August 9, 2007

Why Is Mitt Romney ‘Defending’ Sons’ Non-Enlistment?

The lead on the Associated Press story told us more about the Associated Press than it did about the subject:

“BETTENDORF, Iowa - Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military . . .”

I’m sorry, he defended his sons’ decisions not to enlist in the military? This needs defending?

Welcome to America 2007. If you are already in the military, you are an occupier, an oppressor and probably committing atrocities at Abu Ghraib. If you’re not in the military, someone is going to make your dad explain.

OK. This doesn’t apply to everyone. If you’re opposed to the Iraq war and actively rooting for America’s defeat, you’re exempt. If you’re the offspring of a public official who doesn’t support the war, no problem – enjoy your day working at the health food co-op.

But for supporters of Iraq’s liberation, as well as the larger war on terror, the anti-war left has come up with an air-tight damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t proposition, which can generally be summed up by the following question: “If you think it’s such a good idea, shouldn’t you be over there fighting?”

This is the chicken-hawk canard. It’s been around for awhile. What’s new, however, is that presidential candidates are expected to defend the decisions of their adult children to develop real estate or work at Big Boy instead of joining up and heading off to war. Granted, it was an antiwar activist – not the AP reporter – who asked Romney the question. But why bother reporting the answer, as if it pertained to a relevant issue? And why seek out the person who asked the question, as the reporter did, and ask if Romney’s answer satisfied her? (Shocker: It didn’t.)

That elevates the squawking of a crank to the level of serious political discourse.

The chicken-hawk canard is an exceedingly lame attempt on the part of left-wing activists and politicians to discredit anyone who believes the use of force has a role to play in U.S. foreign policy. Accusing politicians of Vietnam-era draft dodging has been very effective at keeping them out of the White House. Just ask Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. OK, bad examples.

But touting one’s own war record is a great way to get elected! Just ask Bob Dole and John Kerry. OK . . .

So if it doesn’t work with the politicians themselves, it must be time to target their kids. Antiwar activists have had a field day suggesting something is amiss because Jenna and Barbara Bush are not throwing themselves in front of roadside bombs outside of Baghdad. Michael Moore ambushed members of Congress who supported the war, demanding to know why their kids weren’t there serving. Now Mitt Romney is put on the defensive because his kids exercised an option available to every American.

The logic behind the chicken-hawk canard is astoundingly twisted. Taken to its logical conclusion, every able-bodied person who supports the war has a duty to join up immediately. Welcome to a world in which all the police officers and firefighters in your town are antiwar left-wingers. I hope you feel safe.

Welcome, too, to a world in which there is no such thing as support for the war effort on the home front. If you support the war, you go and fight it. If you oppose it, you stay behind, read the New York Times and support the ACLU’s lawsuits to stop all surveillance of terrorist activity.

The antiwar crowd may also be shocked to learn that Mitt Romney’s sons are adults. They make their own decisions, just like everyone who chooses to enlist or not. The country needs many things to be healthy – including robust economic activity, strong families and, yes, good soldiers too. Everyone does what he or she feels called to do, and it’s all good.

By the way, I wasn’t satisfied with Romney’s answer either. He said: "My sons are all adults and they've made decisions about their careers and they've chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard." Then he said: "One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation is helping me get elected because they think I'd be a great president."

Weak. He should have said: “Ma’am, if you think every supporter of the war effort is obligated to join the military, then why don’t you, as an opponent of the war effort, join Al Qaeda?”