If at any time the President and/or Congress votes for or directs the use of miltary action abroad where the use of force is plausible the one direct descendant of the President, each sitting member of Congess and the Senate must be immediately enlisted into the armed forces. Upon completion of initial training requirements the member will be placed into front line combat units serving in active designated areas of armed conflict. No direct officer commissioning pathways will be made available until the serving member has complete one full term enlistment of no less than four years. Once the initial enlistment is completed, regular officer ascenscion programs will become available.
Any indications of active influence by the member of Congress, the Senate, or the serving member to avoid this active duty requirement and combat unit service will immediately be investigated by the DoD Inspector General for acts of subversion and treason by the parties involved.
In the event there is no living or qualified direct descendant, or immediate family memebr of the the President, Congress member, or Senator committing the United States to military action, then that memeber will not be eligible to vote in the use of the military for this use.
As a combat veteran I completely agree with this, they would think twice about unnecessary combat deployments.
With that said I’m sure there would be favorable actions towards these family members and be given special treatment.
Adding a specific policy to keep these family members from being grouped together. Their progress, duty stations and activities would unfortunately need to be closely monitored to ensure they are not being favored over other service members ensuring “Esprit de corps” and unit integrity for the mission and not the individual.
This is not the first proposal I’ve seen of this kind and I don’t see anything about it that makes it look like it is any more based in reality than the others.
First, it punishes the innocent for someone else’s actions.
Second, it creates the real possibility of a scenario where the US is basically a pacifist nation by law.
Third, it doesn’t really think beyond basic feel-good cliches.
Thank you for engaging and disagreeing. Only through critical discussion can we become better.
The argument that it is not based in reality is an appeal to ridicule fallacy, especially since the purpose of this site is to create new policies. This proposal is just not bound by the current limitations.
You state it punishes the innocent and the US could become pacifists, which I could aggree with, but war will never be conducted where innocent people are not affected. By requiring lawmakers to put blood into the game perhaps they would attempt the other functions of DIMEFIL before resorting to war. Case in point, the 100 memebers deployed to Israel. They are sacrifical, if they can stop all incoming rockets/missiles the US will deploy another group based off how great it worked and the "necessity to “protect our ally” or we’ll sell Israel a system. More than likey they will be targeted and will get killed by Iranian linked missiles and we get to go to war with Iran, where more innocent people will die.
There are times that the US should deploy its military, and as a retired combat vet I 100% support. This proposal is an attempt to make it a last resort and a decision made on true conviction that it is the only reasonable option to achieve the endstate to stop evil and to end wars. It should not be the world police and it should not be used to escalate tensions or conflict.
Your last point is another appeal to ridicule fallacy.
How would you stop the endless wars through policy? The only other way I can see is theough blocking policy makers’ financial incentives but that just turns into endless legal battles trying to chase their loopholes and shell companies, etc.
First Key Problem: That even the President would be required to have a living relative in order to be qualified to have a say in how the US military.
This undermines the President’s Constitutional Authority and Responsibility as Commander in Chief.
If the President did not have a living relative in the military, the US would be rendered a pacifist nation because the Commander in Chief would be be rendered incapable of commanding the US military as is his responsibility.
This would be especially troublesome in that the enemies of the US would know that the US is incapable of defending itself, and would be free to act against the interests of the US without fear of reprisal. Military response wouldn’t even be an option of last resort because the President would be prohibited from responding to anything the enemies of the US did to the US.
If the President did have a living relative, US security would be compromised as the President would be torn between “How does this affect the country vs how does this affect my relative”. It would also create a major weakness in that if a foreign enemy assassinated the relative in question, then suddenly the US is kneecapped and we go back to the problem where the Commander in Chief can’t serve as Commander in Chief.
And all that assumes that the President actually likes the relative in question. If the President either doesn’t like, doesn’t care, or doesn’t know about the relative in question, then the proposal doesn’t do anything to restrain the President from acting like he would even if the proposal wasn’t in place.
I understand the perspective regarding the President. I think it could be refuted that the line of thinking would mean no tribal, societal, or world leader throughout history would have gone to war if their child had to fight. That we know to be false.
I would agree that it could emotionally compromise the President if their kid got killed in action. So a compromise could be to exempt the President.
I think your arguement that the US would be incaple of defending itself is not a supportable arguement. This policy would not dismantle the military or its the ability for its use. It would only make the voting members exhaust other functions before resorting to war. It would also reel in the use of the of US military to fight foreign wars.
Your conclusion that this would make the US a pacifist, although a gross exaggeration, actually agrues for the effectiveness of the policy. We wouldn’t commit to war unless it was necessary.
I appreciate the discussion and apologize for the late reply.