Stop dehumanizing soldiers as "our kids"

I notice a tendency to refer to our military members as somebody's "kids" quite frequently. For instance "our kids are dying in Iraq" or "their kids should be drafted".

Personally, I find this language abhorrent; it dehumanizes and objectifies our soldiers into mere property of their parents. The fact that most people use this terminology unthinkingly only makes it more insidious.

Our soldiers are adults and should be treated as their own independent individuals. They have their own pain sensors, too.

Update: For clarification, since many commenters seem to misread this point, I have no problem with using the term "kid". The problem I have is with using it to imply that somehow the parents are more important than the individuals themselves (and did you notice that we rarely talk about husbands or wives in the same way?)

Just think about the following pairs of sentences.

"Dick Cheney's daughter should be drafted"
"Elizabeth Cheney should be drafted"

"George Bush's daughters should be drafted"
"Jenna Bush should be drafted"

Who would potentially make the ultimate sacrifice here?

The second sentence also makes it clear just now nonsensical the first one is. Why should somebody be drafted just because her name happens to be Cheney or Bush? There is nothing Elizabeth Cheney has done that would justify forcing her into the meatgrinder. Nor does being a party girl justify sending Jenna Bush to Iraq against her will.

Other than being their father's daughters, they are no more special than I am.

Language matters. Please focus on the person giving their life, don't make them just an object.

Update II: Thank you for all the feedback. It actually helped me to clarify in my own mind just why I resented this language so much. It had been based more on a gut feeling, but actually it's very real.

You see, my parents drank the CoolAid. They do not live in the USA, but they are still clones of any 29%er. At the same time, I was a draft victim. Actually, I did manage to evade the draft (and am very proud of that)

So every time somebody talks about "sending a Republican's kid to Iraq" they are, in a way, talking about me - as if I was nothing, as if my parent's CoolAid meant more than my own progressive leaning.

•  Tips

  Always appreciated!

  by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:37:04 PM PDT

  •  Do you have children over 18?

    Because if you did, I would be surprised if you would write this diary.

    Yes, they're legally adults.  But any adult who has been around their 18, 19, or 20 year-old child knows that they are, indeed, still children, at least in part.  They're straddling adulthood and childhood.  They shouldn't be sent into a meat grinder without compelling reason.

    And that is lacking in this case.

    by Ernest T Bass on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:46:17 PM PDT

    •  It's not about the law

      I wrote this diary because as an 18 year old, they feel the pain.

      I was an 18 year old myself - and subject to the draft. I would have been livid if somebody had told me that it was all about my parents!

      by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:11:07 PM PDT

      •  Referring to young

        men and women as "kids" does not mean anything is all about their parents - it's about the lost futures, the lives cut brutally short, about people who have barely had a chance to begin their own lives.

        by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:22:13 PM PDT

      •  It's not really dehuminizing, though.

        Children ("kids") are still human beings. To me a 30-year-old seems like a kid.  It's all relative.  

        I agree that someone shouldn't be drafted because they are the child of a pro-war Republican.  But I think it's appropriate for children of Bush and members of his administration to be asked if they support the war and, if so, why they aren't fighting it.

        by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:26:09 PM PDT

        •  Why is it appropriate?

          But I think it's appropriate for children of Bush and members of his administration to be asked if they support the war and, if so, why they aren't fighting it.

          That shows exactly the thinking I have a problem with.

          Why is it appropriate to ask Jenna Bush that question and not, say, Katie Holmes?

          by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:46:55 PM PDT

          •  Because anyone who supports the war

            needs to answer why they don't help fight it when we have a small number of men and women who have been sent back again and again to the front lines and who are approaching the point of complete exhaustion.

            by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:15:09 PM PDT

            •  Their PARENTS support the war

              I have no information what Jenna and Barbara Bush think about the war. Nor do I have any idea where Katie Holmes stands on it. So why is it appropriate to ask the Bush twins when it's not for Katie Holmes?

              Elizabeth Cheney is a little different, because she did help campaign for Dick Cheney. She could legitimately be asked about her support for the war. Just like any other campaign worker could - not, however, because of who her father is.

              by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:42:43 PM PDT

              •  You didn't read my comment, did you?

                I said it was appropriate to ask the children of these people if they support the war.  

                Best wishes.

                by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:49:48 PM PDT

                •  No, I read it

                  And I still don't see any reason why it is appropriate to ask the children of these people about their support for the war.

                  The people you want to ask are individuals who have not done anything to warrant being singled out. In particular, they are NOT extensions of their parents!

                  Even when it is "just" asking them their view on the war.

                  Or if they have done something - such as Elizabeth Cheney - then it is their activity, not their bloodline, that warrants it.

                  by sdgeek on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:28:49 AM PDT

  •  how about college athletes?

    Same general age group, and we (fans and coaches) affectionately refer to them as the "kids."

    It's not dehumanizing in any sense of the word I understand.  Although I imagine a few indestructible, 18-year-old, feeling-their-newfound-independence college "kids" might think it condescending, but then who do they call for money and where to they move and call home when they graduate and are looking for a job?

    by craiger on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:00:53 PM PDT

    •  Different use of the word

      Whether or not we call them "kids" isn't the point. In the example you gave, the word refers to the individual athlete. There is no dehumanization.

      When talking about the military, I see the word used to turn "them" from people in their own rights into their parent's property.

      by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:13:33 PM PDT

      •  IMO

        Just my opinion, but you and I use and see words differently.

        I would refer to an entire team as the "kids."  Not individually, and no different than referring collectively to a bunch of young military as "kids."

        And "kids" doesn't imply anything to me about ownership.  It's a very general age range and/or level of maturity and adult independence.  For all I know, many of them are emancipated.  That's fine, they're still kids.

        So thank you for sharing your opinion on use of the language.  I will keep it in mind as a matter of sensitivity, but I will probably continue to use the language as I have become accustomed.

        by craiger on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:20:40 PM PDT

•  This is a stupid diary, sorry to say. n/t

  by quantumspin on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:41:41 PM PDT

•  Well, no.

  it dehumanizes and objectifies our soldiers into mere property of their parents

  Being a child doesn't make one property.  It makes one a member of a family.  The soldiers get called "somebody's kids" because they have families and in most cases parents who tried to nurture and raise them and give them a future.  Being a member of a family, or even of the family of humans, doesn't make somebody property.

  I think your premises is, well, wrong.

  by davidseth on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:43:49 PM PDT

  •  Still disagree

    First of all, many are married. They also have brothers and sisters. And some join the military exactly to get away from abusive parents.

    Yet them being related to somebody biologically seems to be more important than they themselves?

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:16:30 PM PDT

    •  ?????

      Yet them being related to somebody biologically seems to be more important than they themselves?

      I honestly can't imagine where this belief of yours comes from.  When I speak of "my" sons, I'm speaking of two remarkable young men who, lucky for me, were born to me and raised by me.  But it's about THEM, not about ME.

      by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:25:13 PM PDT

      •  YOUR sons

        I think refering to your own children this way is normal and natural. But we have started referring to other people as "so-and-so's child" instead of their own name. Jenna Bush, for instance.

        That is what I'm criticising.

        by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:52:21 PM PDT

        •  Again,

          when someone says "George W Bush's daughter should ..." they're not saying that Jenna Bush should ... or Barbara Bush should ... they're saying that George W Bush doesn't know what he's talking about because HIS daughters are not touched by the situation.

          by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 03:23:47 PM PDT

          •  Huh?

            How can one say "George W Bush's daughters" and not mean Jenna and Barbara?

            I appreciate what people are trying to say - but they should do so without dehumanizing, in this example, Jenna and Barbara.

            by sdgeek on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:34:28 AM PDT

•  I think the tendency to think of them as kids

  might come because their lives depend on what we, the people, say. Just as if we were their parents, we have the responsibility to protect from harming them.

  by blueintheface on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:44:11 PM PDT

•  Calling them our kids

  Is real, because they are all someone's Son/daughter/brother/sister etc.  This makes them family and equates their wellbeing as something important to us, just as the welfare of our children is important.

  I think you are getting all bent over nothing.

  by Sychotic1 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:45:39 PM PDT

  •  My daughters

    are 25 and 26 years old, and they're still my kids....
    And my oldest kid has a 1^1/2 year old baby boy.

    by PBen on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:12:43 PM PDT

    •  But are they your kids first, or humans first?

      There is nothing wrong with them being your kids.

      As long as that is secondary to them being individuals.

      by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:21:44 PM PDT

      •  Is there a difference?

        I don't see it. If you're asking, do I own them, I gotta ask: ha! what, you never had kids? After about 13yo, I was no longer the demi-god of their young lives.

        by PBen on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:38:36 PM PDT

      •  Children are not another species.

        They are human beings.  And in a society that is focused on the common good (some of us still believe that), everyone's children are important because they are the future.  That is the way in which the term is used.  

        by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:51:24 PM PDT

    •  My mom is 82, and I'm 59,

      and I'm still her kid.

      by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:30:31 PM PDT

  •  More important than they themselves?

    I completely agree that this bond is real.

    But when it comes to dying, isn't that something that's more important to them than even to a parent?

    And no, this is not about nothing. What brought this on actually was the recurring debate about the draft, and how "politician's children" should be drafted. As if these same children were just property, to be disposed of as the parents do.

    That kind of thinking is only possible because we are using this dehumanizing language.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:20:31 PM PDT

    •  the point isn't dehumanization

      The point is, would these politicians risk those who are as dear to them as our children are to us, if not, why are they asking us to stand and watch as those who are dear to us are killed.

      by Sychotic1 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:26:49 PM PDT

      •  Let me rephrase this thought

        "Because we don't want this war, we suggest to send some innocent person to war at gunpoint just because he happens to be related to a politician".

        I would completely agree with you if you had said "would these politicians risk their own lives? If not, why are they asking our military members to watch themselves getting killed".

        But you are talking about "those who are dear" as if they weren't really people capable of their own suffering, as if the only thing that matters is the suffering of the relatives.

        I consider that very dehumanizing.

        by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:58:35 PM PDT

    •  If a child dies, the people suffering

      will be their family.  And losing a child is one of the worst losses anyone can experience.  You don't recover from it.

      by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:53:02 PM PDT

      •  That almost sounds as if

        you are saying that the parents are suffering more than the person who died. The parents have my full sympathy, but the first one suffering is "the child" - the person who is dying. Not even the grief of a parent tops that.

        A friend of mine lost two sons in the span of one year, one of them in Iraq after six excruciating months in Walter Reed. She has my sympathy and my support. But quite frankly, who do you think is worse off? The mother or the son?

        by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:04:03 PM PDT

        •  Of course I'm not saying that.

          What is your problem?  But once I'm dead, I won't be suffering anymore.  My parents, brothers, and sisters will experience a lot of pain.  

          Personally, I've never referred to people in the military as "kids."  But I can understand why parents might.  I'm not sure what it is you want people to do here.  Several people have explained why the question of politicians' children not serving comes up--it's to call attention to the lack of sacrifice by those who are ordering other people's children into war.

          You might want to try having a little bit more of an open mind in reacting to the explanations/opinions that have been offered here.

          by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:12:47 PM PDT

          •  Didn't think you meant that

            But that's the implication of the words you've been using. And that's the point I was trying to make: in this context, we are using language in a way that emphasizes the parent/child relationship as more important than the individual's humanity.

            Suggesting drafting politician's children should be utterly and completely off limits. Not just off the table, it should be beyond the even thinkable.

            Yes, I understand the point you are trying to make, but we are talking about a human being here. Not some object who is responsible for what somebody else does. Even if that somebody else happens to be their parent.

            Since you asked what I want people to do here: I want people to identify people primarily as individuals instead of as "somebody's son/daughter".

            by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:36:36 PM PDT

•  If you really mean "dehumanize"

  I think it says more about what you think of 'kids' than those saying 'our kids are dying in Iraq.'

  While you point is well taken that they are adults, they are young adults and somebody's kid.  Rather humanizing to refer to them that way if you ask me.

  by MLDB on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:46:12 PM PDT

  •  Agreed.

    Dehumanizing isn't a term I'd use in this context.  What I find dehumanizing is talking about our fallen as if they are just numbers. What I find offensive is criticizing our fallen for doing their job, regardless of our personal feelings about that job.

    by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:56:38 PM PDT

  •  Didn't start out that way

    But the way we use the word, it seems like their own individuality becomes secondary to them being parent's kids.

    As I mentioned upthread, what brought this on was the recurring call to draft "politician's kids". Now that is definitely dehumanizing.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:23:40 PM PDT

•  I wasn't aware

  children were property. I always thought they were loved and cherished members of a family.

  The premise of this diary is flawed. I think very few people would agree that children are property.

  There's been an awful lot of "Stop calling 'SO-AND-SO' this or that" on this site lately, and without fail, most of it is idiotic.

  This diary is no different.

  Calling someone "Someone's child" doesn't dehumanize them at all. It really does precisely the opposite, by adding another human dimension to the soldiers as loving and loved members of a family.

  You're flat out wrong on this one.

  by TheBlaz on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:47:00 PM PDT

  •  See upthread

    See, that's why I consider this usage so insidious. At first glance, you are absolutely right. Children aren't property, and shouldn't be.

    But then we keep hearing the recurring call to "draft politician's kids". And suddenly it is dehumanizing. Not even a semblance of "maybe Jenna Bush actually has nothing to do with her father's crimes, and maybe she is even opposed to the war herself".

    No, many people from our side keep calling for her to be drafted just because she's Bush's daughter.

    Or, even worse, people say things like "Bush should enlist his daughters" - as if it was his decision, as if the daughters were there just to do his bidding. That is property.

    And this thinking starts with the language, with the innocent use of the word "their kids".

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:28:31 PM PDT

•  There is nothing that any young Americans have

  done that would justify sending them into the meatgrinder of Iraq.  I'm sorry that you are offended by people addressing soldiers as "somebody's kids", and I personally have not done so, but to me it is a reminder that there are loving families at home with much at stake in Iraq as well.  If you don't agree, then you probably have not suffered the loss of a child and I hope that you never do.

  "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it."  JFK

  by Fallon on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:47:05 PM PDT

  •  Nothing?

    How about a signature on a contract?

    by jxg on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:17:05 PM PDT

    •  Signing a contract with Uncle George before they

      are deemed old enough to vote or even legally drink doesn't mean that they are mature enough to understand what they are doing.  Be all that you can be!  Be Army strong! These are ads that target young impressionable kids some of whom may have few career options.

      by Fallon on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 04:56:01 PM PDT

•  Agree and disagree -

  I think you're spot-on in your sentence comparisons, BUT...  

  I think when people say "George Bush's daughters should be drafted", they're actually meaning something entirely different, which is: "George Bush doesn't understand the war because his own family isn't fighting in it."  People tend to associate the strongest familial ties with children, so it's a natural response (that, and they're in the zone of enlistment age).  

  by pico on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:47:08 PM PDT

  •  Thanks

    I'm glad you understood what I was trying to say!

    As for the second paragraph, though, I think it is still the same thing. The only substantive difference is that you are no longer talking about "his daughters" but "his family". That's not a substantial difference.

    The only statement I would find acceptable in this context is "George Bush doesn't understand the war because he personally doesn't fight it," or maybe "George Bush doesn't understand the war because he personally avoided military service."

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:33:29 PM PDT

•  I don't know

  that I've ever referred to our military as "our kids" but as one of the authors of the IGTNT series, it's really dang hard to write about an 18 or 19 year old and not think of him or her as a "kid."

  As for people who say Bush's daughters should serve, I'm not one of them.  The last thing I want is someone serving who isn't willing and/or isn't competent to do the job.  And with respect to Iraq, I wouldn't wish deployment there on my worst enemy if I had one.

  I think the point you might be missing when people make statements such as you've written here is that those who support the Iraq occupation are typically NOT the people (or the spouses or parents of the people) who are dying.

  And seriously, under 21 might be legally an adult, but I don't think a person should be asked to die for his or her country when his or her country doesn't consider them mature enough to drink a glass of wine.  Seriously.

  by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:48:02 PM PDT

  •  Politicians children should be left out of it

    The children & family of politicians are their own people and should be left out of their parents mistakes.  

    by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:58:17 PM PDT

    •  I agree.

      My child (even when an adult!) can never pay my debts and should not be asked to do so.  

      by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:08:43 PM PDT

    •  Just as soon as they leave my kids out

      of their mistakes too.

      by Indexer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:56:46 PM PDT

      •  As long as they leave YOU out

        And that's not you personally, but the general "you". Which includes your children.

        Your children should be left out of it, but not because they are your children - they should be left out of it because they are humans.

        by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:27:33 PM PDT

        •  Look, in general I agree with you that the sins

          of the parent shouldn't be visited upon the children. But, they are indeed targeting our children with their policies -- not only in war but in their economic policies, environmental policies, and foreign policies -- and at the same time protecting their children from any of the consequences. As such, I feel it's a legitimate rhetorical device to point to that relationship.

          I don't think anyone here would rejoice if Jenna Bush was sent off to Iraq against her will, but when her father is in a position that allows him to send others off to war, or mortgage their future, or destroy their air, it's perfectly right to ask "Well, what sacrifice is your family making?"

          by Indexer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:35:32 PM PDT

          •  They aren't targeting our children

            They are targeting young people (who may happen to also be our children, but that relationship is not germane to the targeting)

            And I believe that it is fundamentally wrong to ask "what sacrifice is your family making?" The only appropriate question is "what sacrifice are you personally making?"

            by sdgeek on Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:38:24 AM PDT

  •  That point should be off limits

    I think the point you might be missing when people make statements such as you've written here is that those who support the Iraq occupation are typically NOT the people (or the spouses or parents of the people) who are dying.

    I'm not missing the point - but the line of reasoning behind it is just so asinine that it should be off limits in the first place. It should be just literally un-think-able. And the reason it is currently thinkable is that we have this language that sound so innocent and is so insiduous.

    That was the point of my diary.

    And I notice one more thing: it should be just as unthinkable to talk about spouses or parents of politicians as it should be unthinkable about their kids.

    Talk about politicians personally. Highlight how they evaded the draft or got five deferments. But leave everybody else out of it, whether related or not.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:39:52 PM PDT

•  18-22 year old adults

  may indeed be legally adults, but remain "vulnerable" to suggestion in so many ways. I don't necessarily think the term "kids" actually denigrates so much that it calls into concern the sheer suggestibility of persons that age and how decisions made at that point in their lives may not properly thought through or even reckless.

  by Flippant to the Last on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:49:20 PM PDT

  •  sorry about the sentence construction

    my neighbor'ss "kids" are screaming.

    I meant "...may not be properly thought through or even reckless."

    by Flippant to the Last on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:52:30 PM PDT

•  my son is headed

  to iraq this fall and he will always be ''my kid''.

  I kind of get what you are saying but it is parsing it rather thin.. thanks for thinking of the troops who are sacrificing,tho.

  by Hawkjt on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:51:34 PM PDT

  •  I hope your son

    stays safe. Actually I hope there's a miracle and no more sons or daughters will be sent there, but since that isn't likely, I wish for safety instead.

    by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:59:02 PM PDT

  •  My best wishes are with him

    Prayers too if he wants them!

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:05:18 PM PDT

•  The minimum age to join the military should be 21

  An 18 year old is still far to young to decide to join the military clearheadedly.

  by Futuristic Dreamer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:52:32 PM PDT

  •  age of responsibility

    The military prefers new recruits who are as malleable as possible.  I know a few people in the military who entered in their mid-20s rather than right out of high school, and they have commented to me that they felt really bad for the younger "kids" because they didn't have the maturity to fully understand the "game" that is basic training.

    It's much harder to break someone down to build them up when they already know who the hell they are.

    I'm still thinking about whether the drinking age should be lowered to 18, or whether it should be 18 for those in the military so long as they only drink at the enlisted club and have transportation options.  Seems perverse to say that someone can go to another country and kill people but they can't have a beer.

    by craiger on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:08:14 PM PDT

  •  And that's exactly why the

    military does take 18-year-olds.  They are ideal subjects for indoctrination.  The diarist may not be aware that the frontal lobes are not fully developed until the mid to late thirties.  In many respects, young adults are still "kids" in cognitive terms.

    by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:00:02 PM PDT

•  On one hand, I don't refer to them as kids.

  On the other hand, I could understand doing so without really thinking about it.  I'm in my late 40s, with no kids of my own - but my friends do have sons and daughters the same age as many of these young soldiers.  I'm sure many of those using the term have children of their own of that same age, and they probably think "that could be my kid".  I think the term calls attention to the potential in that soldier's life, and the way that it's snuffed out when one of them is lost.  I don't think that's dehumanizing at all.

  by lineatus on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:52:51 PM PDT

•  dehuminizes

  I do not think this word means what you think it does.  You might have had a point if you had said that it infantilizes them.  It would not be a particularly good point, but at least it would make a modicum of sense.

  by sarahnity on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:56:22 PM PDT

  •  Inconceivable!

    tip for reference

    by craiger on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:13:28 PM PDT

  •  Terminology

    The way the word is used often presents the military men and women as mere extensions of their parents, instead of as their own individuals.

    That is removing their own individual humanity. Thus the term I used.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:25:05 PM PDT

•  Part of leading is doing.

  Leaders must, at times, lead by example.  You cannot ask others to do things you are not willing to do yourself.  You cannot ask others to sacrifice what you are not willing to sacrifice yourself.  Not only is it immoral, it is ineffective.

  So, when we point out that Georgie had a chance to fight a war he thought was absolutely righteous and necessary and he skipped out on the cushy position daddy got for him, it is fair.  He lacks the moral authority to ask others to sacrifice their lives, because it is clear that there is no cause so great, no emergency so dire, that his life would be offered.

  When he asks other people to sacrifice their brothers or sisters or husbands or wives or sons or daughters, it is fair to ask him "is this war worth your children's lives?"  Because if, as it seems, that this war is something for "other" people's children to die in, it clearly isn't important enough for anybody's children to die in.

  And let's face it.  The vast majority of the country isn't in the military.  So, when you are asked about the personal cost, it is almost never your life that hangs in the balance.  But there's a good chance it's the life of sombody you love.  That's why we don't ask "Is this war worth your life?", because it's a bullshit question, it's easy to say yes if your life isn't on the table.

  by zephron on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:56:53 PM PDT

  •  BRAVO!!! n/t

    by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:01:00 PM PDT

  •  Well stated.

    Thank you!

    by Boston Boomer on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:03:24 PM PDT

  •  He doesn't ask others to sacrifice their family

    Excellent post. I'd quibble with one important point, though:

    When he asks other people to sacrifice their brothers or sisters or husbands or wives or sons or daughters, it is fair to ask him "is this war worth your children's lives?"

    He is asking people to sacrifice themselves.

    OK, he does use the same asinine language, but ultimately he didn't ask Mary Tillman for a sacrifice. He asked Pat and Kevin. They were the ones who signed on the dotted line, they were the ones who made the decision. Maybe Mary Tillman encouraged them, maybe she discouraged them, I don't know. But she didn't even have the authority to make a sacrifice.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:11:13 PM PDT

•  What an offensive diary

  We have two of our kids in Iraq right now (one by marriage).

  Speaking of them in this term isn't about dehumanizing the troops, but instead is shorthand for acknowledging the unbreakable, uncritical, overwhelming love that parents have for their children.

  That love is just as strong, deep and wide as it was when they were in diapers, playing on the slip and slide, or walking away from the plate after striking out.

  If you're not a parent, you won't get it. If you're not a parent with kids in Iraq, you should probably keep your piehole shut. I don't think I've ever seen a more offensive line than this one at DK.

  Please focus on the person giving their life, don't make them just an object

  We pray every day for our kids to come back alive and unmaimed from their second and third tours in this meatgrinder.

  by Aeolus on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 12:59:47 PM PDT

  •  I hope

    for your "kids" to return safely and quickly. (And I say "kids" with the utmost respect for them and for you.) I honestly can't imagine how scary it must be for all of you.

    by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:03:35 PM PDT

  •  My thoughts are with your kids

    and with you, as well, but first and foremost with them.

    Prayers, too, if they want them.

    And my apology for coming off offensive - that was not my intention.

    I think you may have misread my point, but I don't want to distract from the apology by starting to explain it.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:13:36 PM PDT

    •  Apology accepted

      And it was well written.

      I apologize if I'm shrill. But it's so damn hard every damned day.

      by Aeolus on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 05:29:59 PM PDT

•  W is also a "kid"

  Then by the argument posted here we could say that Bush Sr. still refers to W. as a "his kid?"

  Will that stop us from dehumanizing this soldier-kid who happens to be the Commander in Chief to all those other soldier-kids? I hope not.

  It is all about semantics and labels. Those that get to place labels on the topic get to control the meaning. The same can be said for "Our sons and daughters." They are someone's child. Yet they are not kids. They are adults who made a choice. Their choice was to give up their individuality for our collective good. It is not what they are being used for. It is how they are being used.

  My two "pence."

  by Gaufridus Monemutensis on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:00:29 PM PDT

•  it is easier to order other people into battle

  if they are not your own children and if you like it or not everyone is somebodies child  I am 52 and I had parents  so I am their child

  when all of this nations children have the ability to be ordered into a war zone, the "leaders" will be less willing to have wars of choice

  instead we have leaders that had "other" priorities during "their" war, Vietnam.....yes it would be different if  the Bush children, the Cheney children and the Rumsfeld children were in uniform  thats just the facts of life   look at Romney he thin ks his kids are serving the nation by helping him get elected  what a joke  btw  I went to 2 war zones  so I own no one an explanation for my thinking I earned my opinion the old fashioned way I lived it

  by testvet6778 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:03:55 PM PDT

  •  So you propose

    to take innocent children, expose them to danger of life or limb, just to convince the parents of your point of view? That's exactly the asinine thinking my diary is about!

    It happens that my view on the war is the same as, apparently, yours. But I find it utterly appalling that it is even thinkable to take one person hostage to "convince" their parents.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:16:42 PM PDT

•  I agree.

  Calling US Soldiers and Marines "kids" or "boys" is insulting. Calling female military personnel "girls" is just wrong, in my opinion.

  A lot of our combat troops are in their thirties and forties anyway.

  They are all 'men' or 'women' and should be given enough respect to call them that.

  I see some comments reflecting on the young age of many military personnel and which say calling them "kids" is ok because they're so young.

  Alright then. Is it ok to send "kids" (meaning children) into combat? Perhaps we should think about raising the minimum age of enlistment to say 30 or 35. Only adults should serve in combat. Children never should.

  by Rex Manning on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:04:25 PM PDT

  •  On this

    Only adults should serve in combat. Children never should.

    I'm in full agreement with you.

    by MsWings on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:06:19 PM PDT

    •  I should make a slight revision...

      ...to my statement.

      "Nobody should have to serve in combat.

      If combat is unavoidable then only adults should serve in combat. Children never should."

      I actually do like the idea of raising the minimum enlistment and draft age to 35. Maximum age should be 60.

      Let young adults have a chance to enjoy their lives some before going to war.

      by Rex Manning on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:12:04 PM PDT

  •  Different point. Agreed, though

    You are right in your post.

    My diary was about the fact that, to many people, it seems the parent/child relationship trumps the indiviudal.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:18:42 PM PDT

•  one other point in WW2 every family had someone

  in uniform in Vietnam one in 10 families did, now 1 in 254 families do  there is agreater chance that most americans don't know anyone in the military let alone in the war zone  sacrifice  what sacrifice  I know places that are named after men I knew   they were named for them after they died in service    how many of you do?

  by testvet6778 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:06:22 PM PDT

•  they are not kids

  but damn near close.  

  18, 19 , 20 & 21 is real close to kid in my book.

  by hypersphere01 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:09:21 PM PDT

  •  I remember when I started going to the VA hospita

    all the vets were old I was one of the youngest, now I see men and women there that are younger than my kids,  so yes they are "kids" and it breaks my heart to see them missing parts because of this war of choice    and we are still not focusing on the real war in Afghanistan and OBL   instead we went for Cheney's oil friends  

    by testvet6778 on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:12:35 PM PDT

•  Wrong Verb. It Might Be "Demeaning" Arguably

  but the last thing it is is de- humanizing them.

  The image of children is typically used by the right to over humanize all sorts of issues, obviously abortion for starters.

  by Gooserock on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 01:17:29 PM PDT

  •  Image can be used either way

    An interesting thought, actually.

    Here, though, what I see is that the way we use the word in this context is actually dehumanizing in that it presents the person who actually makes the sacrifice as a mere extension of their parents, and in some cases as responsible for the parent's misdeeds.

    That's not demeaning as much as it removes their own humanity. Thus, dehumanizing.

    by sdgeek on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 02:21:52 PM PDT

•  This is the usage of "kids" that pisses me off.

  19 kids lured onto airplanes
  "Not just cringeworthy but factually wrong: many of them were in their mid-20s and Atta, the ringleader, had just turned 33."

  by peaceloveandkucinich on Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 07:18:03 PM PDT