Sacrificing for Iraq War Remains Optional

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.