If the British elite personally volunteer to go and serve in Iraq, shouldn't the American elite do the same?

Question

Prince Harry recently won a "battle" to go to Iraq and serve there as a soldier, against the wishes of the British military (and probably of the public as well). Should members of the American elite who feel strongly about the cause in Iraq also go there (and not for a political face showing visit to beat the propaganda drum) and serve in the war that is their own brainchild- Hillary Clinton, Bush, John McCain, and any and all others who feverently support the war and feel it is an absolute necessity? If they did go over and personally do battle as a show of support instead of from a safe distance15,000 miles away, do you think the general attitude towards this conflict would change significantly? Should congress pass legislation in the future to require those who vote in favor of a war to either serve personally in that war, or require their children to do so if those in question are not physically capable?

Answer 1

Personally, I believe that every time Americans go into battle, they should be led by our politicians. Leadership means, never send someone else to do something that you wouldn't do yourself.

Every one of them that thinks we need to be involved in combat, needs to be in the front lines. And maybe if their not physically capable of the rigors of war, they're not fit to legislate, execute or adjudicate the laws of the land.

Incidentally, I was in Iraq 2004-2005.

I also think that we should have unannounced drug tests for ALL politicians, including the president. And I think that the American people should be provided with all the information that they have on us, such as, how much money they have invested, where its invested, any criminal records including domestic violence incidents, and their credit histories.

After all, politicians are just elected public servants.

Answer 2

Mr. McCain served his time in the military. He spent years as a prisoner of war in the "Hanoi Hilton." If there is anyone who has reason to be anti-war it is him but he is not. He has lived up close and personal with all that war entails and still supports this war.

No one is forcing the service people to join up. If they didn't want to go somewhere where there is fighting, they shouldn't have signed on the dotted line. It is foolish to join the military and then not want to go to war. Kind of like a firefighter not being willing to go into a burning building.

Answer 3

This is the best question I've seen in a long time. The answer to it is, "YES", government officials should fight in the war. These times are very different from those in WWI and WWII. Many presidents in the past have actually been to war and fought enemies without the Secret Service protecting them. I think FDR was one of those presidents who actually served as a general in the military while in presidency. I really wish that government officials would grow the balls to go over and fight to protect their bosses, the American citizens fighting alongside them.

Answer 4

3 letters for you SAS (aka the particular Air facilities), made from the lengthy determination wasteland team contained in the North Africa for the time of WWII, those adult males were so solid they went into pleasant bases UNDETECTED regardless of informing the proper they were coming and stuck tags on all the automobiles, Planes, huts, storage aspects the coolest purchase. Ever considering that then The SAS were causing a our enemies an finished load of worry. now to not indicate the SBS, Royal Marines, The Para's, The RAF Regiment etc, etc us Brits are literally to not be ****** with!!!

Answer 5

don't forget the Bush girls.

send them first.

It's still a lost cause, though.