How about Supporting Our Troops' Children?

[Bragi]

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Three Canadian soldiers have been killed in an explosion on a notoriously dangerous stretch of road west of Kandahar city...

The commander gave short biographical sketches of the three slain soldiers. He described Corporal Thomas Hamilton, or "Hammy," as an avid outdoorsman, who loved to fish, hunt and barbeque, and who was devoted to his daughter Annabella. The bearded corporal was a veteran of Haiti currently serving his third tour in Afghanistan.

Private Curwin was remembered as a strong family man, dedicated to his three children and wife Laura Mae.

----------------

I think it's time to start calling a spade a spade.

In my view, a "strong family man" who cared about his wife and three children would never go into combat unless he was forced by circumstance to defend his family and his country.

In this case, Afghanistanis are not threatening us whatsoever. We are warring there threatening their families, their communities, their country, for political reasons, by choice, not by necessity.

For soldiers in such a war to put their own children back home through the horror of worrying about if they will ever see their parent again is an irresponsible, selfish thing to do. It is a form of child abuse that leaves permanent scars on these children, whether or not their parents return.

I think it's time to start talking about this.

If our political leaders choose to send young Canadians into wars of aggression, then decency requires that at least do NOT send in young men and women with children back home who are worried every hour of every day that their parents will die.

if we must have these wars, then people without parental responsibilities should be recruited. If we can't find enough who want to go, then surely that tells the politicians something right there.

- B

[Toilet]

1. Wow

I don't even know where to start with that nonsense

[Bragi]

3. Here's a suggestion

You could try to explain why we should allow, let alone encourage, men with young children to voluntarily sign up to engage in lethal combat missions where circumstances do not require them to do so, knowing as we do the real harm this kind of fear will do to their children?

- B

[Toilet]

10. Ok....

Who exactly is it that wouldn't allow it? Who is we?

These are adults who willfully sign up to join the military. And in many cases do so as employment in order to feed their families. Not because they want to go to war.

Yes, it is sad to see children lose their father to war. But this is military life.

Who are "we" to decide who should and should not be sent off to a war zone?

If "we" only took those with no children, whose to say they will not have children in the future? Will they be kicked out of the military? Should they be ordered not to have children throughout their military careers?

The military is not just about going to war. It's a career, a way of life. Just like a it is for a plumber, a doctor, an engineer etc etc.

War isn't pretty. You can't take the horrors and the unfortunate consequences out of the equation.

[Bragi]

11. You write:

Who exactly is it that wouldn't allow it? Who is we?

We the people, through our elected representatives, already decide and regulate who can get into the military, and who can and cannot serve in combat roles. That's how the system works.

These are adults who willfully sign up to join the military. And in many cases do so as employment in order to feed their families. Not because they want to go to war.

Adults can sign up for whatever they want, but the elected government decides who is qualified to be in the military.

Yes, it is sad to see children lose their father to war. But this is military life.

It is more than "sad" to see children lose their fatehrs to war. It is more than sad to know that every day that their parents are at war is a day of stress and worry for a child.

And if the father is killed, or comes home crippled, then the whole family pays the price, and the community as well. In many instances these kids will suffer not just short-term trauma, but also long term psychological damage. They end up less likely to succeed, finish school, and more likely to have problems, be unable to hold a job, etc. All because their parent chose to go to war.

If "we" only took those with no children, whose to say they will not have children in the future? Will they be kicked out of the military? Should they be ordered not to have children throughout their military careers?

I'm not as concerned about military men having rewarding careers than I am about the harm that is done to children of active combat soldiers. Yes, I can see a system developing where people join the military understanding that, if they have a family or decide to have a family, then they will not be eligible for combat. No problem with that.

War isn't pretty. You can't take the horrors and the unfortunate consequences out of the equation.


In this case, you can at least remove the consequences for innocent children whose parents lack the judgement needed to honour their responsibilities as a parent to their children.

- B

[HeresyLives]

2. Yes, this has come up quite a bit.

The idea that only young single people should be sent off on these ventures has been mentioned before, but the trick is finding enough of them to do the job.

Even during WWII a difference was made depending on marital status, dependents, number in the family already serving, and of course, farmers.

[Bragi]

4. Good point

When we used conscription, we naturally created a heirarchy of what kinds of soldiers ought to be called up for combat first, based upon, among other things, their family responsibilities.

So why is it, with a volunteer military, we drop all criteria, and think it fine to target ads at, and actively recruit, parents of young children who will suffer every minute that their parent is away and in danger, and whose lives will be tragically changed if their parent comes back dead.

Shame on us for failing to protect these children.

- B

[offog]

7. Interesting idea...

but the Armed Forces will never go for it. Their fear will be that recruits will have children just to avoid combat duty if a war breaks out. It's dumb-ass, but that's what the military brass will think. I remember reading someplace that during the early part of the Vietnam War, many young American men rushed into marriage to avoid the draft, until the government changed the rules to close that loophole.

Or maybe I'm being overly cynical.

[daleo]

5. There may be constitutional issues

It might not survive a charter of rights challenge, to discriminate by family status in the manner you propose.

[Bragi]

6. There is no "right" to military service

So I'm not sure how the Charter would come into play. Like all countries, Canada recruits into its armed forces the people we think are best suited to defend the country as needed. There is no generalized right to belong to the military. People have to qualify to be accepted into the services.

If it was up to me, parents of young children would not qualify.

[daleo]

8. People can be disqualified if they aren`t suitable on some individual basis

But keeping people out of the military (or out of combat zones, once in the military) on the basis ofS family status would not survive a charter challenge, in my opinion. Serving in the forces may not be a right, but being denied a position on the basis of family status would probably be deemed discriminatory.

I think it would be like the olden days practice of making female teachers quit their jobs when they got married. I can`t see it in this day and age.

[Bragi]

9. More than one way to see it

There is considerable offsetting benefit to society in reducing the number of children who are forced to live in daily fear that their parent --usually a father -- may be killed at work that day. This social and individual benefit could make it justifiable to discriminate against parents of dependent children when recruiting for the military.

Not sure what kinds of studies have been done as to the effect it has on children, not to mention the spouses -- usually wives -- when they are left home during combat rotations. It must be huge for them that dads routinely leave for months on end to go warring in foreign lands, and some come home in boxes. Grinding fear of the worst news possible must be almost unbearable for many.

[daleo]

12. I suppose that would be a counter argument

But I think it would be weak, from a legal point of view. If the state were to deny parents military jobs based on the level of danger and subsequent harm to children and spouses, the argument might also apply to police, fire fighters, coast guard, and other first responders hired by government. I am not sure where one might draw the line.

It would also mean that the military would become less and less like the overall population (i.e. every soldier single and a non-parent), especially as they got older and moved into more important jobs. I think that would be dangerous for society, as it would create a much greater sense of a military caste than exists now. Without family connections, the military might be even more keen for foreign adventures than they are now. They might also have less sympathy for the innocents abroad that they deal with.

As long as we have war, we will have orphans and widows. Perhaps it is best that way - otherwise, the military would be even more of a pawn of callous leaders than it is now.

[Bragi]

15. The impact of such a restriction

I'm not concerned at this point on legalities, but you raise several important considerations.

First you note the argument might also apply to police, fire fighters, coast guard, and other first responders hired by government. I am not sure where one might draw the line.

First of all, I'm not sure why a wise society would not apply a similar standard to other dangerous civic occupations. But even without going there, I would argue that soldiering merits special rules because it is unique for at least two reasons: first, our well-being inherently and always requires that we have police, fire fighters, emergency responders, etc.; the second point is that the only use of the military is to inflict or threaten to inflict damage and hurt, and to seize control over a population, and maintain control. The other activities have separate social value.

So I don't think it inappropriate to have special rules for people who want to go and engage in combat, ostensibly on our behalf.

You then wrote: It would also mean that the military would become less and less like the overall population (i.e. every soldier single and a non-parent), especially as they got older and moved into more important jobs. I think that would be dangerous for society, as it would create a much greater sense of a military caste than exists now.

Interesting observation. So what's wrong with military, given its special role, being seen as a distinct group within society. Truth is, they are a special group within society. Any adverse consequences of their special status would need to be mitigated through the recruitment and training process.

Without family connections, the military might be even more keen for foreign adventures than they are now. They might also have less sympathy for the innocents abroad that they deal with.

Recruitment and training can address this, as above.

As long as we have war, we will have orphans and widows. Perhaps it is best that way - otherwise, the military would be even more of a pawn of callous leaders than it is now.

Not sure what to say to that. At face value, you seem to suggest that we need widows and orphans to keep callous leaders at bay. I don't agree with that.

As for making the military "even more of a pawn", I don't know what you mean. In our democracy, the military always has to be subordinate to the elected politicians.

[daleo]

16. I suppose the debate has elements similar to the draft vs volunteer army

There is a school of thought that a draft army is best, as it mirrors the population and thus is a citizen army. A citizen army is theoretically more likely to object to military adventures that are not well founded in national need. A volunteer army, on the other hand, is less likely to complain about an ill-considered mission, and their complaints won't be given much legitimacy ("quit complaining, you signed up for it").

An army that had no members that are parents or spouses would deviate even more strongly from a citizen army than does a conventional volunteer army, so this dynamic may apply even more strongly.

Some people feel that the resistance to the Viet Nam war was much stronger than the resistance to the Iraq/Afghanistan wars has been for this reason - i.e. Viet Nam had a draft army while Iraq/Afghanistan is a volunteer army.

Robert E. Lee was supposed to have said "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." I suppose that's what I am getting at when I say that perhaps it is best to have widows and orphans, lest our leaders grow too fond of it. Perhaps I give them too much credit when it comes to consideration for widows and orphans, though.

[Bragi]

17. You're absolutely right...

There are indeed similarities here about the argument being made as to conscripted versus volunteer armies. All in all, I think I prefer the conscripted army for exactly the reason you cite -- it would create less tolerance in society for war. (Also, I'm too old to be conscripted!)

The argument about parents of young children being prevented from volunteering for combat, though, is different. I have no problem with parents of young children being in the military, I just don't think it is responsible for them to accept combat assignments, or for us, as a society, to permit it. Just put <"children of soldiers" and "mental health"> into google, and the proiblem is quite evident.

In fact, I would defy anyone to read the article below and to tell me that it's fine to let parents of young children accept combat assignments:

OTTAWA (CP) - The Ontario government has agreed to fund a mental-health services centre that helps children of soldiers deployed in Afghanistan cope with the stress of the war.

The move comes following a scathing report Friday by the province's ombudsman, Andre Marin, who says the provincial government cannot shirk responsibility for such services.

Marin launched an investigation last month after receiving a complaint that the children of parents serving in Afghanistan aren't getting access to therapy and other care.

Children living in Canadian Forces Base Petawawa, Ont., have had trouble coping with the trauma of parents away in the war zone, and with the death of their parents in Afghanistan.

The Ontario government had balked at funding the service, saying it was a federal responsibility because of the Afghan war, while Ottawa insisted mental-health services are paid for by the provinces.

Marin, previously the ombudsman for the Canadian Forces, says children are suffering and need help.

He also took a shot at the federal government, saying it may not have a constitutional responsibility, but it has a moral obligation to take care of soldiers and their families.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/901413/ontario_agrees_to_fund_mentalhealth_services_for_soldiers_children/index.html

- B

[Posteritatis]

13. "There is no right to X" is an intrinsically ridiculous argument (nt)

[Bragi]

14. Not if the issue is the Charter /nt