Further on in the same portentous article, we encounter 
    one Andrew Bacevich, a "professor of international 
    relations at Boston University and a retired Army 
    officer." What could be more impressive? This expert 
    delivers himself of the opinion that, "If this is such a 
    great cause, let us see one of the Bush daughters in 
    uniform." Let me do a brief thought experiment here. Do I 
    know a single anti-war person who would be more persuaded 
    if one of the Bush girls joined up? Do you? Can you 
    imagine what would be said about such a cheap emotional 
    stunt? Stalin's son was taken prisoner by the Nazi 
    invaders (and never exchanged), and Mao's son was killed 
    in the war that established the present state of North 
    Korea. I am not sure how encouraging such precedents are 
    supposed to be, but they have nothing at all to do with 
    the definition of a just war.

    Much more important than this, however, is the implied 
    assault on civilian control of the military. In this 
    republic, elected civilians give crisp orders to soldiers 
    and expect these orders to be obeyed. No back chat can 
    even be imagined, let alone allowed. Do liberals really 
    want the Joint Chiefs to say: "Mr. President, I'll 
    respect that order when you have a son or daughter in 
    uniform"? It was a great day when President Lincoln fired 
    Gen. George B. McClellan. It was a great day when 
    President Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur. No 
    presidential brat needed to be on the front line for this 
    point to be understood.

    Did I send my children to rescue the victims of the 
    collapsing towers of the World Trade Center? No, I 
    expected the police and fire departments to accept the 
    risk of gruesome death on my behalf.