Just cause your dad was an arse kicking man's man does not mean you are born with a brass pair.

He's not an elitist journalist. He's a retired U. S. Army General and a former ambassador. He's also correct in his statement that Presidents children are a liability on the battlefield if they are captured by an enemy that has no compunction about exploiting them.

I've often wondered about that. Yeah, politicians whose own children don't serve become targets for the hypocrisy label when they become involved in declarations of war or other military action, but if I was in a combat zone, I don't know if I'd want to be serving right beside the son of a powerful senator. It seems that's just painting a slightly bigger target on my back.

sepuku2: He's not an elitist journalist. He's a retired U. S. Army General and a former ambassador.

This. Then again, if a child raised by a single mom is an "Elitist", maybe a retired General can be one too.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Just cause your dad was an arse kicking man's man does not mean you are born with a brass pair.

Ummm, he served in Korea...under Ike as president.

And, I kind of agree with his position. President's should not make decisions based on whether or not their kids are going to be harmed. I thought that was an unfair critique of Bush, frankly.

If you are worried about your kid, the how can you decide objectively whether or not even a defensive war is a good idea?

On the other hand, I'm not one for favoritism. If you are in the military, or wherever, you should not get favoritism due to pedigree.

Pocket Ninja: I've often wondered about that. Yeah, politicians whose own children don't serve become targets for the hypocrisy label when they become involved in declarations of war or other military action, but if I was in a combat zone, I don't know if I'd want to be serving right beside the son of a powerful senator. It seems that's just painting a slightly bigger target on my back.

It really is kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't argument. But I think letting the kids serve (and like every member of the military nowadays, they've chosen to serve) is the better option, for a few reasons.

1. We don't do political dynasties in America. There are no "noble houses." (Well, there are the Kennedys, and arguably the Bushes. But that's sort of why I distrust them.) Everyone is responsible for their own reputation, not that of their parents.

2. One of the hardest tests for people in power is the temptation to bend the rules and use family connections to get out of trouble. I don't mean to bring this up for the sake of being partisan, but consider what John McCain went through when he was a POW. At the time, his father was an Admiral and in command of all troops in Vietnam as CINCPAC. The North Vietnamese were hoping to get McCain to agree to early release to show that the well-connected in America got preferential treatment. He refused, and they beat him for it, badly. And McCain Sr. was in the position of ordering airstrikes on Hanoi, which might possibly kill his son. Both father and son were able to set aside their relationship and focus on the task at hand. That's what a leader needs to be able to do.

MasterThief:

I see your point, but I think sepuku2 has a point. The child of a high-ranking politician could easily be exploited by the enemy.
Think of Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan (I think it was): it had to be kept a secret, and as soon as cover was blown he was pulled out.
And as Pocket Ninja said, it puts the lives of the other soldiers at greater risk.

That said, in times gone by, kings and princes were expected to lead their troops into battle, and paying ransoms for captured powerful figures was all part-and-parcel of war.

No Catchy Nickname: I see your point, but I think sepuku2 has a point. The child of a high-ranking politician could easily be exploited by the enemy.
Think of Prince Harry's deployment in Afghanistan (I think it was): it had to be kept a secret, and as soon as cover was blown he was pulled out.
And as Pocket Ninja said, it puts the lives of the other soldiers at greater risk.

I understand the possibility of exploitation upon capture, but I'm not sure it would always have the effect the enemy desires. It may be a psychological blow, but it also might make them really, really pissed off at you. Had Prince Harry actually been captured and paraded on TV, my guess is that the UK's collective resolve would be hardened, and they would have sent more troops to Afghanistan.

Plus, there's the problem of actually capturing the desired target. To quote Sgt. Horvath from Saving Private Ryan, "how are you supposed to find one soldier in the whole goddamn war?" (Barring the help of idiot reporters, that is.)

I_C_Weener: If you are worried about your kid, the how can you decide objectively whether or not even a defensive war is a good idea?

On the other hand, I'm not one for favoritism. If you are in the military, or wherever, you should not get favoritism due to pedigree.

President Bartlet was able to temporarily step down when terrorists captured his daughter. We should expect the same responsibility from all our leaders. It's too bad he can't run again.

We can make our rules based on the ideal, which is their leadership will be unaffected by the risk to their loved ones, or based on the practical, where we're pretty sure it's going to happen. Enemies and opponents will find a way to exploit whichever we do.

Perhaps we should make a rule that before you get to be president, you have to shoot your family in the face (as part of the inauguration, not as a pre-req for running), to be sure that a) you won't be distracted, and b) you're hardcore enough to run this country.

Since the number of soldiers who actually get sent to Iraq is relatively small compared to the entire armed forces, it's hard not to think having big name politicians' kids sent to the front lines isn't a crass political move.

Besides which, based on the last two presidents I think it's clear that people don't care about a leader's military experience.

palelizard: Perhaps we should make a rule that before you get to be president, you have to shoot your family in the face (as part of the inauguration, not as a pre-req for running), to be sure that a) you won't be distracted, and b) you're hardcore enough to run this country.

Ah, the Kaiser Soze rule.

MasterThief: Pocket Ninja: I've often wondered about that. Yeah, politicians whose own children don't serve become targets for the hypocrisy label when they become involved in declarations of war or other military action, but if I was in a combat zone, I don't know if I'd want to be serving right beside the son of a powerful senator. It seems that's just painting a slightly bigger target on my back.

It really is kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't argument. But I think letting the kids serve (and like every member of the military nowadays, they've chosen to serve) is the better option, for a few reasons.

1. We don't do political dynasties in America. There are no "noble houses." (Well, there are the Kennedys, and arguably the Bushes. But that's sort of why I distrust them.) Everyone is responsible for their own reputation, not that of their parents.

2. One of the hardest tests for people in power is the temptation to bend the rules and use family connections to get out of trouble. I don't mean to bring this up for the sake of being partisan, but consider what John McCain went through when he was a POW. At the time, his father was an Admiral and in command of all troops in Vietnam as CINCPAC. The North Vietnamese were hoping to get McCain to agree to early release to show that the well-connected in America got preferential treatment. He refused, and they beat him for it, badly. And McCain Sr. was in the position of ordering airstrikes on Hanoi, which might possibly kill his son. Both father and son were able to set aside their relationship and focus on the task at hand. That's what a leader needs to be able to do.

Yes McCain got special treatment because he was an Admiral's son. He told them he was an Admiral's son to get special treatment. That had to be in violation of some military code.

They beat him after he refused to lie, because he knew he was in trouble back home for already saying too much.

//I'd probably sing like a bird too if I was being tortured to within an inch of my life.

How else do you expect a person to get captured, one day run for President and be able to deflect any and all attacks with POW!

That doesn't work unless your the son of some high ranking official.

screw it, how about all presidents children over 18 have to live on the median income in middle America and children or grandchildren under 18 have to go to public school

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Just cause your dad was an arse kicking man's man does not mean you are born with a brass pair.



Wait, what?

FTFA . I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.

I think we need to be honest with ourselves: our politicians and our politician's children used to be of higher quality.

Wow. Dwight D. was pretty Freaking hardcore. Which of you you could look your son in his eyes and say "just promise me you'll kill yourself before being captured, 'cause you as a POW would really fark up my political career"?

I think that it can be done, but must be done smartly. When John McCain's son was in Iraq, the only info given out was that he was a Marine in Iraq. That did not make him or his unit any more of a target than any other group of marines.

Sarah Palin's son on the other hand has already had his unit and destination exposed. This is careless.

Joe Biden's son is going to be in an air conditioned room in the green zone the whole time. He is a military lawyer, not a combat soldier.

The thing about capture is spot on, but there are not many soldiers or marines allowing themselves to be captured as it is. They will usually go down fighting. It is not like they expect to be treated according to the geneva convention's standard on POWs. They know that they will be beheaded and the video put on the internet. None of our soldiers should let themselves get captured, not just politicians kids.

The main reason not to allow it is it puts the people around them in greater danger. As long as it is not put out there where they will be, it does nothing more than let the bad guys know that somewhere out there one of those soldiers might just be the VP's son.

Magorn: Wow. Dwight D. was pretty Freaking hardcore. Which of you you could look your son in his eyes and say "just promise me you'll kill yourself before being captured, 'cause you as a POW would really fark up my political career"?

See I read that differently. His father was just being realistic and rather than ask his son to give up the life he had made for himself in the military is simply told him how it had to be. I'm sure it wasn't anything the son didn't already know.

Most people would rather hear a pretty lie than an ugly truth; and that's how we got into the financial situation we're currently in.

the reasoning behind this is merely an extension of the same reasoning that allows leaders to "command from the rear" as opposed to leading from the front. WAR IS DEATH, DISMEMBERMENT, PAIN, and SUFFERING! Those in command of the war in any regard should not be spared, but should be made to endure it the most directly of us all, as they have the power to make it start and stop.

Without the direct, human cost being visited upon those in power, war becomes unreal, it becomes something that happens "over there" to "other people" and not to you. It becomes a farking game... a very complex one, but just a game with n real human consequences to be understood. No one you love or care about will ever die, so why not? Sure, those other people might die, but we are biologically pre-disposed towards only caring about those near to us. Its very VERY hard for anyone to develop real human empathy for others in the same way we have it for those close to us.

However, everyone is close to someone, for the most part. This means that in order for the effects of war to be understood by those in power, someone close to them really ought to be involved, or they themselves directly should be. Leaders should farking lead, god damn it! Its not that hard of a frakking concept now is it?

I digress, and let go of my rancor, as it does no good to anyone anyway. All persons between the age of 18-35 should be required to perform 2 years civil service, with military being included in that. Until we are 50 years old, we should be required to maintain readiness in whatever field we served in, be it the Forest Service, Fire Department, Army, etc. If you defer this service for whatever reason, you are not allowed to hold public office. This means that we all slogged through about the same hell for 2 years, and have a much better understanding of what "the front lines" really are like.

Oh, and for all you internet marines, go spend a couple of days on a fire line if you think that, out side of "combat" there is no such thing as a front line. Try going on a ride along in a heavily populated urban area if you do not live near a fire prone forest. Hell, just go work in a soup kitchen for a little while, and tell me that its not a "front line" when schizo people start throwing wheel chairs around the joint!

Magorn: . Which of you you could look your son in his eyes and say "just promise me you'll kill yourself before being captured, 'cause you as a POW would really fark up my political career"?

That's not what he was saying. He was saying promise me you'll take your own life, because as your father, I might screw over the American people to save you, and neither of us want that.

Pocket Ninja: I've often wondered about that. Yeah, politicians whose own children don't serve become targets for the hypocrisy label when they become involved in declarations of war or other military action, but if I was in a combat zone, I don't know if I'd want to be serving right beside the son of a powerful senator. It seems that's just painting a slightly bigger target on my back.

I agree with the target bit, but at least you know you'll have all the equipment you need.

Dughan: All persons between the age of 18-35 should be required to perform 2 years civil service, with military being included in that. Until we are 50 years old, we should be required to maintain readiness in whatever field we served in, be it the Forest Service, Fire Department, Army, etc. If you defer this service for whatever reason, you are not allowed to hold public office. This means that we all slogged through about the same hell for 2 years, and have a much better understanding of what "the front lines" really are like.

Newsletter, subscribe, etc etc.

Cauchy_Riemann_equations: Magorn: Wow. Dwight D. was pretty Freaking hardcore. Which of you you could look your son in his eyes and say "just promise me you'll kill yourself before being captured, 'cause you as a POW would really fark up my political career"?

See I read that differently. His father was just being realistic and rather than ask his son to give up the life he had made for himself in the military is simply told him how it had to be. I'm sure it wasn't anything the son didn't already know.

Most people would rather hear a pretty lie than an ugly truth; and that's how we got into the financial situation we're currently in.

Ya know, given the nobility of the thing, I'll go with your explanation. Especially since this was the height of the cold war, back when a nuclear war was only a terrifying thing, not an unthinkable one; and the idea of compromised president was simply unacceptable/

Gen. Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (Son of Pres. "Teddy" Roosevelt) was one of the first ones off the boats and on the beach on D-Day. The odds of him being killed or captured were as high as anyone in uniform that day, hitting the beaches on the Normandy coast.

He didn't shirk or shy away from doing his duty and no one in the US Army chain of command removed him from what was tantamount to a suicide mission on some levels. (It could have just as easily been blood bath of epic proportions with the US and Allies losing nearly every man landed, instead of being the success it was- with staggering high casualty rates.)

If you go into the military you are not to run from combat, or have someone else decide that for you. If the military deems you to "important" to be placed into combat (not for reasons of competency, physical fitness, age, etc.) but rather because you are politically connected, then you should be discharged from the military.

Al Gore was the only son of a US Senator who ever set foot in Vietnam. Served as a combat photographer and never asked or received any special treatment according to his commanding officer. As mentioned above, Gen. Roosevelt put his life on the line leading the troops on the first wave of action on D-Day. They didn't need "Protecting" and nether do Palin's, McCains or Biden's sons.

I guess we've come a long way from "Let him earn his spurs" ^{(^)}

Back in the old days, country leaders (kings and such) used to lead the armies into battle. Interesting point this guy is trying to make though.

It isn't just the *children* of high-profile people, it's people who are high-profile in civilian life themselves. Look at all the film actors who were already famous, who signed up in WWII, and who served in combat. James Stewart and Clark Gable come immediately to mind, both of them pilots who could have been shot down. They were both already major stars and would have been immediately recognized by any German infantryman who came across them. As I recall, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr, a BG in 1944, insisted on accompanying his unit at D-Day and had a hell of a time convincing his superiors to allow it, mostly because of who his father was.

Famous people and sons thereof may have served in the military in WWII or during the cold war, but those were different wars. Nazi Germany or the USSR were states with armies and a grand strategy. They would not have made capturing a celebrity a priority, and if they did capture a celebrity they would not attempt to use him as a hostage or torture and behead him for propaganda purposes. The same can't be said of Al Qaeda. The objectives and circumstances of the current enemy are different to those of previous enemies.

well joe biden's son beau shouldn't be because he is delaware's AG

Captain Darling: Famous people and sons thereof may have served in the military in WWII or during the cold war, but those were different wars. Nazi Germany or the USSR were states with armies and a grand strategy. They would not have made capturing a celebrity a priority, and if they did capture a celebrity they would not attempt to use him as a hostage or torture and behead him for propaganda purposes. The same can't be said of Al Qaeda. The objectives and circumstances of the current enemy are different to those of previous enemies.

The same is true of any target...ANYONE can be captured and tortured in this war, and high profile targets will get just that, a higher profile. they will be paid attention too more. Will the family suffer any less if they have a no name truck driver member of the family in Iraq, and he is kidnapped and be-headed.

Being famous does NOT entitle you to special treatment. People CHOOSE to get involved in politics, and in this country, we view peoples choices as independent. If I choose to rob my neighbor for some foodstuffs, they do not throw my wife in jail because I was trying to feed her. (assuming she did not know the food was stolen blah blah blah) The sins of the father, or in this case, privileges do NOT extend to the son in our system. Or at the very least they should not.

If a politician is going to crack about the war because of a child who has been captured, then they fully understand the price of war, and are actually the most well informed and able bodied person to choose the next course of action, as they have more experience looking at it from all sides and angles. By placing the children of the powerful directly in harms way, we make sure the powerful understand what happens when you go to war... yes the emotional costs MUST be a part of the cost of war.

The emotional toil IS a part of the cost of war, no matter what, but right now we don't talk about it, we talk about dollars and land mines and surges and deployments... while thousands of people are getting physically and mentally farked up right and left. Army dude watches his buddy get his head sawn off on Youtube, Iraqi teen watches his families house burn with 3 little sisters still inside, American Mulism gets his ass kicked for being brown, and so it goes.

We do not understand because it doesn't hit us, and the treatment of Cindy Sheenan demonstrates that. The woman was an emotional train wreck after the death of her son, AS ANY PARENT WOULD BE. That horror manifested itself into a sort of slightly deranged world view, due to the war. Without the war in Iraq, Cindy Sheenan would be a perfectly normal if not a little left leaning house wife and mother. Now she is lost in her grief, depression, and world view that is what she developed to cope with something as senseless as what happened to her kid. How did many respond? With rancor, venom, vitriol, malice, contempt, and ignorance. When one of your children dies for no real reason in a violent way, you are going to feel it. Its going to hurt in such a manner that you cannot imagine, because there are no words for that level of pain. Writers have tried for centuries and failed to explain the hallowed out, souless, lifeless feeling you are in... and how did we respond? With anger and hate.

Until we start to hold ourselves accountable, the leaders aren't going to do the same. Until we set down our personal animosities, and offer empathy and understanding, its just a blame game. Until we realize how truly devastating the cost of war is on every one it touches, my words will be as empty as they ever have been.

Did this journalist ever see combat?