A Father's Test For A Just War

My son is a corporal in the Marines. When I read about the war in Iran—about strategy, alliances, and national interest—I attempt to understand the arguments as they are presented. But inevitably, they give way to a single question I cannot avoid: Is it worth my son's life?

It is, and must be, an extraordinarily high bar. Each son or daughter is a precious national and personal treasure—one that should not be placed in harm's way except for the most imperative national interests. Only when the interests of the nation are unmistakably at risk—and when those making such decisions would be willing to risk their own children—should war even be considered.

We are often reminded that ours is a volunteer military—that these young men and women knew what they were choosing. Perhaps they did, but with the caveat that youth can only understand danger intellectually, and at a distance. Yet consent does not absolve those in authority, nor does it lessen their burden. Those who hold the power to send others into harm's way carry a responsibility that no enlistment contract can absorb.

The legal concept of in loco parentis is a Latin term meaning "in the place of a parent" or "instead of a parent." It traditionally applies to relationships in which an individual assumes the role of a parent to a minor, or to someone incapable of self-care due to a mental or physical disability. At first glance, it does not apply to soldiers, who are adults—trained, disciplined, and capable.

Yet those who command our children exercise a power more final, and far beyond that of any parent. A parent who knowingly and intentionally sends a child into an environment that risks their well-being would face criminal prosecution. A President or Secretary of Defense who authorizes a needless war faces, at most, political consequences.

My son chose to join the Marines and understood, intellectually, the risks he might face. His training has been extensive and exemplary. I have faith that his Marine commanders understand the value of those in their charge and value my son's life. Yet, regardless of rank, they do not choose which wars to fight. They take orders and pass them down the chain of command.

I do not have the same faith in those who give the ultimate orders.

"Lions led by donkeys" is a phrase used to describe British troops in World War I—brave soldiers led by incompetent or indifferent senior commanders. The Marines are unquestionably lions. I fear their civilian leaders may too often be donkeys.

The President has not shown the requisite respect and care for the soldiers he commands. In his first term, he declined to visit a European World War I cemetery because the risk of getting wet in the rain was deemed too great. He referred to the dead not as heroes, but as "suckers" and "losers." He showed open disrespect to Senator McCain. And after an Iranian missile attack on American troops, he dismissed reports of traumatic brain injuries with a shrug—"headaches and a couple of other things"—as though such wounds were too minor to matter. This is not the language of a man who values the soldiers he commands. It is the conduct of one who belittles the risks these sons and daughters voluntarily undertake.

Nor can the haste that ushered in this war be set aside. There was no sense of gravity commensurate with the stakes, no evidence of careful consideration of the consequences, and little indication that Iran's likely response was fully understood. This lack of seriousness does not reflect someone who recognizes what is being risked.

Bluntly, only someone with no meaningful understanding of Iran would believe that a few days of intense bombing would cause deeply committed leaders to capitulate. Only someone who has never looked at a map would ignore the ease with which the Strait of Hormuz could be threatened.

Wars begun in haste and with hubris do not end as predicted. They spread. They fester and infect all that are near. And they are paid not by those who initiate them, but by those who had no voice in their making.

So I ask the question as plainly as it can be asked: Would the President place his own children in harm's way to fight this war in Iran?

The answer is obvious.

And it is the same answer I would give.

No.