"presidential children don't belong in battle"

[niyad]

this was an op-ed piece in the NYT on sunday, and it made me sick. the implication that presidents' offspring are somehow more valuable than the cannon fodder infuriated me. maybe if presidents HAD to consider other people's children as carefully as their own, we might have fewer conflicts.

but then, my view is that, whenever a president chooses war, and congress votes to approve it, those people, and every single member of their immediate family of age, needs to be the first to go.



OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Presidential Children Don’t Belong in Battle


By JOHN S. D. EISENHOWER
Published: September 27, 2008

As the only living presidential son to serve in combat while his father was in office, I feel an obligation to express my concern that both of the current vice presidential candidates, Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator Joseph Biden, have sons in Army units on orders for duty in Iraq. In addition, the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, has a son who is in the Marine Corps and subject to a second deployment to Iraq at any time.

. . . . .

My unique position in this regard was called to my attention a few days ago in a radio interview. Did I believe that the children of presidents (or vice presidents) should be assigned to combat zones? I was surprised by my own quick reaction:

“No,” I declared automatically. “They have no place there.”

Though my response was impulsive, I have, on thinking about it, concluded that it was the right one. The next president and vice president will be busy enough trying to pull the United States out of its present fiscal, social and foreign affairs problems without being burdened with worries about an individual soldier, especially a child.
. . . . .
.

My inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the assignment to Iraq or Afghanistan of a service member who is the son or daughter of a president or vice president does not make sense. No matter what the young person’s desires or career needs are, they are of little importance compared with ensuring that our leaders are able to stay focused on the important business of the nation — AND NOT WORRYING ABOUT THE FATE OF A CHIILD A WORLD AWAY (emphasis mine). Personally, I would like to see someone of stature like Secretary of Defense Robert Gates arbitrarily reassign them. Too much is at stake.

John S. D. Eisenhower is the author, most recently, of a biography of Zachary Taylor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28eisenhower.html?ref=opinion

comments, please??

[YOY]

1. "Child"...the very word implies innocence and juvenile status.

Not an "adult child". That would be a more apt term.

Which should damn well be on the front lines for his/her daddy's/mommy's great war.

[nosillies]

2. Plenty of us mere mortals worry about all kinds of big, horrible stuff every day

And yet somehow we manage to function without our heads exploding.

Why on earth did he choose that argument? Why didn't he go for the "it would put everyone around them in increased danger" argument used by the royal families?



edit: spelling

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. I agree with him, but not for the reasons he states

The child of a prominent political figure makes a valuable target and could be putting his/her entire unit at greater risk. Much as I joke about Barbara and Jenna enlisting I don't think it's a good idea.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. I could agree with him on this, but not for the reasons he gave. It seems to me

that the presence of the offspring of a high ranking official in a war zone might invite attacks on the unit, base, etc. where said offspring was stationed which would endanger many lives, not to mention the propaganda value that could be gained by such an attack. Isn't that the reason that Prince Harry was removed from the war zone?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-29-harry-afghanistan_N.htm

If it weren't for that, I would not favor making any distinction between them and any other service member. I don't think that the worries of a President or VP for their children would be any greater than those of any other person who has children or loved ones serving in a war zone.

[Union Thug]

5. They are the first ones who should be sent in to battle.

[brendan120678]

6. Let them serve in uniform, but...

certainly keep them away from the front lines, for the safety of the rest of their unit.

[Igel]

7. You see the consequences of what he describes every time there's

a hostage situation.

People who know their child is no more important than other people's children, who know that paying ransoms encourages more kidnappers to demand ransoms, who know that decisions have to be made for the common good and not for the individual good when there's a difference, suddenly flip and decide that their child is more important than other children, that it doesn't matter what happens now, they want to save their child; and that the individual good, in this case, theirs and their child's, is more important than the rest of the world taken as a whole.

His argument isn't that the children of presidents are more important than other people's kids. It's that when threatened, any parent is likely to consider his (her) child to be more important--and even if they decide otherwise and decide to follow logic and reason instead of their gut, the time spent in that decision is a price that the citizenry shouldn't have to pay. And, I think he'd venture that the publicity acquired by the kidnappers or killers isn't something that should be awarded to them. Both substitute emotion for thinking, and it's not even even trendy and fashionable "critical feeling".

It's the logic that causes the SS to provide security not just for presidents, but also for their families. Not because their families are more important in any objective sense, or considered such by society at large, but because having them in danger can affect the decision-making processes of the president in an entirely human way.

[Raineyb]

8. Nobody's child belongs in battle

no matter how humble their background.

The problem is too many people in Washington, especially, although not limited to those with R's after their name seem to think that everyone else's child is just fine as cannon fodder.

Regards

[LibraLiz1973]

9. I agree that they have no place there, but for different reasons

I think that if a President or Vice Presidents child is at war, I think there is a chance that some NUT JOB could find a way to target them. Perhaps a kidnapping? Something. The ramifications of that would be a disaster.