| Monthly Archives | [−] |

| [−] |
| [−] |
| [−] |
Comments and e-mails are welcome, but all such communication is to be assumed to be 1) the original work of any who initiate said communication and 2) in the public domain, with free use granted for publication in electronic or written form. If you do NOT wish to have your message posted, write "CONFIDENTIAL" in the subject line of your email.
Original content copyright © 2006 - 2008 by the respective authors. Fair, not-for-profit use of said material by others is encouraged, as long as acknowledgement and credit is given, to include the url of the original source post. Other arrangements can be made as needed.
Site contact: greyhawk at mudvillegazette dot com
John S. D. Eisenhower: "Presidential Children Don’t Belong in Battle"
As the only living presidential son to serve in combat while his father was in office, I feel an obligation to express my concern that both of the current vice presidential candidates, Gov. Sarah Palin and Senator Joseph Biden, have sons in Army units on orders for duty in Iraq. In addition, the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, has a son who is in the Marine Corps and subject to a second deployment to Iraq at any time.Was it?Considering how small the force we have in Iraq is in comparison to the nation’s population, this is a startling circumstance. It is not, however, a desirable one. It reflects favorably on the patriotism of those involved, but in itself it can hardly increase the military understanding, the grasp on foreign relations or (least of all) the perspective of the parents.
My unique position in this regard was called to my attention a few days ago in a radio interview. Did I believe that the children of presidents (or vice presidents) should be assigned to combat zones? I was surprised by my own quick reaction:
“No,” I declared automatically. “They have no place there.”
Though my response was impulsive, I have, on thinking about it, concluded that it was the right one.
Personally I think we should put an age limit on military service - say, 18 years old - to ensure that no children are ever sent to battle. As I understand the author, who spent part of his childhood as a major in the Korean war (presumably commanding younger, less experienced children), this exemption should only apply to candidates.
For those who think that's too exclusionary: I suppose I could be convinced that some children could serve in non-combat roles - say, at the Pentagon or staff positions at lower levels - if they're exceptionally bright. But I'd have to hear a strong argument supporting that position.

Maybe you've heard the story about the Ukrainian owned, Belize-flagged Roll On-Roll Off ship with 33 Russian made T-72 tanks and other weapons and ammo that a group of Somali pirates has nabbed and is holding off the coast of Somalia...
Well, the U.S. destroyer USS Howard is keeping a close eye on it.
Details here with more Navy photos.