Do you think government leaders who get their countries involved in a war should be the first ones to fight on the front lines?

Question

I think that'll stop all the stupid wars pretty quick

Chazmatazz269 · Accepted Answer

That’s not necessary if ONLY military personnel were allowed to hold any office with influence over the military.
The problem with removing sitting officials to send them to war is… now who’s going to run the government? Let’s be honest, sending them to war won’t stop wars. Well, maybe it would stop the females. The majority of men would use their position to select a cherry gig. Knowing that not only will they survive, but they will be wealthier for it. Easy choice.
However, requiring that every office and department with any influence over the military be exclusively military COMBAT veterans. Now you have built-in experience and real sympathy, not manufactured empathy. People who have experienced war are much less likely to wage it. This is why historically queens were significantly more likely than kings to start new conflicts and queens were significantly less likely than kings to seek nonviolent resolution to existing conflicts.
When even kings and princes had to ride into battle, queens and princesses sat safely at home reaping the spoils of war.

Zack-Bann · Accepted Answer

I think war is the failure of diplomacy which should be every leader’s priority

So I think when a government leader gets their country into a war they should be made to abdicate instantly so that the matter might be resolved by whoever takes their place.

But waging wars for years and losing countless lives just because one person was drunk on power shouldn’t be a thing

It used to make sense in more barbaric times but we live in an age of industrialized education.

Still nothing ever truly changes so in reality we will still succumb to the barbaric instinct to go to war at the behest of our chief and the discouragement of our mothers

CrystalPeak · Accepted Answer

Both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden voted in favor of the Afghanistan war. Although Trump wasn’t in office, he made it clear that both of those wars were beyond stupid. Not that he gets any credit for it by the left, but who was right who was wrong?

How about we instead mandate that all voters have to undergo an IQ test before they vote. Then let the voters decide if we go to war.

RandomGirl42 · Accepted Answer

Ty for inviting me to share.

OlderAndWiser · Answer

No, i understand the appeal of the idea but the concept is oversimplistic.

OneViewpoint · Answer

First in line for battle should be... The politicians and their adult children. The billionaires and their adult children. Every adult who voted for war.

loveslongnails · Answer

I think the leaders should do the fighting and it should be televised. It's a fight to the death. If you win, you get the satisfaction of knowing you vanquished your enemy, and you get a gold star and a trip to Disneyland.

msc545 · Answer

That is an idea that I've heard before, but of course it unfortunately will never happen. That does not mean it's a bad idea.

purplepoppy · Answer

Simply make it illegal to go to war without cross party support

NathanDavis · Answer

ironically...  when leaders used to actually lead their armies and people to war... there were a whole lot more wars than we have now, so no it doesn't work like that, lol

Anonymous · Answer

Yeah, I understand the sentiment, and we need to keep our involvement in war, as defensive ONLY, and not offensive. It would be great if the USA and a certain small country (actually a state) that begins with "I" would understand this Godly concept.