So, refresh my memory -- what branch of service did Chelsea Clinton volunteer for? Kerry's kids Julia and Vanessa?

We don't require our national leaders to be doctors, farmers, or accountants -- yet we entrust them to make health, agricultural and tax policy. There is no requirement to serve or to compel one's kids to serve -- just as there's no requirement to have served to critique the conduct of military affairs or be President.

The idea that we are berating a man for not pushig his sons into the active forces is tacky, and furthers the perception of a young military generation that snubs its noses at those who did not "sign up like we did".

If there is some evidence, somewhere, that Romeny proactively told his kids to NOT enter service, then I'll perk up.

As a junior Officer, I think that Thucydides was correct about the need for elites in the service, but that doesn't mean we ridiclue others for not taking this path.

If any of your friends have questioned Obama's (or your) lack of service, their questions didn't make the blog. Hmmm.

I don't vote out of principle, and wouldn't vote for Romney if I did, but come on meow.

I once had a contest to keep the men amused as to which could be thrown farther, a ChiCom stick grenade (pictured above) or a U.S. frag. . .

Anway, instead of the sins of the father being visited upon the sons, perhaps not serving in this case goes more to the sons' sins visited upon the father, if one accepts that not serving in uniform is a transgression?

Personally, I have always believed the original sin was that the serving president at the time, George Bush the Younger, did not emphasize a call toward national service having issued a fatwa for a global war on terrorism.

Had a former Republican made a call for national service, I believe we could definitely finger point, and call-out Romany and his clan as a whole on the issue.But with the way things are, Romney and his clan only looks like mainstream America.

Well, so much for my stab at philosophy, but, as I mentioned in my opening paragraph, we did find we could throw the stick grenade farther because the handle gave us more of a whipping forward motion to throw that bad oscar.

But the problem of rich kids not serving in the military is much more of a cultural/societal problem, not a political one.

Tom,
When did you decide to stop being a reporter on defense issues and start carrying water for liberals? Guess you don't care about your credibility falling to rock bottom levels. Also, what branch of the military did you serve in and did your daddy ever have a conversation with you about joining?

Best,
Sam

Seems to me that Romney's answer that "It is a volunteer military" is as least as flippant and mean spirited as Cheney saying he had "other priorities" when the country was at war and he could have stepped forward to help.

That might have been Tom's point.

Walt

The Romney kids are already on their second combat tour!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/08/politics/main3147321.shtml

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney on Wednesday defended his five sons' decision not to enlist in the military, saying they're showing their support for the country by "helping me get elected."

Romney's five sons range in age from 37 to 26 and have worked as real estate developers, sports marketers and advertising executives. They are now actively campaigning for their father and have a "Five Brothers" blog on Romney's campaign Web site.

Romney noted that his middle son, 36-year-old Josh, was completing a recreational vehicle tour of all 99 Iowa counties on Wednesday and said, "I respect that and respect all those and the way they serve this great country."

But one of the previous commenters is right, this is more a socio-economic question of why rich people are more likely to condescendingly thank us for our service and donate relative pocket change (if at all) rather than actually hump a ruck, drive a tank, make a cat and trap, or go out for 18 on the air force base.

With a GWOT service rate of .45%, the Romney family track record of 0% is only slightly below average. Many of the above commenters are right on in pointing out 1) double standards (we don't expect female off spring to have served in the military), and 2) our president makes decisions in a variety of areas in which he has no personal experience or vested interest. Personally, as an Army provider, I don't want to have to deal with men or women who do not want to join the Army on their own volition (not for the purpose of satisfying their father's critics or some other family pressure). We don't want or need them!

Republicans past have had lots of unpleasant fun about hoe Democrats Clinton and Obama offered the nation no military service and Bush II played the I Served card, not entirely honestly. What military service have the 2011-2 crop of Republican aspirants to the presidency offered the nation? Including the dropouts?

Does anyone realistically expect the Romney boys to abandon their bespoke suits and promising lives to get shot at?

The all-volunteer military ended the shared sacrifice that had characterized the responsibility to defend the nation for two hundred years. You can argue the good and the bad of that reality, but forty years after that decision it is simply not relevant to point fingers or judge candidates on either side of the political spectrum based on their decision not to volunteer.

And look what military service actually did for some recent candidates... from Bush II and Perry being lampooned for apparently avoiding war by volunteering for the military, to Kerry's service record being twisted against him.

All that said, for me personally military service is usually a plus when I evaluate a candidate. But as a general litmus test, that ship has sailed.

And the idea of questioning a candidate's children on this issue... just plain wrong-headed.

Now I prefer to interpret Tom’s point of view concerning the tendencies of a particularly ferocious breed of and hyper-patriotic Republicans who cheerlead the military but are not particularly interested themselves in serving in the armed forces. Usually, they have other more important things to do and prefer to reserve the honor of getting ones legs blown off to those that have lets say more time on their hands.

What is ironic is that these people seem to relish the ‘shoot-em up’ yet prefer not to partake in the fun for themselves or their kin. In fact they prefer not even to pay for the wars they are so enamored but put it on the credit card with Beijing as the banker. Goodness knows, it would be most unfair to have ‘Support the Troops’ Romney and his smug brats pay a 17% rather than 15% tax bracket for the efforts of those ‘hero’s’ they constantly acclaimed.

"The very rich are different from you and me." F. Scott Fitzgerald

Romney's probably have $250-300M, rich families don't send their spawn to sweat and bleed.

These days you can be a flag waving advocate of foreign wars and American exceptionalism w/o ever darkening the doors of a recruiting station. If "we the people" let that draft dodger Dick Cheney get away with it, they are not going to poke Romney clan in the eye about it.

The truth is the overwhelming majority of people don't serve and the overwhelming majority (not very surprisingly) thinks that is OK.

I heard Romney say once that his sons served the country "in other ways."

I believe both Biden and Palin have sons that did rotations in Iraq/Afghanistan, I believe Obama's grandfather served during WWII

Having family that either have served or are serving shows you literally have blood in the game when the decisions are made and gives a bit of validation
It is the BLOOD that makes those decisions different from say agriculture or science

I would say that volunteering to walk with no weapon to report from outside the wire takes "volunteering" to an extreme and does show that it doesn't necessarily take a uniform

Tom: Please knock off the cheap shots.

The father of my roomie in OCS was an Italian POW during WW II. After seeing America and getting repatriated back home, he was on the next ship headed for the States.

Tom is thinking back to the days of Primogeniture. In a big family with lots of sons like Romney the first son gets the title, the house and the money. The other sons get sent to the Clergy, the Army, the Navy, the Colonies.

Our sons & daughters choose, and that choice should not engender credit (or scorn) for the parent either way.

Obama gets a "pass" because his grandfather served? That gives him "blood" in the game? That is patently absurd.

In fact, the whole exercise is quasi-feudal, and smacks of noblesse-oblige.

It is pretty comical to denigrate Romney because he "only" paid 15%. Why not tout the real number he paid in taxes?

The "widow's mite" is a nice parable, but it is the Romneys of the world that are paying the majority of the taxes in both percentage and real terms. Whether they pay "enough" is debatable. Since we are talking about "skin in the game" -- why does that not apply to taxes? It is probably a bad idea to exclude entire swaths of the population from the federal income tax. It is a lot easier to be free with other peoples' money.

A man does not have the right to choose his children's path.

A child does not have an obligation to take some particular path because of their father's political views.

Complaining about Romney's weird comments, fine. But complaining about the career choices of his kids strikes me as over the line.

I come from a military family, we have a legacy going back to the French and Indian War under Braddock. My father was a career man, my brothers all served in different branches of the military. I did not serve in the military. I have never been questioned by my brothers regarding my career choices, my brothers do not question their sons and daughters regarding career choices. I find it in incredibly poor taste to insinuate anyone "needs" to serve, while also being proud of those who do serve. I have read many comments regarding Romney's campaign, some of them have been pretty dumb, I must admit, this is one of the dumbest. Is there some litmus test that anyone wishing public office should have children who served? Have we become so crass? Why not extend the idea and state that you must serve in the military to hold public office? Aside from its fascist quality, I am sure some would find it acceptable. As a military brat, whose son might or might not join, I am proud of our military as those who serve. That does not disqualify those who have not served in the military or had their children do so.

I once had a SPC Romney in my ranks. I remember asking his squad leader why no one ever gave him rides back to the barracks. He said, “That cardboard cutout is so square, joe is afraid he’ll shred his seats.” When I asked him why he dropped SPC Romney for 25 pushups every time is saw him he said, “His dad right-sized me right into the Army.”

I’ll be here all week.

You never served a day in your life either.

Most days you make some sense Mr. Ricks, but today is not one of them.

Does this mean that my parents are in the wrong for having 4 children, none of whom have served (or are likely to do so)? Why is it that Romney is taking heat for the choices of his children, especially when the same choice has been made by more than 95% of all Americans' children?

This is a load of crock.

-Will

Despite the many protestations to the AVF (RD I'm looking at you), that's what we got...and if I should be so bold...what I want. I don't care who has skin in the game, our checks and balances system is supposed to be the skin in the game which our legislative and executive branches have abandoned. All this nickering over whose kid has served is just silly. A president with some such experience might be of benefit, but what their kid does? Please.

In the end I'm with Harry:
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
**The fewer men, the greater share of honour.**
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.

All the comments on this topic that oppose an obligation to serve seem to stress: the importance of the individual's free choice; the reluctance of the military to deal with people who are conscripted; the fact that the AVF is already well established after 40 years; the irrelevance between service and (subsequent) wisdom in politics and defense issues; etc., etc.

But it occurs to me that there is one major factor favoring National Service (it doesn't have to be in the military) which hasn't been mentioned: a form of universal service will go a long way to restoring the unity of a country which seems to be in danger of "balkanizing" into disparate groups based on ethnicity, race, income, geography, political affiliation, etc. It's increasing hard to figure out what holds the US together now...the only common value that everyone subscribes to, and the reason people immigrate here, is simply to make money and take care of their own. That certainly tends to foster a "me first" attitude, extending from the bottom of the food chain all the way up to the Wall Street bankers.
All this seems so different from what I remember in previous years, when we all stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance at school everyday, when Civics was a required subject in high school, when ROTC was a required subject in 10th and 11th grades, and when I tried to enlist in the Marine Corps as soon as I turned 17 -- only to have the recruiters very kindly throw me out of the office with instructions not to come back until after I had graduated. And being from Hawaii, I remember distinctly that boot camp was the first time I had ever met Blacks, Hispanics, and even a hillbilly from Appalachia. Anyway, to cut a long story short, serving gave me a feeling for this country that other people (my contemporaries, their kids, and even my own son) simply don't have. The closest example I can think of now is Israel, where national service is a measure of citizenship. We Americans are losing our notion of citizenship, and I think this is reflected in all of the political and economic challenges that face us today. And it does not bode well for the challenging times that lie ahead for our grandchildren.
Sorry for the long post...sometimes we retirees get this way. Semper Fi !

Mitt was born in 1947. He was of prime draft age during the war. How did he avoid serving?

Just asking

some one asked earlier where romney was during the 60's. He was on a mission to Paris for 3 years and spent the rest of the time in college. What is irksome about this guy is that he apperantly sat out the 60's. He didn't take a pro war stance by enlisting, nor did he protest the war. During a very notable decade of this country's existence, he simply did not participate. According to wikipedia, he even protested the the people that protested the draft!

Back in August 2005, Mitt Romney told the Boston Globe, "No, I have not urged my own children to enlist. I don't know the status of my childrens' potentially enlisting in the Guard and Reserve."

The fact that Mitt Romney did not even urge his sons at least to consider volunteering for military service, is a relevant fact to be considered by the American people. While each person must make his own decision, there is nothing wrong with encouraging anyone to consider doing so.

Romney's not alone. Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert [R-IL] and Vice President Dan Quayle [R] also have military-age sons who refused to respond to our question re whether they had even considered volunteering for military service, and share the results of their deliberations with the public. Ethan Hastert lost the Republican Primary for his father's old Congressional Sea in Illinoist; Ben Quayle [R] now represents AZ3 as the first Yellow Elephant to serve in Congress.

Even if prominent/influential Americans have no skin in the game themselves, not personally knowing any enlisted servicemembers or junior officers - those most at risk in combat - means that they have to depend on official sources of information, including the media, to inform their judgments.

Operation Yellow Elephant does not care about what old men, not eligible to serve, did or did not do decades ago. But we very much care about whether our country's aspiring future leaders - including the Five Brothers - can find the courage within themselves to volunteer to serve America where needed.