I stated that while I would not have attacked Iran originally, now that the Strait of Hormuz is closed we need a ground invasion to reopen it. The most frequent counterargument people used was, “why don’t you join the military and go fight then?”
I will try to steel man that argument and then counter it below.
Steel man: War is terrible and should never be undertaken lightly. People will be injured and die in war, and if someone pushes for war, they should be willing to take that risk upon themselves or their children. If someone is not willing to risk themselves or their children in that war, they should not advocate for it.
Steel man: Skin in the game; if a person is insulated from the consequences of their decision then they make reckless choices.
Steel man: Old, privileged people typically make the decision for war. Young, poor people typically go fight and die in those wars.
Steel man: Devaluation of human life. Willingly trading other people’s lives for attaining a goal risks making human lives disposable.
Counter: Ad hominem attack. Whether or not any specific individual enlists in the military does not have relevance to the larger question of whether the war should be pursued or not.
Counter: America has a professional, all volunteer force. People in the military volunteered to be the weapon used to achieve the policy goals of our democracy. Advocating for deployment of our military to do the job they volunteered for is not a moral failure, it is exactly what their purpose is.
Counter: If only people currently in the military are allowed to decide if we go to war, there would probably be many more wars rather than less. If someone has a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Pacifists would lose their voice.
Counter: If only people in the military are permitted to advocate for war, than a large portion of the population in a democracy will be silenced. People against war would then always outnumber those for war, but in some cases war is necessary and inevitable. A country with this rule would end up never going to war, and would ultimately fall to a warmonger like Hitler.
Counter: If we said only people who are affected by what they are advocating for are allowed to speak, then only people who pay taxes currently would be allowed to vote. This would probably end in the dramatic reduction and perhaps elimination of most entitlements like welfare, food stamps / SNAP, Social Security, etc. Which would be a good outcome in my opinion, but I am guessing most of the people for the steel man would be opposed to.
Counter: Division of labor. An army marches on its stomach. A huge amount of non-military work of all kinds is required to support a military. Are all of those people not allowed to have a voice? Is their contribution not valuable?
Counter: Do we require judges to personally execute the criminals they sentence to death? Foreign policy is a matter of national interest, not some individual duel where each person who says yes needs to go personally fight. We don’t vote in representatives based on their ability to kill foreign opponents, judges for their ability to execute criminals, and we should not be required to go fight in a war if it is the right thing for the nation.