demiurgent: (John Stark - Dude)
[personal profile] demiurgent
Here's something worth noting.

As Michael Moore perhaps over-dramatized in Fahrenheit 9/11, almost no members of Congress have children in the Iraqi War. It's the poor who send their children to fight, not the wealthy.

In Britain, on the other hand, there is a slightly different tradition at play.

Prince Henry of Windsor, called Harry, is going into harm's way. He has insisted there be no special treatment. His assignment is actively hazardous. He is a member of the Royal Cavalry, and he's going to fulfill those obligations.

I'm reminded of the Falklands, when Harry's uncle Prince Andrew went to war.

There is something to be said for a society where the wealthiest, most privileged among them feel an obligation to place themselves in harm's way.

In other news, the Bush Twins have entered week three of their siege on Jaeger.

(no subject)

Date: 2006-02-03 07:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bimmer1200.livejournal.com
I'm not knocking Harry. I agree what he is doing is commendable. That is a point worth making.

However, you didn't stop there. You said that in contrast "it's the poor who send their children to do the fighting". That contrast is invalid, not your core point about Harry's service being commendable, and that is what I was pointing out. It is equally commendable that the children of our wealthiest are carrying more than their fair share, so while kudos are being handed out, I think it was worth mentioning and that they receive recognition.

And it (military service) wasn't a prerequisite to be President. Neither Adams, Jefferson nor Madison served in the military to my knowledge. Madison was too sickly, Jefferson was Gov. of Virginia during the revolution, and I'll admit it's possible I'm wrong about Adams, but he'd have been around 40 at the start of it. Madison led us through the war of 1812. Then there was Lincoln, who never served, but handled the Civil War pretty well. Woodrow Wilson didn't serve and he let us ably through WWI. FDR never served and led us through (most of) WWII. A little more recently, Clinton had no service. And the less said about his activities during the Viet Nam war, the better. Two of his three Sec. of State had no military service either, but they handled the Kosovo situation relatively well.


So, my point is this: What Harry is doing is good. It is commendable. But the U.S. has a tradition of civilian leadership of the military, particularly in times of war. Our middle and upper classes carrying more than their share of the burden in the present conflict, and that too is commendable and there was an implication in your post that somehow our leadership is being 'shamed' by this, which is, I think, ridiculous.

Profile

demiurgent: (Default)
demiurgent

June 2013

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags