One of the things that underscores the difference between the war in Iraq and World War II is the presence of so many young people still living normal lives while their peers are off in the desert fighting, away from family, friends, jobs or school.
I was reminded of the unequal distribution of sacrifice for this war when I saw the picture of Josh Romney campaigning in Brighton on Wednesday (Oct. 17, 2007) that appeared in the Livingston Press and Argus. He's a big, strapping, healthy-looking man of 32. Yet he and his four brothers are driving a motorhome around the country trying to get their dad elected president instead of serving in Iraq.
Two months ago, Mitt Romney told a woman in Iowa that the U.S. has a volunteer army and he respects his sons' decisions not to volunteer because their work helping him get elected is important. Again, sacrifice for this war, as important as it supposedly is, remains optional.
Apparently, no one in Brighton brought up the issue of Josh Romney's non-service, but he did mention the war, saying the issues voters are worried about are "immigration, the Iraq war, health care and the economy."
The Livingston Press and Argus quoted Josh Romney also as saying, "When it comes to Iraq, he said, 'We want to get our troops home as fast as we possibly can.' However, he said it's important not to leave the country in an unstable position where it might become a 'terrorist state.'"
Not important enough, apparently, for any of the Romney sons to pitch in, as long as there are plenty of other people's kids willing to do the dirty work.
6 comments:
Do we also expect the sons of road commissioners to be out fixing bridges? This is a red herring.
Hardly. At one time defending your country was everybody’s job. Now it’s fallen to the poor, working class and middle class. Now, it’s the poor who fight and those well off like Romney who push for war. It would seem an engineer is the one who fixes bridges, but anyone can contribute with a hitch in the active duty military or reserves. Originally, Romney said he kids were doing something more import than serving in Iraq, getting him elected. After he got hammered for that insensitive remark he changed his tune to the “respects his sons' decisions” BS.
I wish I had a dollar for every time a right-winger called me a traitor and a communist even though I spent 20 years in uniform fighting against communism while somehow they are the patriotic ones but refused to serve and cry about paying the slightest tax that benefits the country and its people.
So, Kevin, are you arguing that we should have a draft, or that all politicians' children should be forced to service if their parents voted for a war? neither makes logical sense. i am sorry, however, that your patriotism has been disparaged.
Yea, I’m sure you are, who-ever-you-are. I’m not sure a draft is such a bad thing. It just seems to me that the majority of the people who keep pushing this useless U.S. occupation have no loved ones who will be placed in harm’s way, but if they did perhaps they would be a little more cautious if it was more than just some faceless poor and middle class kids they were sending off to die. Now, making a politician's child serve if they vote for the occupation does not make “logical sense,” but a draft certain makes “logical sense.” I’m not sure if I support a draft at this time, but this is certainly not fair.
OK, so we're not sure we want a draft, but we're sure the current system is unfair. Meanwhile, we can bash Mitt Romney — who I happen to think is a buffoon — because his kids haven't volunteered. You haven't convinced me that this isn't a red herring.
The skewing of the armed forces to the lower end of the economic spectrum is a byproduct of a volunteer force. I don't think you or many other Democrats (who have rightfully fought against the war in Iraq) would be any happier if there was a draft. So do you think there should be a quota system of a certain number of high-income soldiers? What would be a more fair system? Or are we just grasping at red herrings (and mixed metaphors)?
Yes, to hell with Mitt Romney, whose kids won't even serve in the military! What we need is a perosn in the White House who knows what it's like to serve! And whose kids are willing to serve! Someone like - oh, I don't know - Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Post a Comment