A modest proposal

Today is the 74th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

I'm not a pacifist.  I realize that there are times when a nation must protect itself -- and sometimes others -- by force.  As in World War II.  And, maybe Korea.  Kuwait? -- maybe, maybe not.

But not always.  Not Vietnam.  Certainly not Iraq. 

The difficulty with the use of force is that -- for those who decide -- making the decision is too easy.  We're only sending in troops as "advisers," they think.  There will be a quick "mission accomplished."  The troops will always "be home by Christmas."

From the Congressional point of view, it's easy to conclude that the expected success always justifies the cost.  Not just the financial cost, but the lives lost.  The lives of American soldiers.  The lives of the people we are supposedly helping.  The "collateral damage."

Shall we send in the troops?  Sure.  Why not?  You can't go wrong by voting "yes," when the nation's on the verge of hysteria.  You can ruin a career -- or at least be forced to do a lot of explaining -- by voting "no."

Congressmen need a greater incentive to be very, very certain of what they are doing before voting "yes."  Before they vote the deaths of others, soldiers and civilians, men, women and children, who they neither know nor can  imagine.

My proposal is this.  Before a member of Congress casts a vote in favor of war, he must certify that a member of his family -- within a statutorily specified degree of  consanguinity -- is (or within a specified period of time will become) a member of the armed forces, and a member who will face combat.

Good old Samuel Johnson noted that realizing that one is to be hanged in a fortnight concentrates one's mind admirably.  My proposal should perform the same admirable service for members of Congress.