The ultimate hostage

Via Ann Althouse, I came across this account of former President Eisenhower's deal with his son as the elder Eisenhower prepared to take the presidency and his son went off to serve in the army in Korea. President elect Eisenhower expressed to his son that he could not be captured alive in combat, because this would allow Eisenhower to be blackmailed over the love of his son and his desire to protect him. Instead, the son appeared to have offered to kill himself if captured:

As the time for my deployment approached, I discussed my intentions with my father. We met at the Blackstone Hotel in Chicago, just after the Republican convention, and I explained my position. My father, as a professional officer himself, understood and accepted it. However, he had a firm condition: under no circumstances must I ever be captured. He would accept the risk of my being killed or wounded, but if the Chinese Communists or North Koreans ever took me prisoner, and threatened blackmail, he could be forced to resign the presidency. I agreed to that condition wholeheartedly. I would take my life before being captured.

Ponder that for a moment. The president's son, headed off to war, made a deal with his dad that he would kill himself if he was about to be captured. Can you even imagine having that conversation?

We are facing an election in which three of the four individuals on the two tickets are poised to be elected while they have a child on active duty. Only Obama does not have a child serving overseas. Isn't this a concern, the possibility that their children could be captured in Iraq or Afghanistan and used as bargaining chips to manipulate the administration? How would McCain, Palin or Biden react if they were in the No. 1 or No. 2 slot and had to decide whether to let their child die or be tortured in public view, or to capitulate to terrorist or enemy demands? The responsible option would seem to be to place the child(ren) of whoever is elected into a non-combat position to lessen the risk of capture. This is essentially what Eisenhower argues at the end of his op-ed piece.

There is something undeniably honorable both about the child of a high-profile politician who wants to serve his or her country in the field, and about the politician who is willing to live the hopes and fears of the parent of a servicemember in order to achieve a perspective that the rest of us will never know. But it comes with a price. I think we have all been too focused on the honor portion of this equation, and have not thought enough about the consequences. At this point, it's a virtual certainty that either our next President or Vice President will have children on active duty. It's time to start thinking about, and asking about, such things.