Military Service Optional for Romneys? No Problem.

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Prior military service invariably becomes a topic of discussion during any presidential election, and it quite often elicits some of the strongest emotional responses from the voting public. This election season is no different, as is evident in this article, where Glen Johnson (AP) documents the concern of Rachel Griffiths, an Iowa citizen with family serving in Iraq, that none of Mitt Romney's five sons are serving in the armed forces.

This issue seems to always represent one of two concerns on behalf of the citizen raising it - either they are contending that no valid basis exists for a candidate to take a hawk-ish stance in foreign affairs, or they are effectively pointing out a class separation distinction. The underlying statement is, "You're privileged - you think you are too good for your family to serve."

Ultimately, it has to be one of these two things, and I contend that neither are legitimate concerns in selecting an executive leader.

Consider the first - that not having family in the military negatively impacts ones ability to lead the country in a time of war (or to support a war politically). Having family in the armed forces doesn't magically endow a candidate with a better foreign policy capacity. Further, the President's duty is not to be involved with the micro-level planning of military engagements. He oversees the macro direction of the war. His function is largely not tactical, but rather extends to shaping overall foreign policy, while relying upon military leaders to execute the operations. He must be able to absorb information from advisors and leaders and base decisions upon that data.

As for Romney's sons - the armed forces aren't for everyone - and beyond that, it's not like the candidates forcibly make the decision for their children as to what their career path will be. It is patently absurd to crucify a candidate because their children have chosen to pursue another vocation.

We need to move beyond these "surface issues" - the items that look sexy and make for good ratings and discuss the ideologies that drive the candidates. Military service means less than foreign policy experience. Having relatives in the army shouldn't enhance a candidates political stature.

Can I buy some real news coverage? Who's going to dive into what really matters? Step up to the plate, American press.

Tagged: 2008 election, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, military service, presidential election

Comments

Be the first to comment on this story!