I was reading that there was a slight spike in the popularity of the war by the British when it was announced that one of the princes appeared to be headed for Iraq.
Should GW suggest to one or both of his daughters they should enlisht? Would people be less critical of him and his war if he had family in the line of fire as it were.
The Bush twins are free to do as they see fit, being adults, although I should note that while their father is president certain security arrangements need to be made for them that would greatly hamper their utility in a military setting. For instance, I don’t think they would be deployable.
I don’t recall similar pressure being put on Chelsea Clinton to join, despite numerous military engagements during her father’s administration.
Yes, without a doubt. It would be a great boon to morale and would improve recruiting at a critical time. What about the Veep’s daughter?
I think she blew the don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy.
This is pressure? A post on a message board? The clusterfuck in Iraq is a military engagement? A military engagement? Newspeak doubleplus 2.0!
Only if they want to. They are not public figures and it isn’t their job to live their lives to give their father a personal stake in the military.
Depends on what you mean by enlist. If you mean they should enlist as privates in the army and be handed guns and sent to the front…well, thats pure fantasy (and/or Hollywood). For one thing, even if they enlisted today, they wouldn’t be sent to Iraq anytime in the near future regardless. Then there is the whole fact that they are family of the president…so its going to be a bit difficult to fit them in a Humvee to patrol with their secret service detachment tagging along…no?
I suppose they COULD volunteer and be sent in a purely non-combat role…basically a PR role. I’m unsure what great effect this would have either at home or in Iraq…and security would be a nightmare. Or is it hoped that some fundamentalist group would wack one or both of them to improve our morale…or something?
-XT
I’m going to elaborate on my previous post.
Does anyone think they’d be very good soldiers? Because of their unique position, their security has to be provided for, and we can’t very well send Secret Service agents with them to Iraq.
They’d go in right off with a very limited range of possible duty stations or career fields, and the military doesn’t like to do that very much.
They ARE public figures…they are family to the president. They aren’t free to just do anything without thought to security. The Secret Service would take a rather dim view of the presidents daughters going off the Iraq…even if it wasn’t to fight. Do any of you realize what position the US would be in if some group capture one or both of them? Or what it would likely do to the US morale if one of them was beheaded on TV or something?
Come on guys…think.
-XT
Surely the US would be in the same position if, say, Joe Public’s daughter was captured, right? I mean, it’s been a longstanding rule that we don’t negotiate with terrorists, right? Why would the first daughters get special consideration?
Let me put it this way- why SHOULD the first daughters be any different from Joe Public’s daughter? I can understand their need for Secret Service protection- as daughters of El Presidente, their lives are conceivably in more danger than other kids their age. However, if they were sent to war, their lives would be in just as much danger as everyone else (probably less, because I just can’t see Daddy allowing them to see combat).
As for their (potential) beheading’s effect on public morale- again, why should their deaths be any more important than Joe Public’s daughter (or son)? I believe that to argue otherwise is to argue that politicians are perhaps more equal than the rest of us schlobs. And that, I think, is the OP’s point- that we exist to serve, and they exist to rule.
a.) It’s a volunteer military. No one has to enlist if they don’t want to.
b.) As others have pointed out, the security hassle would mean they would be pretty ineffective soldiers (sailors, etc.). I don’t think the military would take them.
c.) I don’t think a purely symbolic gesture by one of the twins, no matter how well intentioned, would have any real effect on the war’s popularity.
My boss’ son enlisted, did basic at Ft. Jackson, and a month or two after basic, he was in Iraq.
So you can be in Iraq pretty rapidly after enlisting.
James Roosevelt was 2nd in command of a U.S. Marine commando unit during WWII.
Elliot Roosevelt was a bombardier in the USAAF during that same war.
F.D.R., Jr. was a decorated Naval officer during, you guessed it, WWII.
J.A. Roosevelt also served in the Navy during the war.
President Roosevelt managed to have four children serving in the war during the war in positions that put them at risk. I’m not saying that the Bush twins should enlist I’m just saying that we’ve got precedent for president offspring to serve.
Marc
Right you are. However, you will note that America in the 1940s was a bit of a different place than America of 2007.
There’s precedent for the president to travel in convertibles by that thinking, and FDR did it a lot. Would you suggest that it would be a good idea today, given events since?
The Bush daughters are under no greater obligation to enlist than anybody else, and politicians have zero obligation to encourage their kids to join. Sins of the fathers and all that stuff.
The ‘their kids aren’t at risk’ is mostly an issue for the far left. For most people, the issues are the management of the war and his refusal to listen to anyone.
Because, despite sometimes overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I believe George W. Bush is a human being who loves his daughters more than anyone else’s daughter. I believe that were one of his own children to be captured and held for ransom or beheaded or what have you, that he might be sorely tempted to make policy decisions from his emotions, instead of his head. (In fact, there are quite a few people who think his venture into Iraq in the first place was secretly because of the attempted assassination of his father.)
It’s not about “more equal” at all - it’s about the fact that he’s exactly as equal as the rest of us and just as human. The difference is that I don’t have the authorization to send hundreds of soldiers in to be killed in a misguided rescue attempt if I get word that my child is being held by the enemy.
But doesn’t this then imply that the President would be more willing to go to war if his own children aren’t actually going to be at risk? And doesn’t that then validate the OP’s point?
Well, do you think FDR was reckless in heading into war, in the above example, knowing his sons would likely serve? His actions leading up to Pearl Harbor were certainly provocative toward both the Germans and Japanese.
As for myself, I tend not to fret about this kind of personalization. I believe very strongly that a Democratic president elected in 2000 or in 2004 (if we had not invaded Iraq) would be facing a conflict there by now. The twin reality of the sanctions breakdown and the continued bad behavior of the Hussein regime would have made it necessary.
They could be “comfort women”.
That was unbelievably rude, and undeserved.