In the United States if you are the President, or the Vice President, or a member of Congress, or a member of the Supreme Court, or a family member of any of those officials you are generally out of harm’s way in any conflict that you had a hand in creating.  The same or a similar set of conditions exists in the great majority of nations around the world.  Put another way, those who make wars are relatively safe from the consequences of their actions.  And that gives rise to the question “Is this as it should be?” followed by “Is this as it needs to be?” and finally, “Is this how I want it to be?” 

When we consider that thousands, or tens of thousands, perhaps millions of lives of those who had no voice or vote in the matters leading to wars must of necessity risk and/or sacrifice their lives in the actual fighting, where does rationality come into play?  And when we the warring nations reaffirm the same policies, and repeat the same actions again and again, while expecting different outcomes, are we not entering into the zone of insanity?   

There are so many questions; so few answers, unless we begin to ask other questions that are answerable with rational choices.  For example: 

What if… one enlightened President, or a Prime Minister, or a benevolent Dictator paused long enough to think about targeting some people other than those who had nothing to do with the quarrel?   What if…he or she thought about putting the person in his or her crosshairs who actually made the decision to engage us or our men and women in combat?  Couldn’t they (the rational thinkers) get to the heart of the matter faster, with fewer casualties, and with a greater chance for a decisive victory? With satellites and GPS, and drones, and cruise missiles, and laser guided bombs, and remote pilots could we not limit both our response to and the duration of conflicts by making surgical counter strikes our first choice for armed intervention?  And, would we not be giving sanity a chance to surface at some time in the relatively near future if we did? 

This is neither a foolish nor an original idea.  Today there are 18 independent nations that have taken an official position of neutrality with respect to war.  Those countries that have made the honor roll are:  Austria, Costa Rica, Cambodia, Finland, Ghana, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Moldova, Panama, San Marino, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Vatican City.    

At the personal level there is a difference between objecting to all wars, regardless of circumstances, and objecting to those wars that infringe on a set of conscientious moral principles.  Those who object to all wars are not necessarily on firmer moral grounds than are those who object to wars of choice, or wars of convenience, but who believe they have a moral obligation to defend their country against invaders and known terrorists.  Those in this latter group do not pick and choose the wars that they will participate in; rather, they may justifiably object to being considered a pawn by politicians to be used like fodder whenever they deem it convenient to sacrifice them as if they were fodder.  After all, legislators and their families are safely far from the action. 

Proclaiming that we have an all-volunteer force does mean we have one, especially when enlisting may be the only way out of poverty for many enlistees.  To assume that each volunteer also volunteered to die in any war of choice, and in any war of deception, is to hold every combatant as an expendable life.  Even General George Patton did not hold that point of view.  He rejected it with this warning: “Now, I want you to remember that no son of a bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country.”