the most difficult presidential decision

Newsweek (September 15, 2008, p. 17) quotes Laura Bush as saying "Of course we talk about it, and that is by far the most difficult decision the president ever makes -- to send our troops into harm's way". Now, what I'm about to say is in no way specific to Laura Bush since presidents and other politicians (especially her husband) say this sort of thing all the time. But it's just a load of crap. Yes, sending troops somewhere to engage in some kind of military action almost always involves putting them in harm's way. But the fact that they are soldiers and they are being put in harm's way in no way (unless you are an idiot) thereby makes it the toughest decision for you as president. First, consistent with all of that, it could be a very easy decision, if the reasons (or least perceived reasons) for engaging in such military action are quite strong and/or the risk of harm to soldiers is fairly slight. For a hypothetical example, if failure to take some kind of military action against evil Dr. Nefarious would result in his army of robots plundering our homeland, then (especially if we know about a secret self-destruct mechanism on the robots which makes possible a very non-risky marine mission to take them all out in one fell swoop) choosing military action is in fact very easy. For a real example, I'll bet it was not at all hard for Bush I, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, to decide on the military action that amounted to the Persian Gulf War. Second, a decision whether or not to send soldiers into harm's way is far from the only decision a president makes which will affect who lives and who dies (or even just who is harmed in a non-fatal way and who is not), even on the part of US citizens. The most obvious example is the decisions a president makes regarding health care. But once you think about it, EVERY important decision a president makes is of this sort, including decisions about education, the economy, the environment, workplace safety, automobile safety, affirmative action, taxation, corporate welfare, service-provider liability, and so on.

In fact, it's especially irritating when a conservative (such as Laura Bush or her husband) says something like this (about sending troops into harm's way being the most difficult decision to make). In almost any other domain, conservatives go off on how people should pay the price of their choices. For example, almost any conservative would say that, if someone decides to buy an Xbox 360 rather than health insurance, then they are voluntarily choosing a certain gamble, and if they get sick or injured in the absence of health insurance, well then the government shouldn't have to do anything about it. But what is a soldier? A soldier is someone who, in exchange for a salary, commits him or herself to doing various things, importantly including things which involve being put in harm's way, i.e., someone who voluntarily chooses a certain gamble. So how is it not a double standard when the conservative says what Laura Bush said, rather than the exact opposite, something like: "I have no qualms about sending soldiers into harm's way. They chose to be soldiers - they chose, in exchange for a salary, the gamble with health and life that is involved in being a soldier - so no big deal if and when some get hurt".

Of course, if someone chooses to do something in an unjust context, then even a conservative can consistently let him or her off the hook. For example, if I choose to cut off my left foot in the unjust context wherein someone is going to shoot me unless I cut off my left foot, then the conservative can consistently say something like: "well that sucks, the government should help you out even though you chose to cut off your left foot, GIVEN THE UNJUST CIRCUMSTANCES". The reason this is relevant here is that, if someone chooses to be a soldier only because, in the context of unjust economic circumstances, that's the only way he or she can make money, then even the conservative can consistently refrain from saying: "too bad, you chose that gamble". But here's the punchline: it's exactly THE CONSERVATIVE WHO WANTS TO DENY THAT THERE ARE ANY DEEP IN JUSTICES IN THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE US. So the conservative does NOT have this way out (the way out which involves noting the choice in question was in the context of unjust circumstances), and so it would seem the conservative DOES have a DOUBLE STANDARD in saying "too bad for the guy who buys an Xbox 360 rather than health care", but not saying "too bad for the guy who chooses to be a soldier rather than something else".

To be clear, I AM NOT ENDORSING the view which amounts to saying "too bad for the soldier". The point here is that, in not saying this, THE CONSERVATIVE IS BEING INCONSISTENT.