you find a good example of an army of marauders that have served a whole nation well.
On a somewhat related note, I support tough laws against machine-gun wielding bank robbers. With your logic in mind, I now know that it is hypocritical of me to expect police to risk their lives chasing down these criminals. What I really ought to do is form a posse of like-minded individuals to risk our lives together, and maybe criticize bank presidents for not sending their offspring to risk their lives in downtown LA shootouts.
I’ve also realized how awfully I’ve neglected by duty to ease poverty and disease in the developing world. I think TB should be eradicated, but I’m not in the thick of things helping people out, so I must be morally bankrupt. My god, I really am a horrible person. I have so many positions on issues, but I’m not actually helping the elderly, rescuing people from burning buildings, stopping the genocide in Sudan, teaching children math, raising the self-esteem of young girls, or tracking down Osama bin Laden. I must be a waste of human skin. Good thing I’m childless, or I would have to dedicate the wee ones to certain causes that others think I should sign them up for.
Let’s see, I have one on the tip of my tounge. It start’s with “A”, Am…, Amer…, America, yeah that’s it. I think they had several million people volunteer to support a cause they believed in during WWII. I wonder what happened to that country? Be careful, though, those vets might kick your ass for calling them mauraders.
BTW,
for those who wanted to know what a strawman argument is, this is a great example.
Silly me, I seem to remember that we began an unpopular draft months before we were attacked. In any case, the fact that many are proud to serve their country in uniform does not create an obligation for others to volunteer. That kind of runs against the meaning of the word “volunteer,” don’t it?
Why don’t you ask Jenna and Barbara? I suspect that a) they feel they aren’t exactly the most qualified for the job and b) it isn’t that much worth it.
I vote for ad hominem tu quoque or “an irrelevant accusation of hypocracy”. (It’s also a somewhat inaccurate accusation of hypocracy, but that’s another matter).
I can see that our conservative pals have latched on to the low lying fruit. This point may have more merit.
Or not. I suspect that Bush doesn’t raise taxes because a stronger economy isn’t “Worth it” to him.
I don’t know whether this will cheer you up, but we are doing some good in Iraq. The Afghan Civil War cost 1 million lives before the US ended it in 2002. So far the Iraq War has cost about 30,000-40,000+ lives. Preventing a civil war with set pieces does a lot of good.
Too bad W made the mistake of breaking that particular teacup to begin with. One may wonder why he didn’t follow the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force) or make postwar plans. Or go slower and (gasp) call for a 21st century draft, after lengthy public debate. That could have broadened national service among the elite class, not to mention allow for a stronger postwar environment.
One may wonder why so many amateurs with Heritage Foundation connections found themselves in the Coalition Provisional Authority. Or why the Bush Admin passed over those with actual postconflict stabilization experience.
Presumably, Bush didn’t think it would be worth it.
Some of you will remember the first Gulf War. Execution was totally different.
Bush Sr. painstakingly build up a broad international coalition, the kind that neoconservatives maintained would be impossible in 2003. There were no jokes about the French or any other ally.
The Joint Chiefs brought their battle plans to Congress, who studied them with intensity. Sam Nunn expressed the concern that the US Army not attack a “Fixed position”. He didn’t want another Gallipoli. The Generals listened came up with a better battle plan.
In the end it probably didn’t matter, as most of Saddam’s troops melted away during Desert Storm. (The Revolutionary Guards put up a tougher fight though.) True, the White House lost focus after the first 24 hours or so. Errors were made: Saddam was permited to fly in helicopters to use against the Southern Shiite rebellion.
Bush Sr. was criticized for his errors, though they were far smaller than those of his son.
It was a different time. GWBush’s “Feed the Base First” strategy has paid dividends: even today, 2/3 of all Republicans approve his job performance. The Republican schoolgirl crush on the President continues.
What you’ve “got” there is a ridiculous strawman that has nothing to do with what I actually said. No, I didn’t suggest that militaries should be composed only of “non-professionals” who are zealots for the cause of some particular war. (How would zealotry make them any more “non-professional” in military service than any other soldier, btw? AFAIK, all military enlistees have to go through the same professional training procedures irrespective of what their motives are for joining up.)
All I said was that a case could be made for the position that those who support a particular war, if they are eligible to serve, have a duty to join their compatriots in the professional military to help win the war. (Particularly when the military is having trouble meeting recruitment targets, perhaps.)
In no way does that imply that professional forces should be replaced or supplemented by zealot vigilante groups, or any of the other ridiculous things you tried to infer from it.
The real question, in light of the valid objections posed in this thread, is not “Why are Barbara and Jenna not there?”, but “Mr. President, would you want your daughters to be there?”
I have a feeling as to what Mr. Bush would say, and also a feeling as to what he would be thining.