Politics, Offspring, and Military Service
As is well known, many of those in the current Presidential campaign have kids in the military–kids who are or have or will serve in Iraq.
Although the details are slightly different, this is precisely the same situation as Britain had earlier, when Prince Harry was kept from serving with his unit in Iraq, and then was pulled out of Afghanistan after his presence there was leaked.
First and foremost, I respect everyone involved for their service, and for not attempting to use political influence to change where their soldiers are/were/will be stationed. I believe that a lack of military service is one thing that lead the current administration to make so many bad mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s one thing to make hard decisions that will cost the lives of Americans.But I believe those hard decisions are even more complex when you know the individuals who will doing the bleeding and dying.
However, being the son or daughter of someone who holds power–or represents power in the case of Prince Harry–makes the situation different.
There are, I believe, two important things to consider. First, knowing a child is in danger is a distraction to any parent. I may not have kids of my own, but I’ve felt a sense of dread and worry knowing that someone I loved could be in danger. This level of distraction cannot be a good thing for someone in power.
But this is actually the lesser concern I think. The greater concern is the one addressed with Prince Harry: simply by being who they are, these soldiers place themselves and their units at greater risk. The wars were are fighting now are against individuals who don’t follow the rules of war, and for whom taking a high value prisoner would be an incredible coup. I believe they would pay any cost to capture such a politically valuable prisoner.
Never mind the emotional toll the president and vice president would pay in such a situation. Do we want those in power to have to choose life or death for their loved ones–which is precisely how the terrorists would present the situation.
Yes, former presidents have had children who have served in wars. However, I believe the instantaneous transmission of information around the world changes the situation, never mind the very nature of the enemy we are fighting.
So as important as the military service of these individuals is, I don’t think it is a good idea for their presence to place both the lives of their comrades and the ability of their parents to govern at risk.
Loading ...
October 13th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Stalin had an answer for this. After Yakov Djugashvili was captured by the Germans in Byelorussia, the Germans offered to exchange Yakov for Paulus, the German general defeated at Stalingrad.
Stalin replied: “I have no son.”
Despite my hatred for socialism, communism, and the people who ran that system, I have to give Stalin credit. That is the epitome of duty before all, and even if he didn’t get along with Yakov, it was a wrenching thing to do. Now I suspect that part of the reason that Stalin did that was rooted in his own sociopathic personality, but a man who can do what Stalin did has power, and can command loyalty from his subordinates to an extraordinary degree.
Mao Tse Dung also sent his son into combat, and lost him. Mao was a little less hard-hearted than Stalin, and I think is the better role model:
Because Mao Anying was the first son of Mao Zedong, Peng and other senior Chinese leaders were at first unwilling to allow him into Korea. When Mao senior was asked to intervene, he refused, saying “He is, after all, the son of Mao Zedong”.
Immediately after Anying’s death, General Peng Dehuai was afraid to report the incident to Mao. It was not until January 1951 that Mao got words of his son’s death through premier Zhou Enlai. According to Mao’s private doctor, Li Zhushi, when the news finally reached Mao who was smoking a cigarette at the time, he fell into deep contemplation. Though visibly shaken, he finally said “In war, there are sacrifices.”
October 13th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Two things John,
One, the war we are fighting now is not against a country, but against a nebulous thing called terror. As no one involved seems to be following the rules of engagement, we’re not talking just about being taken prisoner, but about being tortured to death or beheaded.
Two, with the ability to pass information around the world instantaneously, as I said in my post, the presence of these individuals may place their units at greater risk, as “the enemy” will take greater risks to capture such a high value target.
When FDR sent his sons to war, they weren’t known to the enemy on sight. Not only did information pass more slowly, but I am not certain that the danger to his sons was the same as the danger posed to the sons of those in power now.
But in this war, all bets are off. We hold “enemy combatants” without habeas corpus and do not allow their lawyers access to all the evidence against them. In such a climate, the value of “targets” is far greater, which I think would place all those around such targets at greater risk.
To put it another way, I applaud what Prince harry did–joining another unit anonymously. If were are to send the children of presidents and vice presidents into battle, I believe we would need to use a similar tactic.
October 13th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Michelle,
First: there are far too few powerful families who understand duty and service. Those who would send other peoples’ children into harm’s way, should be willing to send their own. No more, no less.
Second: for many, joining the military is the first truly adult action they’ve ever taken. To give the children of the powerful special consideration, to hold them above risk simply because they are who they are, negates that choice and says that no matter what, they are still children. This often has unpleasant consequences, for example, GWB. He was appointed through manipulation of his family to the ANG, like so many of his privileged contemporaries. He wore the uniform and enjoyed the privilege of his rank, but assumed no risk. There was never any risk that GWB would go into combat, ever. This assumption of privilege without risk is the hallmark of his life, failed businesses, failed leadership, failed presidency without personal risk. This always is what happens when privilege is taken without responsibility.
Third: you are correct, if allowed into combat, these individuals place an increased risk upon themselves, their parents, their units, and the mission. So be it. Plan accordingly. Example, John McCain: His captors attempted to use him as a bargaining chip, specifically they attempted to manipulate the US Vietnam Theater Commander (Admiral John McCain Jr., McCain’s father). Admiral McCain remained steadfast in his duty and would not bow to the pressure. As a father and a military man myself, I’m certain that Admiral McCain spent many sleepless nights, that he was tempted, and that he was torn - but in the end he remained steadfast, and his son remained a POW. This is the price of duty, honor, integrity, and service above self.
I understand the gist of your post, but either the children of privilege assume the same risk as the rest of us in uniform or we are de facto no longer a democracy. And perhaps that will temper their parent’s decisions when it comes to such things as our treatment of enemy combatants - and if not, well we reap what we sow and it’s long past time the privileged in this country understood that.
October 13th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Jim,
I 100% agree with you on your first point. And about GWB.
However, I think the British did it correctly with Prince Harry–placing him “anonymously” with another unit.
It doesn’t seem right to place the other members of a unit at increased risk simply because they have the misfortune to serve with the kid of someone powerful. Would that not actually decrease the effectiveness of a unit?
As far as enemy combatants, I hope that is a policy that will be changed immediately if Obama takes office. However, the damage has already been done, has it not? Just as the west is still associated with the Crusades, just as American is still associated with the overthrow an democracy in Iran, so America will remain associated with Guantanamo bay. I’d like to think the damage could be reversed, but I’m not that optimistic.